I have been saying -- on this forum -- for yrs, and I suggest you pay attention...
In a fight, you win not by fighting under your opponent's rules, but by forcing him to fight under yours. And cheating is allowed.
War and combat are not meant to fight fair, as in Queensberry Rules. In wars and combat, you fight dirty, you fight 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 to one.
In combat, any advantage you have is a 'rule'. If your fighter have more powerful engines and can climb faster, you take the fight away from cornering. On the other hand, if your fighter can corner better, you do your best to take your opponent into a turning fight. If you have a longer radar, that is a rule and you shoot from afar. If you are smaller, you use background clutter to hide.
In the end, the pilot who understand his fighter better than the opponent understand his fighter -- win.
So what you do mean by 'right tactics' against the F-35, a fighter with practically unmatched sensory applications, maneuvers like with thrust vectoring but without the real thrust vectoring, low radar observability body, and radar operating in low probability of intercept mode?
So what 'right tactics' can you come up? Am not trying to be mean to you. When I was active duty and transitioned from the F-111 to the F-16, I knew there was no way -- other than a miracle -- that an F-111 can win against the F-16. The F-111 was more maneuverable than most people realized, but when I felt 9g in the F-16, I knew the F-111 was grossly outmatched.
The F-22 and F-35 are as different from today's main line fighters as the analog F-16 to the F-111. Some times the differences are so great and no 'right tactics' are possible. Red Flag exercises with the F-22 and F-35 are secret, but anecdotal testimonies from adversary pilots gave a rather dejecting future for opponents of those fighters.