The statement...
"It (E-M) is better. Comparable or better than every Western fourth-generation fighter out there,"
... is still hard to reconcile with the infamous WiB report, that describes E-M as being inferior to that of the F-16 Block 40. It was also (at the time of Flynn's statement) rather difficult to see how the F-35's E-M would be "comparable" (and when you say "comparable or better" you are not implying "measurably worse", are you?) to that of the Typhoon, which has 20 per cent more wing, 5000 lbs less OEW and roughly equal thrust.
I agree, that statement is "hard to reconcile" on several points. That being said, we must look at the full context of Flynn's statement, which included:
The F-35 s comparable or better in every one of those metrics, sometimes by a significant margin, in both air-to-air, and when we hog-up those fourth-generation fighters, for the air-to-ground mission.
F-35 can go out on any given day, and we have, gone to the red line of the airplane" with a full internal weapons load. Going to the limits of the aircraft's envelope with a full load of weapons is "inconceivable in any of the other fourth-generation airplanes, including Typhoon.
Clearly Flynn is not comparing two clean, unloaded aircraft. He is comparing an F-35 with a full internal weapon load against other aircraft "hogged up" with
external weapon loads. Is this a "fair" or even "reasonable" comparison? Maybe. Maybe not. The article discusses the implications of that difference at some length. And it did NOT conclude that Flynn's claims were "lies". Nor that the F-35's maneuverability was "abysmal".
And related to the current discussion specifically, it does not remotely imply that the statement, "three times better at air-to-air" is either false, or is not achievable in either simulated or real world conditions.