You see Ww, that’s the trouble with you…now, I’ll try to be as mild as possible…
The thing is, you have very little/none knowledge of the matters we’re discussing here and then it’s easy to make you believe things that are several orders of magnitude out of proportion and physical possibility, without you even noticing that something is wrong.

There’s this story of a pair of F22s shooting down 20+ Hornets on Red side, in a single sortie!
I guess you never thought of with what weapons?…and F22’s “combat jacket” is filled with such nonsense.
How is ti possible to mount an intelligent discussion, when ppl actually believe this and are even trying to defend that as some kind of truth?

Then you go about F16 isn’t anything like EF (although just a few posts ago, you put Su27 and EF and F16 in the same group).
Both are planes, have wings, engine(s), sensors, weapons, etc…
There are differences, but I find it interesting you can’t tell them.
Anyway, EF did ~50:1 against legacy fighters (F15), as well.
No one suggests that 100 EFs can win a war against 5,000 F15s.

Are you saying that 180 F22s, can win a war against 20,000 J10s, or F16s??

And the trouble with you, is that you always seem to use strawman arguments with me. You make up some preposterous statement, as if it were what I was claiming, and then proceed to attack it. I’d love for you to show me the quotes where I’ve suggested that 2 Raptors could shoot down 20 Hornets(or anything) in a single sortie. If that happened in the exercise, it was only due to aircraft being regenerated. The thing is, Blue Force aircraft don’t get notional reloads, when Red Force planes are regenerated. This means the Raptors would’ve been Red Force, if they were getting notional reloads.

I’m not even sure what point you’re trying to make with regards to the F-16.
I did say that Rafales and Typhoons were more challenging targets, so the exchange ratio would reflect that.

Well unless you believe that either the USAF was fooled by LM, or is in on the marketing, the KPPs were not only met but exceeded, with the exceptions not being related to how well the F-22 performs.

What are you talking about?
What conspiracy?

All of your claims suggesting that all of the positive stories/anecdotes are all false, rigged, staged, exaggerated, etc… would lead one to come to the conclusion that there must be a vast conspiracy. How else could it perform as well as the USAF, USN, USMC, foreign exchange pilots, etc… say that it does?
It couldn’t possibly be all of the R&D that was involved in its design(which dwarfs the budgets other manufacturers have had at their disposal). So at some point in time you have to look at the variety of sources claiming how well it works, and draw conclusions, or dismiss it as a huge cover up. I’m not claiming that the exchange ratios against Rafales and Typhoons would be anything like those against F-15s and F-16s, but…if it were only at parity or marginally better, then they wouldn’t be nearly as lopsided against the legacy fighters either. Since we can’t review classified info and use that to debate with, we can only draw inferences by what can be observed.

More unsubstantiated BS from you ww. Might be true might not.
Stating your beliefs over and over again does not a convincing argument make.

So what you’re saying then is that the F-22’s advantage over the Rafale is limited to when in gun range, and then only by a slight margin? Because that is essentially what your statement is arguing, if you don’t believe there to be BVR/missile advantages(which is the F-22’s Raison d’être).

The other aircraft aren’t using stealthy datalinks, which is why they’re more vulnerable to detection than is the F-22. As far as AMRAAM guidance, one F-22 can be the silent shooter, while getting third party targeting from his wingman. Or like I said, they can use their radar and still get a shot off outside IRST range.

And as I asked above, why would a Rafale or Typhoon be more disadvantaged without AWACS support in comparison to the F-22?

Because the Rafale and Typhoon would be easier to spot at long range, than the F-22.

I’m not referring to a specific exercise. I’m referring to specific claims, that pilots tried flying supersonic at high altitudes, widely separated, extreme low altitudes, etc vs. the F-22, and none of those tactics changed the outcome.

Tell me Ww, where did you read this specific piece of information amalgam, or you came to this using your own thinking process?
Is such attitude accepted and official on USAF’s academies, or other military schools and units, or is it just you?

I suppose you’ll be happy to provide evidence of the F-22 achieving only parity with these aircraft, when not even the manufacturers make such claims.

Well Ww, the French didn’t have much to say in this, did they?
It was take it, or leave it, type of exercise.

Are you saying the French pilots gave less than their best effort?