To get back to the original thread-topic, plus some of my perspective in more detail:

To my knowledge, the F-22 and F-35 do not bring new missiles to the fight---they stay with AIM-120, and AIM-9X. Great missiles, to be sure. Can some of the Russian missiles out-stick them? (For civilian-types, "Stick" refers to how far away from the bad guy you can shoot, and/or how far away he is when he blows up). I've been out of tactical flying for 15 years, so some of the details are not known to me....but I would guess "Yes." The last I knew, the bad-boy from Russia was still the AA-10C.

In other words, a new platform (for us) doesn't necessarily give a pre-merge missile advantage.

In the 1992-1996 time-frame, I learned how to lead F-4s against F-15s and F-16s and hold my own. We obviously couldn't win in a turning fight. Our tactics were radar-deception, which took away their sort and long-range shots. Once inside their max-range shots, with their first missiles defeated, we forced them to our terms: a short-range radar pick-up, frantic sort, shots, and we would blow straight through the merge. Once separated, we would turn around, target the survivors, using the same tactics. This was mostly AIM-7M vs AIM-7M (against Eagles), and later, AIM-7M vs AIM-120 (Vipers). AIM-9M all around, except that for the Phantom, we had no off-boresight capability (we had to point at them to get a shot). This worked great through 1995. Even though technology said I should have been defeated easily, superior tactics meant we traded even numbers, or sometimes emerged the clear victor.

Then, in 1996, I lead an 8 v 8 at Nellis. I didn't know it, but the Eagles were testing (at my expense) a large-force tactical datalink exercise. (Tac-datalink was brand-new then). We got our collective butts handed to us. The point is, until a monumental change in technology occurs, aircraft with a technological disadvantage can still be the winner.

Fast-forward to today/tomorrow: the implied advantage of the F-22 and F-35 is low radar cross-section, and/or supercruise. Therefore, the bad guys bringing a longer stick to the fight isn't an advantage if they can't find you to shoot you. While the F-22 can do some impressive airshow maneuvers, neither aircraft really brings a more-maneuverable aircraft to a long-range fight than what we have now. The F-35 is about the same as the F-16, and the F-22 would be trying to avoid any tactics that result in a post-merge "hiyaka." (ie, impressive low-speed maneuvering).

But let's look at the numbers. If you had $1 billion to spend on fighters, you could buy 6 or 7 F-35s.....or 30 F-16s. Let's say on day-1 of the war, a typical 20% of your fleet is down for phase-maintenance (300-hour, 600, 900, inspections, etc).

That means you have 4 F-35s, and 24 F-16s.

Let's say 10% of the fleets ground-abort. Three F-35s, 21 Vipers.

I'm not sure of the loadout, but I will guess each F-35 can carry six missiles plus the gun. Same for F-16.

So, defending the Straits of Taiwan are 3 F-35s, carrying a total of 12 AIM-120, and 6 Sidewinders....and 1,800 rounds of 25mm.

Or, 21 F-16s, carrying 86 AMRAAM and 42 Heaters. Oh, and 12,000+ rounds of 20mm.

Personally, I would think a swarm of Vipers would be a huge tactical advantage versus a handful of extremely-capable stealth aircraft when confronting a large enemy force.