Interesting comments about the superiority on a real world basis of the latest Western aviation wundermachines. As the more realistic amongst you have noted, maintaining their superpowers in the field may prove problematic, to say nothing of the length and complexity (and therefore vulnerability) of the supply chain required to support snag-free operation.
Anyway, I'd have assumed that the West would have learnt by now that the next major air war is unlikely to be influenced by the superiority or otherwise of the equipment employed. The outcome is far more likely to be determined by the asymmetric warfare techniques each side uses. In other words, it's far easier (and cheaper, though maybe not in terms of loss of human life) to stop an F 35 or AWACS getting into the air than it is to down them once they're flying. One or two carefully trained and motivated individuals on a carrier or air base who are prepared to sacrifice their life for their 'noble cause' could effectively remove - at least temporarily - an air wing from the conflict.
The world has changed. A few hundred crazies with explosive belts have proved that even without air cover you really can take on a major power and win, or make it so costly they decide to declare 'mission achieved' and wander back home mumbling about the unfairness of it all.