ORIGINAL: fodder
I would give up maneuverability for invisibility any day of the week. Dogfights are about who sees who first and who fires first.
Remember maneuverability doesn't count for much anymore (since WWI), The Polish PZL11 could fly circles around a BF 109, the nate could fly circles around just about anything. Didn't help them much.
I fear your analogy is incomplete. With the advanced avionics of the F-22 and F-35, multiple platforms are connected with ability to transmit targeting data, range, altitude and telemetry for missile engagement unseen. So your analogy would be more like a room full of invisible fighters in a darkened room taking turns smacking a very maneuverable (and very visible) target in the back of the head whenever it turned its back to them.
So many of these 'dogfights' are scripted close-in combat that are specifically for-well-
dogfighting. "OK, Jones-san, you take your flight of 2 F-15J fighters to 10,000 feet and fly this vector and speed. Smith-san here in his 2 ship F-35A group will be at 8,000 feet, flying this vector and speed at this time. Here's your ceiling. Here's your deck. Have fun."
If your definition of a dogfight is akin to that of "Top Gun", then, yes, perhaps the F-15 is the better performer in that scripted environment. If your definition of a dogfight is real-world air-to-air superiority or air-to-air combat beyond a couple km and in the absence of scripted foreknowledge, then "no". The limited capabilities of an F-15J in that circumstance don't / won't convince me.
