Sure, in a dogfight with guns, it would be toast.
But that's NOT how modern air engagements occur. They are almost always from 20+ miles...and 50+ is not unheard of.
Radar signature, avionics and weapons are the deciding factors...along with tactics.
With US avionics and weapons, even the old F4 Phantom is an adequate platform.
And the other platforms you mention would not stand a chance.
The platforms I mentioned are all operational NOW, the F-35 is years from effective capability. Many export customers now are having major headaches over the delays, cost, and diminishing capabilities.
The Navy designed, built, and launched a new ship especially to carry it. It is now back at the shipyard being redesigned and rebuilt; it seems as though the STOVL exhaust is FAR hotter than predicted and the deck and structure beneath cannot support it.
New VHF radars and IRST systems largely make stealth worthless, expensive, and a huge drain on resources. Several 4-5Gen fighters carry IRST, F-35 & F-22 do not, there is a scramble underway to develop pods for it, but that means weight, drag, and higher radar signature.
There are foreign fighters that are as good or better than F-22 now....and you think they wouldn't beat F-35? Guess again.
In the past, a key US advantage in air-to-air has been pilot skill, learned through seat time. But the monstrous cost of the F-35 program means less money available for active training. Thus we lose that edge.
The Joint Strike Fighter concept was flawed from the start - no airframe can do all three jobs well, so all three are compromised. US military airframe design and acquisition has had many, many marginal or outright failures in it's history, and most have wisely been dropped before much damage was done. LockMart has sourced (on purpose) parts in nearly every congressional district, making it immune to congressional cancellation.
20-30 years from now, China will be ready to fight, and she will likely win. The Joint Strike Fighter will be a nail in our coffin....a very big nail.