Seems like the Polish Cavalry said something similar in '39.
honestly, i have seen this argument and i don't think so. I mean, it's not that it isn't a valid argument, the F35 is supposed to be superior in maneuverability. In theory, if you get to the point where the new technology can beat the old one 9 times out of 10, then yeah. But, is it really?
Do the technical differences between the F35 and F16 make it so superior that it can be compared to cavalry charging tanks?
Also, keep in mind that there are other factors that apply, one in primis being logistics. You can't keep a pilot up 24hours a day. You can't keep a pilot up EIGHT hours a day. Google says the US has 250x F35 and 1250x F16.
Also, in a scenario where there is an actual war, you know, dogfights, bombings, military personnel shooting other military personnel, instead of shooting radar installations, and the enemy happens to have a technologically superior fighter, what prevents you from just flying missions of 4 aircraft instead of 2 aircraft?
Keep in mind that F16 and F35 use the same missiles.
If you are looking for a better, closer comparison, think of the early japanese Zero. Vastly superior maneuverability, more experienced pilots too. And yet, they still took casualties - it's just the fact that war is chaotic.
You need a much bigger technological divide between two forces before one starts to take almost no casualties. Even the british with guns lost to the Zulus at Rorke's Drift.
Aside from that, there's just the fact that F35s are new. And F16 are not. Not being new makes it easier to fix the airplanes, find parts, find mechanics that know what's going on; it makes it easier to find qualified pilots, and there is a library of years of experience being passed along.
Dude, if it just was so easy to move to new tech, there wouldn't be such a thing as legacy systems in IT.