Try 4,604 F16 Falcons. Try pulling up actual facts instead of unbased opinions. 
Apparently I'm still not making myself clear. I don't believe the JSF program is meeting its goals, and I think as a result the US military is grossly unprepared for the next war. Capisce? 
It's kind of unfair to cherrypick a number of a type that's been in production for 45 years as opposed to one that's been in production for 17. Also, 1 trillion spent on a program over 27 years is nothing. The US spends nearly a trillion each year on defense alone. Every new type is going to have issues early on. I can't even fathom what goes into trying to design a base type that not only can fly normally, but take off or land vertically or land on carriers, all in the same base design. The military can't just stand pat with 50 year old tech and call it good. That's why Germany was so great in WWII, the US is where it's at now, and Russia is currently the laughingstock of the world. Innovation vs. lack of.
So in this hypothetical war, who is the US so grossly unprepared to fight? Is it Russia and their 20 some odd Su-57s? Or China and their 200 J-20s? Keep in mind there are no more 1v1 fights like in WWII where a lone P-51 finds a lone Fw 190. Where there's a US aircraft there's an entire ecosystem of stuff behind it including but not limited to refuelers, conventional bombers, supersonic bombers, electronic warfare aircraft, carrier groups, and all the weaponry that comes with these. The US war machine is really a marvel and the only one of its kind. But that's to be expected when we dump so much money into it annually.
Let's look at the logistics. How long to order a new part for an F-35 to get to say, Germany? How much in air refulling capabilities do these countries have?
If the F-35 is so good, why is the Pentagon ordering F-15EXs? AC-130s?
They're building new AC-130s. What happened to the F-35 being the end-all multirole and ground attack aircraft? We're still putting howitzers and miniguns on cargo planes.
Countries, including the US, continue to buy and use these because they work. That does not mean that a country should not innovate. Why does the US still operate B-52s and will continue to do so until they are 100 years old? Because they work. The US is fortunate enough to have this tech that is generations ahead of other non-ally countries. Why do you think the US developed the P-51 in WWII when the P-40 flew just fine? Because we were always innovating. Why did Germany develop the world's first operational jet fighter or bomber? Because they were innovating. The US operated the P-40 until the end of the war. By your (flawed) logic, I guess that makes it better than the P-51.
As for your air refueling question: Canada, France, Germany, UK, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, UAE, Czech Republic, Turkey, Chile, Singapore, Israel, Japan, Netherlands and likely more all have their own capabilities.
I personally know 4 star Air Force general Bruce Carlson. You know what he said when I asked what his favorite plane was? He said F-16 without skipping a beat. Keep in mind this guy flew F-15s, F-4s, and worked with Lockheed on the F-117 to become one of the first F-117 pilots. And he currently serves on the Lockheed Martin Board of Directors, but he still likes the General Dynamics plane more than a Lockheed.
So because 1 guy flew a plane some 40 years ago during his time in service and retired 6 years before the F-35 even entered service, thus never flying it, we're declaring the F-16 better? I mean...okay.
16 countries besides the US operate or have placed orders for the F-35. Must be so bad.
