The US was amongst the last major air forces to get a helmet like the JHMCS. The Soviet Union got it first followed by India back in the early 80s. Everybody else got it later on, and the US got it only in the 2000s, 20 years after the SU and India did. The JHMCS is a derivative of the Israeli DASH III, so there was also a DASH I and DASH II.
The F-22 itself lacks such a helmet. The F-35 won't be carrying WVR missiles in stealth missions, so it cannot use it anyway.
And your point is..? What does this have to do with what the F-22/F-35 pilot saying SA is life and not agility?
Nope. There's nothing stealthy about the 9x. If the F-35 puts it on, it loses stealth completely. It's gonna be no different than a Typhoon.
Lol. If you think two external 9x gives the F-35 the RCS of a (and i'll be generous to you) clean Typhoon, you sir are a dumb dumb. F-35 with two external 9x is still very LO. No F-35 doing SEAD/DEAD will carry anything external and no F-35 penetrating contested enemy airspace will carry anything external. What scenario in a conflict would F-35s carry 9x missiles... who knows.
If any 4th gen fighter had the avionics of the F-35 like EODAS, Barracuda-EW, Apg-81 and its superior SA/Sensor Fusion that 4th gen fighter would still get the first look and first shot against any latest Eurocanard fighter.
The F-35 is better than the F-16, but there's nothing impressive about being better than the F-16 anymore. More modern jets are way, way better than the F-16. Like the Su-30MKI has unlimited AoA. The Rafale's AoA is 100 deg without limitations, that's 4 times that of the F-16, and twice that of the SH. And so on.
Well congratulations to the french plane to be able to do a post stall 100 degree AoA in a clean configuration but in air to air mode Dassault claims that it can achieve 29°.
Flight International test pilot Peter Collins is the first Briton to fly Dassault's F3-standard Rafale. Read his exclusive evaluation of the 'omnirole' type ...
www.flightglobal.com
Nothing impressive yet it is the F-35 that gets selected over the french plane.
Dog fighting is part of WVR. You start off with your WVR missiles first, and then go in for the kill using cannons once the missiles are expended. But the F-35 won't be carrying 9x during stealth missions. Or you can remove the 120s to carry the 9x internally, but you are most definitely sacrificing BVR capablity in the process. As long as you want stealth, the F-35 has to choose between BVR and WVR.
F-35 won't be sacrificing anything in air to air role since the Aim-120c7 & D are HOB missiles with 30-40G load. It was an Aim-120D that shot down an SU-22 over Syria by F-18E after the SU-22 spoofed the 9x. F-18E was so close when it fired its Aim-120D that it had to do a fast evasive maneuver to avoid the exploding debris cloud.
You missed the point entirely. What you are saying here will exactly be the arguments you will make once these exercises begin. You wanna keep claiming agility is irrelevant, go ahead. You wanna keep claiming the F-35 is better than the Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen etc, go ahead, but don't come back crying when things do not go your way when it's actually tested.
Yeah agility is irrelevant in combat when modern fighters, except french plane, have JHMCS and 90 degree HOB 9x missiles with BVR-ish capabilities.
And why would I come back crying over a combat exercise where T-38s and F-5s kill F-15s, F-16s, F-35s and F-18s with JHMCS? F-22s with thrust vectoring have lost against T38s in dogfights.
But how capable really are BVR weapons in real world conditions? What happens if, due to the use of lasers and other countermeasures, missiles are rendered useless? Jammers could confuse RF seekers, lasers can destroy IR seekers, they can even destroy missile fins relatively quickly. The only leftover option is the gun and the laser itself, so you are reduced to fighting World Wars/Start Wars style in the end. So you should be asking yourself if the F-35 is really suited for this type of combat. Being better than the F-16 simply isn't good enough.
Lol. Wow you really had to reach in your what if bag of scenarios that don't exist in order to put the F-35 in a disadvantaged. I can do that too with the F-35 having a """laser""" in a decade. But I'll stick to reality in my scenario where enemy fighters, that are being hunted by wolfpack of F-35s, who have no clue they are being hunted start panicking and sh*tting themselves when their buddies start exploding and not knowing why they are exploding since their RWR's aren't warning them of incoming missiles. You know why their RWRs are not warning them of incoming missiles..? Because of EODAS where its IRST is able to provide passive guidance to a radar guided BVR missile.
This is what your own experts have to say.
Tokyo looks to American and indigenous alternatives as a result of the joint strike fighter’s shortcomings.
thediplomat.com
U.S. military officials and numerous think tanks have repeatedly stressed that the F-35 is not an air superiority platform and cannot replace the F-15. Former Air Force chief of staff General Mark Welsh stated that the F-35 “was never designed to be the next dog fighting machine. It was designed to be the multipurpose, data-integration platform that could do all kinds of things in the air-to-ground arena including dismantle enemy, integrated, air defenses. It had an air-to-air capability, but it was not intended to be an air-superiority fighter. That was the F-22.” Air Combat Command chief General Mike Hostage similarly stated regarding the F-35’s lack of air superiority capabilities: “If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22.” Stressing the Raptor’s importance, Hostage predicted that, while the F-35 was unsuitable for an air superiority role, the F-15 would be obsolete by 2024.
Agility is irrelevant to the F-35 because it simply doesn't perform the role where agility is required.
Lol. A 2018 article when at the time there was a debate to fund the F-15c's upgrades... guess what happened there?
This is what pilots who fly the F-35 and used to fly F-15c and F-16 think.
And just to rub it in a bit....
30 live interceptions of armed Russian jets during carrier group aircraft operations in the Mediterranean
23 Oct 2021 NavyLookout
"...Cdre Steve Moorhouse was speaking from HMS Queen Elizabeth in the Indian Ocean, via a recorded message to the Pacific Future Forum event held on HMS Prince of Wales in Portsmouth. He said that while operating in the Eastern Mediterranean, jets from his flagship had been launched to conduct missions over the Black Sea which involved flying a round trip of “well over 1,000 miles”. These flights were conducted simultaneously with the first carrier-based combat sorties flown against Daesh.
Assuming they passed through Turkish airspace, missions to the Black Sea were almost certainly supported by air-air refuelling as 1,000 miles is the maximum extent of F-35B range. To have significance, the aircraft would need to perform at least a brief patrol in the area. Returning to the carrier flying on ‘fumes’ is a risk that would be usually avoided for a non-combat mission. It is worth noting that, despite critics complaints about the ‘short legs’ of the F-35B, it has more than double the range of the legacy Sea Harrier FA2 (c460 miles)....
...On 12th June two F-35 Jets flying from HMS Queen Elizabeth took off to conduct missions against Daesh in Syria and Iraq. This was the first strike mission from a Royal Navy vessel since the operations in Libya during 2011. In a two-week period, there were 30 live intercepts of armed Russian fighter and bomber aircraft. Sukhois and Migs came within visual range of aircraft flying from the ship. Moorhouse added that two jets were held at readiness on deck during this period, ready to respond to any Russian air incursions or over[f]lights. The critical importance for the fleet to have its own organic air cover available for all kinds of naval operations is often overlooked when the main focus is usually on the strike element of carrier capability....
...Unintentionally the Russians helped build confidence and test the CSG in a way that no pre-panned exercise ever could. Moorhouse added that: “The high tempo operations in the face of a competing and challenging adversary provided the foundation from which the strike group could prepare for operations the unfamiliar, but equally contested seas of the Indo-Pacific”."
www.navylookout.com