it means, an aircraft like the F-35 despite large AOA angle, but it is less maneuverable and low speed than an F-16. The high-speed aircraft such as the SR-71, MiG-31 are large AOA angle, angle alpha does not affect the g-load factor

No.
Higher AoA increase CL, aircraft with higher AoA tend to have higher CLmax. That lead to better ITR. But higher AoA increase Cd so your air speed will be depleted when you use higher AoA to turn. As a result, that not good for STR. F-35 has better ITR, nose pointing and subsonic acceleration than F-16. But F-16 is better in STR, top speed and transonic acceleration.
High speed aircraft like SR-71 and Mig-31 have low AoA so their ITR is very bad. But their T/W at dogfight speed is bad too so their STR is also bad.

Let me fix it for you.
y
There is a significant difference between ground speed and IAS depending on which altitude.

So at which altitude did this F-35 flew those 900miles on only 5000Ib fuel?

Likely around 35-40k feet

I’m denying that it can be an advantage, just asking if is so fundamental thing to brag about.
Try to explain myself better: for subsonic accelleration I assume the one in horizontal flight at a well determined quote: I have no doubt that a 5 gen plane, with a good T/W ratio and armaments in internal bay can accellerate better than one with external loads at such regimes, still when one says that X plane have better subsonic accelleration than Y one, it automatically imply that in the transonic and supersonic the other is equal or also superior.
Now, it’s subsonic accelleration operatively more advantageous than the other two? Seems me not.
I’ve made the example of a QRA because it seems me the only case in which such paramether seem to matter something but even in such case I would prefer to look at climb rate and overall accelleration to max speed instead.
So, anyone there knew in how much time the F-35 can get to 10.000 mtrs in a scramble?

Can it match this?
Climb to 10,700 m (35,000 ft): 1 min 20 sec
Climb to 17,100 m (56,000 ft): 2 min 40 sec
Ballistic zoom: > 27,400 m (90,000 ft)

Acceleration to 12,000 m and Mach 2: 5 min.

I cant answer your question regrading climb rate because we dont have enough data, but about supersonic acceleration
F-15C at 40K feet need 80 seconds to go from Mach 0.8 to 1.2

F-35A at 30K feet need 64 seconds to go from Mach 0.8 to 1.2
But iam not sure how 10K feet different would really affect their acceleration time

Subsonic wise, F-35 accelerate better than F-16 and Su-27/35
Supersonic wise,I dont think any others aircraft accelerate better than F-15, despite its appearance

1) I have a report from MIT that also proves F-15 has a CL of 1.6:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]249926[/ATTACH]
Russian TsAGI estimates F-15’s CL to be 1.08 and significantly underestimated its turning performance.

Isn’t it a bit strange that they write CL but under that write coefficient of drag ?????

Read your own link man..

It only say EMD as a model of F-100 in the link, i assume you know the exact modification like TVC and what not?

And I recently got the proof that F-22 has a maximum Cl of at least 1.9-2.0. Surprised?

Not really , F-22 has so many factors that can lead to high CLmax like LERX , LEF , negative stability and what not , so i think it isnot that big of a surprise .On the other hand F-15 has none , so the fact that it got high CLmax surprise me alot.