What does make the range of Mitsubishi F-2 slightly longer than F-16 whereas combat radius significantly inferior to?

No idea about what did you mean.
Perhaps the size is not numbered yet but the comparison has been clear verymuch

Though I’m unfamiliar with usual testing timelines it hasn’t been a year yet so I don’t expect them to really push the air frame. It could just be some low speed maneuvering test. It’s also possible that right now the plane is under powered and won’t be able to perform tighter maneuvers until it gets its intended engine.

That’s it, so this is video only, it is too early to praise it.

It’s hard to tell whether the turn was 180, more, or less, because there’s no stationary reference. On the other hand, I wonder if these maneuvering tests reveal anything about the J-20’s intended role.

Exactly, I just see it roughly, seemingly it is downview to upview. On the other hand, there is no any reference to justice high maneuverable it was yet.

One want to eyeball the RCS from a/c is just same as eyeball the light from solar.

The crux here is a essential condition or a sufficient condition for the so-called minimizing radar wave to return from the engine compressor face.
I think that logic here will be perfectly fair —— “a return of radar wave from turbofan be minimized doesn’t represent a stealth feature, however a stealth concept must contains it.” This quote stolen from one of members who expressed when we discussed stealth topic in my QQ group.
A question still remained there is that S-duct the only way to such minimizing? The answer the principle of refraction brings to is no. The only feature to the S-duct is curve. The curve to stealth must contains many other characters the curve not brings to, if not, then a curved radar blocker just is a stealth device for stealth, no more argument needed.
Any denials are permitted but before you deny it, ask yourself what you deny for? remember the blocker with many blades adapts blocking short wave from AESA more than long wave radar.

However, the key point is Yanks after adopting the radar blocker in their 1st gen stealthy, formally induced fighters like F117 and various other fighters with stealthy features, their latest stealthy fighters all adopt the s-duct over the predecessors with radar blocker. If someone really want to imply a comparison, it should find a more convincing case like what we observed from yanks’ practice..

The expounding was so illogical that I have never seen…..

VG inlet presented anterior more than fixed inlet, to what extent or point of view, the VG inlet must be superior than fixed inlet?

Your convincing case might be truth, but how could you define the part of your seen must be the entire stealth science?