If you want to consider the F-22 revolutionary, then yes, I think the F-35 will be revolutionary in it's own way. Again, one can go round and round about how X should or not have been done, but in the end, our capabilities well be far better in mission sets expanding well beyond traditional strike roles.
America chose to lean on LO, adversaries chose EA. There's good arguments for both sides; in the end it is cheaper and easier to develop EA, but that doesn't mean LO doesn't have its place.
More 4 or 4.5 gen fighters is not the answer, but merely a bandaid fix. I'm all for upgrading 4th gen with 4.5 gen capes right now, because honestly we need that bandaid to cover us for a while / compliment 5th gen capes. We can't ride the bandaid fix for decades, so yes, we need to make the full faith leap eventually. All of our eggs in one basket is not good, but it's what we have to deal with for now - we just don't have the money to do otherwise.
I'm not a fan of the VTOL/STOL - I agree it will be decades, if ever, that we see one of these operate out of a truly austere field in combat.
I'm not sure this has anything to specifically do with the F-35. This scenario could create a "legs" / AAR problem regardless of fighter aircraft type.
Our capability to deal with AAA and kill movers has drastically improved since those days. AAA is still a threat, but not nearly the same threat to an LO platform with a lot of good capes than it is to a Thud raging down the valley below 10K.
That's an awesome story, seriously. But we have much better capes today to take care of the same situation in 4th gen, let alone with 5th gen and the things newer technology brings.
Yes, there are enough weapons...within reason, unless we're talking some egregious amount of vehicles. Sure they can low angle strafe - but will they even have to? I love raging at 100 ft, shooting the gun, dropping CBU, etc...but admittedly there are better ways to solve problems nowadays. That said, the jet can still do it and will do it if in a situation where that's the only way to solve the problem.
Engines fail - got it, but they're pretty damn reliable today. As you said, we've been flying single engine fighters for a very long time. I don't know the answer, but I'm willing to bet if you actually found total amount of F-16 flight hours in the world, and then took the number of F-16s that crashed due to engine failure, it's be an extremely small and almost inconsequential number (from a pure numbers standpoint, not a human/emotional standpoint). As a guy who flies single engine, it doesn't bother me nor has it ever.
Our effectiveness/capability skyrockets with the F-35 and other "5th+" gen capes. I'm sure there will be risk adverse bullshit, and it's use may start out slow, much like the Raptor. But just because "they" were very risk-adverse to using the Raptor for years, doesn't mean it wasn't a great idea to buy it or it's not a great jet. The Raptor has finally had it's day to a small extent, and we'll all be thanking God we have it when we're doing more than killing goat fuckers in the mountains.
Lastly, a lot of questioning directed at the program is very CAS-centric. This jet will do CAS fine; it will not replace the A-10. People need to step back and realize there is a massive world of non-CAS warfare out there, and a lot of what is involved in that drives the need for the F-35 and like-technology. We will not be flying permissive OIF/OEF/OND type CAS forever and we cannot afford to get caught with our pants down when the proverbial shit hits the fan. There are a lot of platforms who do great work in current AORs, there are also a lot of platforms who are basically useless in a lot of other conflicts - at least until day X.