Certainly, but not inferior against just fighters currently in production. This is also true for fighters which went out of production several decades ago.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/reduced-f-35-performance-specifications-may-have-significant-operational-381683/
US officers who have flown the F35 have found the experience embarrassing:
“The Pentagon’s decision to reduce the performance specifications for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will have a significant operational impact, a number of highly experienced fighter pilots consulted by Flightglobal concur.
…
“What an embarrassment, and there will be obvious tactical implications. Having a maximum sustained turn performance of less than 5g is the equivalent of an [McDonnell Douglas] F-4 or an [Northrop] F-5,” another highly experienced fighter pilot says. “[It’s] certainly not anywhere near the performance of most fourth and fifth-generation aircraft.”

without fuel load, altitude, speed of aircraft being compare, such number is pointless

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9813125/Lightning-will-ground-F35-fighter-jet-known-as-the-Lightning-II.html
Britain’s £150 million new combat jet has been banned from flying in bad weather amid fears that it could explode.

Fixed already
http://www.standard.net/Military/2015/04/16/Air-Force-says-the-Lightning-should-now-have-no-problems-in-lightning

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/159421/f_35-needs-white-fuel-trucks,-parking-shades.html
Fuel Temperature Can Shut Down F-35

this is bull**** propaganda sorry :

“This is not an F-35 issue; there are no special restrictions on the F-35 related to fuel temperature. The F-35 uses the same fuel as other military aircraft. It can fly under the same temperature conditions as any other advanced military aircraft,” said Joe DellaVedova, program spokesman, in an email yesterday evening.

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/12/the-tale-of-the-f-35-and-hot-jet-fuel/

it seems that according to someone, even in official circles, that having the possibility to operate in BVR allow to completely forgot about such trivial things about manoeuvrability, turn rate, agility and acceleration.
So an updated version of the Tu-128 is the goal to reach?

maneuver is important but only to a certain extent, too much maneuver is no longer necessary, just like too much speed is unnecessary, no one bother trying to make fighter fly at mach 3 any more
different times, different criteria

Same with the supposed magic wand of the 360° DAS, certainly they would be very useful early warning systems when they will come into the visible range as

DAS can search, track, target enemy’s aircraft , SAM, AA cannon at close range, they will cued the DIRCM turret on f-35 as well

the similar radar based ATOLL system would be for the PAK-FA at even greater distance

.
Wrong
The MAWS sensor on PAK-FA is 101KS-U, is an UV sensor, which is far inferior to DAS ( an IIR sensors )

When it came to be used for launching a missile against a target at your own tail, without even change its own course…
How it would be?
Missile will be launched forward, have to accellerate until it reach a sizeable speed and after it turn back in almost a 180° turn, bypass the launching plane and going to chase a similar supersonic, 9G and high AoA capable fighter (and let’s face it: 99% not-US planes built in the last thirty years have both of these features as a default) having just done its own breakaway move and gone full afterburner? Good luck.

The only reason someone would use an overshoulder shot is if he being chased and enemy is too close for him to have enough time to turn the aircraft nose, which mean the distance is like 1-2 km, at that distance it not possible for you to out accelerate, or out run an air to air missiles even with full afterburner turn on

a plane that is inferior in almost any flight parameter to contemporary opponents ones not.

inferior or not depending on fuel load, an 34% fuel f-4E , or an F-16 with 50% fuel and 2 empty tank can out maneuver a 100% fuel su-27

.
Block 40 with two full wing tanks and full internal fuel can be easily outmanuvered by an F-4E and 30% fuel load.

it sounds reasonable enough for me

also an F-4E can outmanuver a Su-27 *in sustained turns* if F-4E is at 30% fuel, and Su-27 is at full. Based on this fact, it would be very silly to claim F-4E is more maneuverable than Su-27.

i dont doubt your knowledge when it is about aerodynamic, but to be honest, iam very surprised that F-4E even on 30% fuel can out maneuver a su-27 at all fuel, what is their respective turn rate at these conditions ?

