Air superiority won't nearly mean as much in the future as in the past.

You can destroy a bridge or an airfield up to 300 km deep with guided missiles.
You can interdict railway or road movements with killer drones a.k.a. loitering munitions.
You can do meaningful reconnaissance and ECM missions up to 50 km deep using cheap, quantity-produced drones.

Some air forces try to adapt to the TBM threat at least against the upper end, but Western armies seem to fail to prepare against heavy MRL and small drone threats (not the least because of small wars attract much of their energy, budget and imagination away from conventional wars).

An F-22 would probably be helpless like a raptor in a bee swarm.

The missile/drone technology will not address all requirements and it's not completely new, but it will be able to fulfill a wide range of air power roles even against enemy so-called air supremacy.

If I was head of the U.S.A.F., I'd much less care about the F-22 than about new, low munition cost (lower than a Stinger shot) battlefield air defenses.