Kyseinen käsitys on syntynyt LM:n ja Pentagonin lausunnoista, ei siis tuosta yksittäisestä raportista.
Tässä on tuo LM:n vastine https://www.f35.com/news/detail/joint-program-office-response-to-war-is-boring-blog?sf10503378=1
Aircraft AF-2 did not have the mission systems software to use the sensors that allow the F-35 to see its enemy long before it knows the F-35 is in the area. Second, AF-2 does not have the special stealth coating that operational F-35s have that make them virtually invisible to radar. And third, it is not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target.
The tests cited in the article were done earlier this year to test the flying qualities of the F-35 using visual combat maneuvers to stress the system, and the F-16 involved was used as a visual reference to maneuver against. While the dogfighting scenario was successful in showing the ability of the F-35 to maneuver to the edge of its limits without exceeding them, and handle in a positive and predictable manner, the interpretation of the scenario results could be misleading. The F-35's technology is designed to engage, shoot, and kill its enemy from long distances, not necessarily in visual "dogfighting" situations. There have been numerous occasions where a four-ship of F-35s has engaged a four-ship of F-16s in simulated combat scenarios and the F-35s won each of those encounters because of its sensors, weapons, and stealth technology.
- Pitkän kantaman sensorit eivät auta mitään lähitaistelussa
- Stealth ei auta mitään lähitaistelussa
- Kypärätähtäin auttaa. Mutta se ei ollut oleellista tuossa taistelussa. Ja kypärätähtäin on kaikissa muissakin koneissa.