.
Block 40 with two empty underwing tanks and half internal fuel, can far outmanuver a clean Su-27 with full fuel load.

that surprised me alot, weren’t the empty fuel tank and pylon can cause a lot of drag?

January 2013, Leftwing conspirationalists over at Flightglobal.com:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/reduced-f-35-performance-specifications-may-have-significant-operational-381683/
…
“What an embarrassment, and there will be obvious tactical implications. Having a maximum sustained turn performance of less than 5g is the equivalent of an [McDonnell Douglas] F-4 or an [Northrop] F-5,” another highly experienced fighter pilot says. “[It’s] certainly not anywhere near the performance of most fourth and fifth-generation aircraft.”

without load out, speed and altitude of the turn that comparison is just retarded
even the f-16 limited to 4.5 G at 25k ft, is it closer to f-4,f-5 now?

At near the speed of sound and at an altitude of 25,000 feet, the HiMAT vehicle could substain an 8-G turn (that is, one producing acceleration equal to 8 times that of gravity). By comparison, at the same altitude, an F-16’s maximum sustained turning capability is about 4.5 Gs.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-025-DFRC_prt.htm

Do you have proof that the article is fake?
If not wouldnt it be better to wait a bit?

you are right, let wait a few days, i said the article fake since there seem to be many contradictory and made up information inside it, not only it go again all results from previous test of f-35, but the website also say it is from an unnamed pilot ( I think it is pretty obvious what unnamed source actually mean on Internet )

the unnamed pilot wrote in a scathing five-page brief that War Is Boring has obtained

do anyone see a pattern? , always some unamed mysterious pilot. they are so kind that they even give their exercise brief to a website

the nose rate was slow, allowing him to easily time his jink prior to a gun solution,” the JSF pilot complained.

can some one explain this to me ? does f-16 have some psychic ability that they know when f-35 about to fire so that he can ” time his jink ” ?,

The F-35 jockey tried to target the F-16 with the stealth jet’s 25-millimeter cannon, but the smaller F-16 easily dodged

and since when the do combat exercise with real bullet?

“The helmet was too large for the space inside the canopy to adequately see behind the aircraft.” That allowed the F-16 to sneak up on him

really? the helmet too big for the space inside cockpit? 😀

M31 – you are correct in that all kinds of active jammers are available for the F-16. However, the only option taken up by the USAF is a pod, and the most modern pod in existence is apparently the ALQ-131A, but nobody can produce evidence that it is in service.

Do you have any evidence that ALQ-131A isn’t in service ?. Northrop Gruman said themselves that they have delivered more than 500 digital radio frequency memories ( DRFM) which are installed on F-16s and other modern fighter aircraft.
http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/eapup/Pages/default.aspx

Likewise, the US digital RWR offering for the F-16 is the ALR-69A, but as far as I am aware it’s not on USAF F-16s yet.

links?

And as the 2009 NDIA paper cited by all and sundry makes clear, on p5, AGM-88D was discontinued in 2002.

i think you mistaken it with the ramjet HARMs program, AGM-88F were awarded in 2012, tested with real missiles in 2014, deployed in 2015
http://www.deagel.com/Anti-Radiation-Missiles/AGM-88F-HCSM_a001155006.aspx

The conclusion, which none of the F-35 fans have factually challenged, is that the most likely USAF F-16 lineup in GF would have been limited to analog RWR (aside from limited capes in HTS R7)

How exactly is HTS limited ? , it is a very sophisticated RWR systems that only F-16CJ have, allow them to do SEAD better than F-15, F-18, F-14… etc
you haven’t provide evidence that ALR-69 isn’t in service either?

, non-DRFM jamming,

Northrop said they provided about 500 DRFM upgrade for ALQ-131 already
btw weren’t green flag is a joint exercise between USAF and NATO ?

and 1990s AGM-88B/C variants. .

how about AGM-88F?