I don't think that difference in specs reaching dozens of % is just academic. Precisely because fleet size can't compensate for deficiencies of a type when we aren't talking about small countries with simple mission sets(and, may i add, no need to protect themselves by themselves).
The larger the country - the harder the question.
We are not talking about small countries, we are talking about the fleet sizes that would be brought to bear in a large scale high intensity conflict in the western pacific.
Part of the answer under spoiler, since it is too much about US:
Over ten times as many F-35s can't be part of the same mission. They can't probably be in the same place even.
You can deploy, say, ~70 F-22As to Japan, on a relatively short notice. You can't really deploy 800 F-35s to Japan - there is simply no supporting capacity for such a force; moreover - even if you could, it is unfeasible, for there is a whole globe to attend for USAF.
And when you hit floors of what the theater can actually accept - you can move in either, say, 300 F-35s, or 200 F-35s and ~70 F-22s.
I think it is pretty obvious that the second force is more dangerous than the first one, despite loss of 30 some airframes and some mission rate? More dangerous, more resilient, and more capable.
First of all, I was very specific when I talked about "A2A mission profiles" -- this is the term that you originally used in post #405 saying that J-20 and F-22 was likely "probably significant more capable in the A2A domain" than F-22.
By "A2A domain," in the last few posts and in this post, I have interpreted it to mean aircraft conducting missions to contest air superiority against opposing aircraft, characterized by
air to air engagements.
So, once I've established that, I will address this part of your post, which is to say ---
I categorically disagree.
If I were the PLA, I would fear 300 F-35s more than 200 F-35s and 70 F-22s.
The F-35s have a much more capable sensor suite, a much more capable networking capability that the F-22 is unable to match and achieve those force multiplactive effects with. Furthermore, the F-22 will have a lower mission availability rate than the F-35, meaning 70 F-22s would have a lower sortie rate than 70 F-35s -- and 70 F-22s would definitely have a lower sortie rate than 100 F-35s (when both hypothetical forces have 200 F-35s as baseline).
The only benefit the F-22 has is marginally more capable kinematic performance and a slightly larger weapons load, however 70 F-22s carrying 6 AMRAAMs for a total of 420 AMRAAMs is only 20 more AMRAAMs than 100 F-35s carrying 4 AMRAAMs each for a total of 400 AMRAAMs. (This is ignoring future upgrades of each respective type of course). The effectiveness of those additional 20 AMRAAMs will be more than offset by the greater sensor and networking picture that the additional 100 F-35s provide as well as the greater sortie rate that those F-35s will have than 70 F-22s.
The F-22 does not have a superior combat radius to F-35s either, in fact the F-35A's combat radius is nigh identical to an F-22 when both are on internal fuel.
As for the US being unable to support all of its F-35 fleet in the western pacific at the same time -- sure, you are correct. However, the massive fleet of F-35s they have in the world will still exist, meaning that they will be capable of replenishing losses of F-35s while they cannot do the same for F-22s.
An F-22 that is shot down will be difficult to replace -- an F-35 that is shot down will be quite easy to replace.
And in a high intensity westpac conflict, I fully expect the US to seek ways to frontload their western pacific deployments and to re-orientate the rest of their world's forces to allow them to reinforce their western pacific forces if/when they suffer any losses.
Then we can move even further(for 2020s) - and for the more or less the same logistical/support footprint, we can move in, for example, ~100-120 F-16C/Ds, ~50 F-15EX, ~100 F-35C and ~70 F-22. Here we get ~350 planes, with higher capability&readiness ratio spread over this mix in literally every single regard, yet capable of doing literally all the same missions. And more missions/time in the air.
I disagree.
In a high intensity western pacific conflict in the A2A domain, think 300 F-35s will be far superior to your mix of 100-120 F-16s, 50 F-15EXs, 100 F-35Cs and 70 F-22s.
Yes, this force will probably be very slightly weaker than the second one(200+70) in a direct all-out knight duel - but significantly better in a2g/anti-shipping/air defense. No one fights knight duels in the sky, however.
It will also be stronger mix in the air than the "300" force, while being more or less equal in a2g.
Negative, this is no longer talking about the "air to air domain".
Air defense, strike, and anti-shipping, are all domains of war in a high intensity westpac conflict, but it is not what we were talking about. That kind of force mixture is of course more complex and was not the focus of my previous posts and why I started this particular conversation... but let's just say in my view, the "ideal force" that can conduct the full breadth of air to air, air defense, strike and anti-ship missions would still be very heavily dominated by F-35s, populated by a smaller number of other types.
But as I said, this is a different topic.
Simple. Add, for example, threat of cruise missile attack on the host country - which is pretty relevant.
You may either station a flight of F-22s(for example, 4) in the air and squadron worth F-15EXs on 3 min readiness on the ground - they'll be quite capable to reheat to intercept the salvo itself.
This simple force gives you 4 birds up in the air(36 missiles&good chance to intercept missile-carrying bombers if AC is good), and almost 200 (counting 16/bird, which is probably pessimistic) missiles ready to reinforce on the ground - which is a very significant pool of missiles.
As I said, air defense/cruise missile defense, is separate from the "A2A domain".
Achieving the same result with F-35s is going to be...way more expensive in planes - if possible at all. At the very least, current F-35 has no such capability, and no one has paid to have it in foreseeable future.
p.s. and maybe this better fits F-35 topic tbh
This conversation can be quite easily concluded if you agree that due to a combination of the F-22's characteristics (i.e.:
the state of its low numbers and poor availability rates, the F-22's older sensor suite and non-standardized and inferior networking capabilities) and the F-35's characteristics (i.e.:
the state of its high numbers now and into the future and the availability rates it will achieve, its superior world leading sensor suite and networking capabilities, non-inferior VLO performance and non-inferior range) -- that in the context of a high intensity large scale western pacific conflict and due to the nature of contemporary/near future aerial warfare trends (
emphasizing stealth, sensors and networking, weapons quality and high sortie rate/availability, combat radius as the highest value characteristics with far less value gleaned from marginally superior kinematic performance), for the PLA, the F-35 is a more dangerous and capable adversary in air to air engagements at the fleet vs fleet level, than the F-22.
