>>"The limitations, which is on the hardpoints, does not make it much worse in a BVR engagement."<<

Agreed.  But even when carrying BVR missiles, most fighters also carry a 'winder and a gun in the event of a visual engagement.  It sounds to me that if these early F-16s are carrying a BVR missile or any kind of bomb load, the options (in the event of either ACM or DACM) are to restrict maneuvering, overload the pylon, or jettison the load, all of which are (in my opinion) lousy options.  But my opinion is based on decades of operational training and experience which may not be applicable in the environment you and others find yourselves in.  US Navy air warfare doctrine may be very different than your's.  On the otherhand, the US Navy can arguably be thought of as having invented the "strike fighter" concept.  So perhaps that may indeed be applicable in a discussion of F-16XL vs F-18E.

>>"but to say it is a "lousy" strike fighter because of this one thing is a little unfair"<<

If your maneuver envelope is restricted because of a weak pylon, I'd consider that a serious design flaw.  But you neverthless make a good point.  The F-16 was not designed as a strike platform, so from that perspective it is not a flaw at all.  For that matter, early F-16s could not even carry BVR missiles.  They were strictly a visual air-to-air platform, the quintessential dog fighter.  (That may even be true of the Danish F-16s pre MLU)  The F-16 is what we in the US call a real "Air Force" airplane, overly optimized for the dog fight.  The last "dog fighter" the Navy bought was the F8F Bearcat, which entered the inventory at the end of WW2.  (Although the F-8 Crusader was arguably pretty close to being a dog fighter).  Too bad that dog fighting kind of went the way of the dinosaurs.  But it is a testament to the inherent good design of the F-16 that it has been successfully adapted for other roles.  But if adaptability is the yard stick, then the YF-17 was probably the better design.  The YF-17 became the Hornet, which from the very beginning was the F/A-18.  The Hornet was designed as a strike platform from day one.

As good as the bacis F-16 design is, no matter how good the basic design, it has its limitations.  Just because the F-16 CAN be pushed to a 50,000 lb gross T/O weight, and CAN be equipped with conformal tanks and avionics pods does not mean it's a "good" idea.  It may be a cheap idea relative to the options (some would call it "cost effective"), but that does not necessarily mean it's a good idea.  So far, USAF has resisted buying block 50 and block 60 F-16s, although there are moves afoot to back-fit some block 50 and 60 systems into the USAF's block 40 F-16s.  But there are political reasons why this may never happen.  Just as the F-15 was never equipped with the newer more powerful engines and an AESA radar to protect the F-22, USAF F-16s may never get them to protect the F-35.  But who knows?

But to get back to the original topic of this thread.  Comparing the F-16XL to the F-18E and and even the F-15E as strike aircraft is not a good comparison.  They are different class aircraft.  Maybe it would be like comparing the Mosquito to the Spitfire in the ground attack role.