I don't really like JSF

People always compare it the F-16, that's not really the case. The F-16 was affordable and had a flawless development process.

As far as the F-35 goes, its final price would be comparable to the Raptor for worse air to air capabilities (worse stealth, no supercruise, worse radar). The thing is, F-22 R&D is done with, so the flyaway cost goes down per aircraft while the F-35 still has all sorts of the issues that will inflate its flyaway cost. Even if the costs remain as listed (I guarantee it won't), I think I'd rather take a Raptor and a couple of Predator-Cs over 2 JSFs. Jack of all trades and master of none type of thing. You don't need an entire air force made of stealth, once the tricky targets have been taken out, legacy aircraft are perfectly capable of holding the line (assuming their airframes hold out). Plus the F-35 is supposed to take on the role of A-10s when they retire. That is a really shitty idea no matter how you look at it.

There are basically three aspects that JSF has over Raptor; export, CV and STOVL. Export isn't a huge deal except for Lockheed Martin, Europe/Australia/Canada have a lot of viable alternatives (Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen NG, etc) and carrier air isn't huge either. The F/A-18E/Fs aren't great dogfighters but they're adequate and fine jets otherwise; alternatively, Rafales are quite nice and they're CVN-68 compatible with no modification.

STOVL would be a problem though. The Harrier IIs are getting old and they're going to need to be replaced with something. They're also notoriously difficult to fly. Just removing the capability is not really an option, USMC needs their air support.

In summary, the justifications I can think of for the JSF program:

1. F-35B
2. ???

That's a pretty short list. I think it could've been trimmed shorter if people weren't so eager to shovel their money into a black hole to begin with.