Without the ATF competition that led to the F-22, the technologies that are now going into the F-35, as well as the AESA technologies being retrofitted into earlier type airframes, would not have been developed.  Just as developing the F-14 and its Phoenix missiles eventually led to the AMRAAM, the F-22 pioneered many technologies that led to cheaper, slightly less capable versions that could easily be mass produced.

As is almost always the case, the lessons learned in developing the platform are strategically more important than the capabilities of the platform itself.

Having said that, the F-22 is an uncompromising air superiority platform, designed in recognition of the fact that since technology makes even obsolete airframes quite deadly with modern weapons and avionics, the only way to guarantee victory is to change the nature of the air battle.

As far as the F-35 being "too light", that is simply false.  It is easily capable of handling the same warloads that current strike fighters can.  It can't do that with internal carriage only, but for the sort of strike missions that e.g. F-16s and F/A-18s are currently performing there is no need for stealth.  The F-35 has every bit the heavy strike capability of any current strike aircraft; the difference is that it also has the stealthy strike capability that those aircraft do not.

There are numerous public sources which have confirmed the F-22 can supercruise at mach 1.8.  There is no controversy about that.

Re: FS, the problem with that is that the state of technology in 1989 would not have permitted development of a smaller, lighter F-22 type aircraft which would have met those criteria, and the basic technology of the F-22 itself was not yet mature.   Keeping the F-22 in production was the correct thing to do.  The intervening time allowed the F-35's avionics to benefit from advances in microprocessors, and its stealth technology to benefit from the lessons in materials learned in the F-22's development.

Buying 2000 airframes that are somewhere between the F-35 and the F-22 would neither have been affordable nor optimal.  The cost of the logistics and maintenance of operating that many aircraft developed with 1980s stealth technology would not have been affordable.

The F-22 is hardly a hangar queen -- recent exercises have confirmed that its availability is better than previous U.S. fighters at the same stage of development -- but its maintenance requirements are undoubtedly higher than those of the F-35.  Given the smaller number of F-22s, this is acceptable.

The high-low mix of F-22 and F-35 will work very well together.  In terms of the air supremacy mission, look at the way the F-22 worked with F-15Cs in the recent Alaska exercises -- the F-35 will perform the same role as those F-15Cs did, only it will be stealthy while doing it.  The F-35 is a very capable platform in its own right, certainly more capable than any other than the F-22.  On its own, the F-22 is unbeatable.  Acting with other U.S. fighters it is a tremendous force multiplier.  Meanwhile, the F-35 is an affordable fighter that benefits from the F-22's technology as well as innovations of its own and can be exported at a competitive price.  The combination makes the most sense for the U.S., and for the U.S. defense industry.

I realize your numbers are just examples, but that does not work out.

300 F-22s at $110m apiece, plus 1700 F-35 at $50M apiece, comes out to $118 billion.

2000 hypothetical fighters at $75 milloon apiece comes out to $150 billion.

That's just the flyaway costs, let alone the logistics etc as I mentioned previously.

These two planes ensure US air superiority for many more decades to come.... The fact is that these two planes couldn't have been developed at a better time, b/c the us economy has enjoyed the peacetime of the 90's and the leadership in the computer tech industries they were able to absorb these defense costs. Now that they are involved in two conflicts and having to counter russian and chinese emerging powers, the chances of them being lets say developed today instead of 15-20 yrs ago would have been for more difficult. They took advantage of the peace time wisely  by investing in these two air platforms that puts the force projections and capability far beyond anyone else.

Sentinel28 :
"But I wonder if the French have any plans on replacing their Mirage 2000Cs"

Ultimatly , Rafale will replace all our Fighters . The Mirage 2000-5s might stay up to 2020 (?).
The 2000-5s are a formidable threat to any other Fighters . It is known to be as the hardest Aircraft to kill in a2a combat .
Its record within NATO excercises is something like 80 kills for 4 losses (against ANY other Aircrafts) .

Cheers .