Smartman is absolutely spot-on in his assessment of the JSF, though he understates the type's formidable air-to-ground capability - and especially its very low RCS/first day of the war/'kicking down the door' capabilities.
But in almost any other scenario, the JSF (rigorously designed to cost as it is) is inferior to the next-block F-16 or F/A-18E/F, unless you have all of the airpower infrastructure (AWACS, JSTARS, F-22, Predator, U-2 etc.) available to the US forces.
There is a widespread lack of understanding about the Su-27/30/35 'Flanker' family. An RAAF Hornet would today certainly be at something of a disadvantage against an Su-27 if RoE dictated a close-in, turning visual engagement, because at low speeds the Su-27 can be phenomenally agile, and AA-11 'Archer' is a better weapon than 'Winder, with better off boresight capabilities. But only if the Su-27 wasn't taking advantage of its long range capability. The 'Flanker' does not carry external fuel, but instead has an internal 'auxiliary' tank for use in very long range missions. When this is in use however, the aircraft does not enjoy the turn performance and high Alpha capabilities which have dazzled airshow audiences.
Moreover, the aircraft (like the MiG-29) has a relatively modest BVR capability, and while it has the acceleration and missile reach, its radar and MMI are poor, and most analysts believe that AIM-120 and APG-65/73 would enjoy a significant advantage. The HUG might not be as impressive as an Su-27 in an airshow, but I think Smartman under-estimates the aircraft's real world capabilities, and over-estimates those of the 'Flanker'.
The helmet sight and ASRAAM will probably make even the RAAF's ancient F/A-18As more capable in a close-in engagement than any Su-27 variant likely to be deployed in the near future, though India's Su-30MKIs may eventually become quite capable aeroplanes.