NaB - I'm not quite that pessimistic regarding the availability of skills, talent or ideas for follow-on combat aircraft - whatever they may look like.
Our problem is that since 1995, two of the world's few combat aircraft design enterprises have been locked into the mind-set that the future is one aircraft, with a particular balance of "classic" fighter attributes and stealth. Until Boeing started thinking aloud a few months ago, nobody had shown so much as an air-show model of anything else.
I suspect that if the call went out to take Block II SH (or similar) avionics, and a pair of 414 EPEs, and wrap them in a longer-range, lower-sig dustcover - but with some serious limits as to how much the customer could pay for RCS - we could see some very interesting ideas.
Also, if you look at where the French have gone and are going, they seem to be saying that reduced signatures + EW + DEAD (Rafale) has continued potential, and that very low signatures are a better match with a UCAV (Neuron) to deal with double-digit SAMs.
Not to say they are right - but so far, despite a ton of money, we haven't seen that the F-22/JSF philosophy is right either.