No, the F-22 has less drag, and those tighter nozzles increase the velocity of the exhaust flow through the nozzles according to Bernoulli's theorem.
An example from the Sport Bike world had the 1999-2000 Suzuki Hayabusa topping a documented 200 mph in a couple of magazine test bikes. Kawasaki, traditional horsepower king, came out with the ZX-12, which with ram air at high speed made 190 horsepower, but even though the Kawi made a good 10% more horsepower than the Suzuki, the big Kawi was stuck in the low 190 mph's as it just wasn't a slick as the Suzuki. Proven in the wind tunnel, it really didn't matter as the Europeans threat to forbid or tax their import, led to a Gentlemen's agreement to limit top speed to 186 mph or 312 kliks, which stands to this day.
Anyway, back on topic, the F-22 is a very slick airframe, with the performance to match, which the Eng, Jeff, and others have proven, I would take the provided free education as a New Year's present from SDF, and live long and prosper!
I know you are a hardcore fan of F-22 so i will not insist my point of view in you, but let me say this.
weapons bays do reduce drag, however what you fail to see, is when making statements you have to consider numbers.
If two fighters have the same frontal cross section area and one has external weapons stations and the other internal weapons bays the one with internal weapons bays does enjoy less drag.
However you do not want to see what the F-22 designers do know, aircraft with weapons bays increase their frontal cross section, so the area is not smaller but bigger.
You will ask your self how come? well i know how to exemplify it, F-15A and F-15 Silent eagle.
Silent Eagle has conformal weapons bays, the F-15A semi-recessed weapons station, any one knows the frontal area of the F-15 Silent eagle is larger than the one of F-15A that also translate in higher drag
The main advantage of the Conformal weapons stations is not drag but stealth
If you want to think F-22 has perfect aerodynamics be my guest, i am no one to force you to see things different, but a objective analysis will be the one that see Thrust vectoring helps where stealth impairs the design.
If you check this
The Challenge
Integrating stealth, speed, and maneuverability became the fundamental challenge of the ATF program. No one had ever attempted such a complex combination before. As the F-117 had shown, stealth affects every aspect of a design.
Internal weapon carriage, a must for a stealthy design, increases the cross section of an airplane. Larger cross sections increase supersonic drag and work against supercruise. "A stealthy airplane requires a big weapon bay," explains Hardy. "And the landing gear and the inlet duct want to be in the same place as the weapon bay. You wind up with a guppy that won't go supersonic unless you make it very long with huge engines. Such an approach is a nonstarter because the airplane would be way too expensive."
The Hardy guy si no other than
"After the contract was awarded, it took us two years to figure out the design," explains Dick Hardy, the ATF program director for Boeing. "We decided that we shouldn’t build a demonstrator until we knew what the production configuration looked like. The Northrop team ran off and made a demonstrator and then tried to figure out the production configuration. When it came time for the downselect for the next program phase, they had to change the location of their weapon bays and a whole bunch of other things. We wanted the data we derived from building and testing the demonstrator to apply to the production version. That relationship was the whole purpose of flying the demonstrators—to produce data useful to the final design."
The Design Process
Mullin,
Hardy, and Kent became the ultimate arbitrators in a design process that required new levels of tact, efficiency, and
arbitration for the Lockheed-Boeing-General Dynamics team.
"The working troops would communicate disagreements through their company chief engineer, who worked for one of the three program directors," explains Kent.
"If they could not come to a resolution, they had to work first through their respective chief engineers. If they still couldn’t decide, the issue was kicked up to the Mullin-Hardy-Kent level. No matter how good an engineer was, he had to learn how to sit down, let the other person speak, treat him with a certain measure of respect, and not ridicule him. We removed people who could not get along. Some of the best technical contributors had the hardest time living with their counterparts. We all came to the table with traditional ways of doing things and with different backgrounds from different airplanes. I began to sense that we were becoming a more cohesive team when the aerodynamicists from all three companies began voting against the structural engineers from all three companies."
So what ever you think; a good analysis knows there were trade offs, but i let it up to you, you can choose objectivity or continue thinking stealth does not impair aerodynamics and thrust vectoring is not there to fix it, but Hardy was a designer of F-22 and a top one, so up to you i am not to push things on you and on any other one
.