To those that've seen me say this on other boards, sorry for repeating myself in front of you so many times, but not many think this way...
The thing we must think here is: What IF the F-22 and F-35 weren't being made? The F-16 MATV (3D TVC, and easily throw canards on it) and F-15 ACTIVE (3D TVC, canards) would've most likely been militarized, to stand up to the Su-30 series aircraft in maneuverability.
Also, these kind of F-16's/15's would've been worked on to majorly reduce their RCS as well, if they weren't being replaced. If the U.S. majorly worked on the F-16's RCS, I bet it'd be smaller than the Typhoons RCS: In that #1 The U.S. has the most experience in making stealthy aircraft, above any other country on Earth, and #2 the F-16 is naturally smaller in size.
The F-15 would've most likely been fit with two F119 engines, putting out 35,000+ lbs. of thrust each; the F-16 would get the new engine with around 32,000-35,000 lbs. thrust. AESA radar, AIM-9X, etc. on both aircraft, they'd definitely be a force to be reckoned with, for sure.
Sadly, they've been majorly neglected in light of something better: F-22, F-35. These will be better in the stealth regime; the F-22 will have good maneuverability, due to it's TVC. The F-22 lacks canards, to remain more stealthy, so some sacrifices of maneuverability have been made for more stealth; stealth is really what you want more of in real world combat situations, though, so no biggy.
So, you're comparing an aircraft that has been majorly worked on by 3-4 countries for the last decade, compared to 2 kinds of aircraft that've been majorly neglected by 1 country in light of them making much better aircraft to replace them. Not much to be proud of really, if you beat'em.
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)