No other long term viable, new, Western, Allied, late fourth or fifth gen fighter built, will keep up with the JSF in production volume.
Let me use your reasoning. The most successful Western fighter is the Spitfire, 20,351 built. There you have it. Sorry it wasn't your F4. Hell, while at it write a letter to 60 minutes and ask why we could build a P51 for 51K and it takes us 82M today for a JSF?
There is a difference between purchase cost, fly away cost, and “life cycle” cost. The USAF likes to look at the cost of a planes predicted life cycle. I own a plane, what you pay up front is only part of the cost, and often the more expensive plane at purchase ends up cheaper over the span of a planes predicted life or even per mile traveled, or per weight moved. It depends how you figure it. JSF with use of COTS, mass production (economy of scale) and in the US where it's cheaper than many other places, technology transfers from elsewhere (F22), a design that's intended to keep costs under control (Example: single engine with lots of hours of life on it), commonality replacing several airframes and used by several branches (Logistics, training, and economy of scale long term there too), is delivering a plane at a cost that's untouchable with those capabilities. Even if you look into the near future, i.e. 4 years from now, you'd realize that the cost per plane will actually come down.
http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080204-081.pdf (Go to page 43) Then knock about 37% off your “Fly away” cost.
Your arguments might make a little more sense if you compare apples with apples.