Why should the Raptor need fuel dry thrust to achieve the same speed? It would have to be very draggy to need 20% more thrust than the F-35 to keep flying at a fixed speed.
The F-22 weighs 50% more empty than the F-35. The F-22 is also much larger with 35% greater wetted area. So the F-22 would need atleast 25% more thrust to maintain the same speed. That would be fairly conservative.
Some sources claim the specific fuel consumption to be:
(MIL) 17,800lbs @ 0.726 lb/Hr/lb st
(MAX) 29,100lbs @ 2.060 lb/Hr/lb st
(MIL) 17,000lbs @ 0.745 lb/Hr/lb st
(MAX) 29,000lbs @ 1.900 lb/Hr/lb st
(MIL) 14,700lbs @ 0.840 lb/HR/lb st
(MAX) 22,000lbs @ 1.850 lb/HR/lb st
(MIL) 25,000lbs @ (~0.800?) lb/HR/lb st (Speculation varies between 0.600 - 0.860...)
(MAX) 37,000lbs @ (~1.950?) lb/HR/lb st
(MIL) 28,000lbs @ 0.886 lb/HR/lb st (a bit high)
(MAX) 43,000lbs @ (~1.950?) lb/HR/lb st
These all prove my argument. They are all between 2-3 times the fuel burn per pound of thrust when in afterburner. As the F-35 would have double the available fuel once at 600nm it should be able to match the F-22 easily.
Regarding engine SFC there are some common trends. The higher the bypass ratio the more fuel efficient the engine is at dry thrust. But the engine efficiency becomes much worse when in full afterburner.
The F101 for instance has a bypass ratio of 2:1 with lots of byass air. It has an excellent dry thrust SFC of 0.562 but an afterburner SFC of 2.46. Another attribute is all that bypass air can be burnt in the afterburner allowing it to have a massive 70% thrust increase when in afterburner.
A low byass turbofan or leaky turbojet will have a worse dry thrust SFC but a better afterburning SFC. It will also have a smaller gain from afterburner with around a 50% increase due to there being less bypass oxygen to burn.
The F119 and F135 have lower bypass ratios than the F110 and F100. So the F404 fuel burn figures I provided would be the most accurate.
It is also worth noting that afterburning SFC increases the closer you get to maximum thrust. So the F-35 at two thirds afterburner or 38,000lb of thrust would probably have a SFC of below 1.5. This makes the F-35 look even better.
Fighters these days still spend 90+% of the time at subsonic speeds as there will always be less drag at subsonic speeds. So for optimum range and speed the best option is actually an aircraft with lower thrust to weight aratio. You want a engine with good fuel burn when that runs near peak efficinecy at high subsonic speeds and then use afterburner when you want to go supersonic.
Another hypothetical aircraft design. If you took the F-22 plugged up one intake, removed one engine and filled the space with 4000kg of extra fuel you would end up with a better overall fighter. Now it could no longer supercruise but that single engine at full dry thrust would cruise nicely at mach 0.9 with pek efficiency. It would fly atleast 50% further than a normal F-22 due to a 50% increase in fuel capacity. In full afterburner it would probaby be able to to sustain the original F-22's supercruise speed but burn twice the fuel doing so. As long as the aircraft spends less than a third of the flight supersonic then the single engine version would be better off.
This is why the F-35 being slightly underpowered on paper when fully loaded isnt a problem. It has more than enough dry thrust to cruise at mach 0.9 and enough wet thrust to sustain mach 1.6.