So here’s the image of how the F-35 compares, keeping in mind that this is with the 7g control law limit.

To summarize the air-to-air combat configurations used in the comparison:
F-35A: 13,000 lbs internal fuel (to simulate half internal fuel plus weapons)
F-15C: fuel tank racks, air-to-air missiles (presumably)
F-15E: targeting pod, rails and racks (almost certainly on CFTs), air-to-air missiles
F-16C: HARM targeting pod, IR targeting pod, ECM pod, rails and racks, air-to-air missiles
A-10: IR pod, ECM pod, rails and racks

No engine configuration given for the F-15E and F-16C.

My observations: speed recovery advantage of the F-35A vs F-16C seems to show that all the targeting pods have substantial drag. F-15C was probably the most unencumbered.

It will be interesting to see what an up-engined F-35 can do. If I recall, the F135 isn’t making full use of the F-35 inlet, since there’s currently enough flowrate to accommodate a more powerful motor. Block 1 improvement of the F135 that (if properly funded) should be in service in 2023 is supposed to provide up to 47,300 lbf of thrust, so it will be interesting to see what an F-35A with full 9g envelope and Block 1 F135 would do.

Overall the F-35 seems to have roughly similar maneuverability as 4th generation aircraft. It’s may be nothing special, but it will still be very dangerous in a dogfight.

on the contrary there is on this forum only two that think J-20 is a better fighter than PAK-FA,
they all fall under the ‘moderate observable’ category btw

Moderate observable? What does that even mean?

All armor is not equal for one. The 1.5 inch STS was deemed sufficient to decap an AP shell or redirect it to a less optimal penetration angle. This was tested, not opinion.

No, that was based on the old emperical formula by Nathan Okun that is no longer valid. Here is his updated analysis, and based on email I’ve had with him it takes over 2 inch of STS to decap a 15 inch AP shell. The current 1.5 inch STS will only decap if strike angle is greater than 15 degrees.

The Hood’s belt was different armor, narrow and tapering below waterline. Totally different armor scheme that was inferior to plunging fire. The RN knew this at the outset of WWII, events meant that the Hood’s armor was not modified. What happened?

Iowa’s armor also tapers below the waterline, so I’m not sure what point you’re making here. The Hood is essentially an upscaled version of the Queen Elizabeth battleships, and in any case it’s the thin deck armor of the Hood that was it’s undoing.

Not sure what you are smoking here…. The 2,700lb 16″ shell fired from the 16″ 50 caliber had a velocity of 2,500 fps (2,743 km/h). No contest in kinetic energy.

That’s the muzzle velocity. Actual striking velocity on deck will be much lower since the projectile is plunging.

A modern supersonic AShM will mission kill any WW2 battleship, if not outright wreck it.

Even the Yamato would be easy prey to today’s weapons. Something like the Mk 48 that detonates under the hull of the ship to destroy structural strength is enough to outright mission kill a battleship in one hit.

The Iowa’s armor was overrated even then, let alone in 2016 😉 .

Iowa and Vanguard are probably tied for the second best protected BB after the Yamato, not like that even matters anyways.

I don’t know why people here even take blackadam seriously. Does no one here remember the stupid topics he made before? Like some of the following.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?133395-PLAAF-crisis&highlight=
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?136502-The-truth-about-the-F-22&highlight=

The F-15 arguable is the West’s Flanker analogue. It has smaller dimensions, but in terms of speed, range, maneuverability, etc, they’re quite close. The F-22 is not even in the same weight class as the Su-27, nor does it carry as much fuel. The F-22’s subsonic combat radius is about 590 nm, with a 6% rerouting factor. Doubling gives range of 2,325 km, which is pessimistic since it doesn’t take into account combat. Supersonic range is a bit hard to find, the range slide shows 460 nm combat radius with 100 nm supercruise, but it’s not known if it only supercruises one way or both. I think back in 2009 AvWeek stated that the F-22 has 37 minute supercruise (correct me if I got this number wrong), which I assume here to be at Mach 1.5, which gives about 928 km at altitude. This works out to be about 42% of the subsonic range, which is quite a substantial drop, but something that’s expected.

For comparison, the T-50, which carries even more fuel than the Su-27, is stated to have 3,500 km subsonic range and 1,500 km supersonic range. Turns out that the T-50’s supersonic range is about 43% of the subsonic range, which is quite close to the F-22’s.

1] where are you pulling 150 nmi from ?
2] he clearly states that its not supercruise in a technical sense, that leaves only a/b or dive, or deceleration

1. I reread the source and realized the pilot said mi, not nmi, though considering how common nautical terms are in aviation it’s difficult to be certain. Either way I stand corrected.
2. What’s the “technical sense”? The pilot even clarified what it meant, a dash of 150 miles using min (zone 1) afterburner. Which is distinctly different from max afterburner. I’d hope at this point you’re aware that afterburners have stages. I don’t even know how you managed to interpret dive from that statement.

ok, so f-35 cant go m1.2 below 30k ft, that is troublesome indeed, is there any other fighter that ever had this limitation in history ?
anyway, the most likely is that he didnt count ‘a teeny weeny bit of a/b’ as ‘fuel-gulping a/b’

This is the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

Su-27, max speed at sea level 1,400 km/h, or Mach 1.15. Same for MiG-29M. That took about 10 seconds to dig up from KnAAPO and MiG brochure. But name a combat-configured fighter that can hit supersonic in military power at sea level. Aside from the F-22 and perhaps T-50 your list runs thin. Are you even aware that afterburner has stages? It’s not a simple on/off thing.