even thrust vectoring turns out to be less than useful
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d92HQ1mkDnA
I love how people see TVC as some kind of magical enhancement when people seem to completely disregard the loss of energy that occurs when it's used in any practical form. You don't want to lose energy if you're in a multiple plane dogfight.
So I'm a proponent of the fact that the F-35 is a sort of franken-plane made to do too much, and other parameters suffered because of that, while creating a monstrous cost overrun in engineering and flight testing. Yes, STOVL capabilities played a huge part in that, but I think it's all the flight control and sensor systems integration that really did the damage.
From a USAF air superiority perspective, they already had the F-22. Deployed in the kind of numbers the F-15 was, the USAF would pretty much be unstoppable in the air, while still retaining and developing the airstrike capabilities of the aircraft via software updates to it's equipment. The F-22's combination of stealth and kinematics makes it a potent strike-first platform against SAM and radar sites. The Distributed Aperture System could be a later upgrade as well.
Replacing the F-16 and A-10 actually doesn't require replacing them with a stealth aircraft when you have F-22s providing top cover. The F-16 in it's later blocks is already an excellent replacement for older F-16's. However, I'd say to hell with new F-16Es and go with F-16XLs, that already have double the range on internal fuel of F-16C/Ds, while offering much larger weapons capacities (including some semi-conformal) while not giving up hardpoints for external fuel. The only argument against the F-16XL is it's lack of stealth and reduced energy retention versus late block F-16s. It could be modified with RAM, a gold coated canopy and sawtooth edges, semi-conformal fuel tanks to further boost range, and many of the same systems the F-35 to produce a reasonable facsimile of F-35 capabilities. The aircraft could also be modified with a diverter-less intake (also tested on an F-16 before being used on the F-35) with a resigned s-intake pathway or stealth shielding (like in the B-1). The XL also uses an engine in use on late block F-16s and the F-15E, for simplified logistics versus adopting a new engine. It would only be a semi-stealth aircraft, but it's main mission would be as a strike fighter, not air superiority, which is covered by the F-22. The combination of DAS and radar technologies used for the F-35 scaled down would still be a potent combination. The F-16XL has plenty of room on it.
The other solution could be the a modified T-50 Golden Eagle, which itself is in the running for the USAF's T-X Supersonic trainer program to replace the T-38. It can accept an F414 engine instead of the current F404 if need be.
However, it does not have the same kind of capacity an F-16XL does, but it is smaller and cheaper, and there are cost savings in having a common platform for trainer, strike fighter and air patrol duties (not air superiority). The idea here is that we don't need an expensive all-around solution when we already have the very best solution for controlling the skies in the form of the F-22. The other scenarios don't require stealth when the F-22's provide air cover and knock out radar and SAM sites. We also have UCAVs for high risk ground strikes but I don't believe in relying on only them when it's possible to have jamming and EM blackouts, where a human piloted aircraft can still be controlled and maintain just as good, if not better situational awareness which becomes necessary when you have good guys on the ground to worry about.