I didn't post to thump my chest about F-22 superiority... Rather the F-22 (and the F-18 in my post) were examples of what the flanker variants are being drooled over for, even though the flanker is simply pointing it's nose and then falling out of the sky as it regains airspeed, relying on natural stability to recover instead of relying on an inherent capability for extreme maneuvering at any speed or flightpath angle.
The F-18 is an example of a plane that *could* maneuver like a flanker, and in fact is very controllable up to 45 degrees of alpha, but it can't do the weird maneuvers because there just isn't any point. The F-22 is the opposite example, a plane that was designed from the beginning to fly backwards, sideways, etc., and remain fully controllable.
The flanker is more maneuverable than the F-15 and F-16, no question about it. But as cool looking as the flanker airshow demo looks the first time you see it, if you examine it more closely it is obvious that the pilot is essentially maneuvering the plane to an out of control situation and then relying on the plane's stability to get it flying again. The clues are as I stated before, with the most obvious ones being the nose flopping down every time to regain airspeed, the almost complete lack of flight control surface movement during the follow-through and recovery from the maneuvers, and the slight but consistent yaw and roll every single time the plane exits a maneuver. That's why although the flanker is a very respected match for the F-15, the extreme maneuverability is not why F-15 pilots respect the flanker and it's not why the F-22 is needed.
