.
About 7, 8 or 9G, a totaly murky argument.
Vanila Flanker cant do 9G in certain loaded configuration, pretty sure it goes for Su-35s too. Even without wetbags. Pretty sure it goes for PakFa as well. Thats the compomise you get when you put your wetbags inside the airframe. And it also mention lots of weapon storage. Combine those two above and 9G is not possible. But again it depends on what with weight load. MTOW, NTOW or even less?

While there are certain configuration that PAK-FA, F-16, Su-27, F-15, F-35A cant reach 9G , everyone can agree that they are 9G capable aircraft. The fact that PCA is said to be not 9G capable clearly show that their priority changed from maneuverable to range and load out

Grynkewich believes that range and payload will be two of the most important attributes of the aircraft. NGAD, like other fighter jets, will need to be able to penetrate enemy air defenses and enter contested spaces, but it will also need to be able to operate at greater distances than current platforms, he said.

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/lcs-freedoms-engine-may-need-replacement

5 gen planes offered a different operative modality to cope with them, it worked, for some time but countermeasures were implemented quite earlier and with a far greater ease that everyone would have expected and even if still not enough to negate LO tactical advantages they have forced even the more steadfast stealth zealots a.k.a. USAF to rethink the whole question.
.

i dont think US airforce ( or any other air force that using/ designing stealth aircraft ) are not aware of low frequency or multi static radar. Nor do they changed their whole tactic because of those things.( since they already existed since F-117 , B-2 time )

And what in your post differ to what I have said until now, garryA? No one there is negating the tactical utility of RCS reduction measures, as my last post would make you even clearer, only trying put them in a more realistic perspective.

To be honest , iam not sure what your point is , USA upgrade those F-15C not so that they can be subtitude for the stealth jet , but more like support assets since load out of stealth fighter is rather limited. It has nothing to do with the effectiveness of stealth in modern combat

LO is not the same thing, however, as it has precise phisical limits and tend of have a more limited increment capacity over the years,actual 5 gen fighters are not in any way more stealthier of the F-117 and the B-2, just have a way greater flight envelope and A2A capacity.
.

Point of stealth is not to be totally invisible but rather to reduce detection range of enemy so you can attack them first before they attack you. Even if F-22 and F-35 are not stealthier than F-117 you still have much more potent platform because their sensor and weapon range are just much higher (in fact they are more stealthy because of blended facet will give less diffraction reflection , then the new RAM are also effective at wider range of frequency). Moreover,because J/S ratio related to RCS , changing from F-15 to F-35 is kinda like having a jammer that is 10000 times more powerful, that pretty useful IMHO.

Something I forgot: Not fat X-32 “Monica” or X-35/F-35 “Flying Bathtub” but the other OTHER JSF.

]

I heard this thing is too unstable to be used on an aircraft carrier

TBH, unlike OP, Iam more interested in technologies used in the Himat like aero elastic tailoring and variables camber. Oh well where are Andraxxus and Starprime when i need them :p

that’s one advantage of the delta wing, what counts is the sweep angle (more = better for transsonic and supersonic) and the relative thickness (thickness/chord ratio, and that’s where the delta has a big advantage, you can make it much thicker while having lower relative thickness and, therefore, less transsonic drag

Do you have the actual Cdo of F-32 vs F-35 ? , the wing looks very thick to me too

reduce by how much? it uses the engine derived from the F-22… nobody complains about Raptor’s thrust as far as I know

AFAIK thrust reduction is about 15 %

Frankly, the sensor size has relatively little impact on the range. The used optics is everything.. I’ll try to explain: if you take a guy X with myopia, having a decent set of gyro-stabilized 20x mag binoculars, he will always detect a deer much further away than a guy Y with a perfect 20/20 eyesight, having a 4x mag viewer. And frankly, replacing the guy X with a guy Y will not have increased the detection range much further, if at all..

We are talking about angular resolution rather than range. Moreover , i dont think neither missiles seeker or DAS or DDM-NG will use optical zoom ,because they need to have wide FoV.

by all means, make the other setup with 0.5 degree angular accuracy and f-35 25 km apart,
the pilot couldnt actually see what it was through DAS unless it was a ship btw

F-35 pilot Major John Wilson speaking of DAS

“It’s got limited utility, it’s for general awareness only…
You can’t really target with it unless it’s something really big,
or if it’s like a boat on the water you can see that…
It’s just for general awareness, what’s underneath me, what’s around me…
It’s cool, to be honest with you I don’t really use it all that often,
the reason being is that if I really want to see what is underneath me I will just look outside,
I will just roll up. It doesn’t take that much longer for me to just bank up there airplane and look…
Because I can see it with greater clarity…
It’s just an added benefit. That is not the primary function of those cameras.”

I like how you dont have any others evidence other than that short paragraph that you keep posting over and over again. Not only that , you also discreetly selectively quote only a certain part that support your view while ignoring any other parts that going against it. Why dont you mentioned the part where he said DAS can detect a jeep driving through the desert if he fly low ? or when he said his helmet is only second generation and there are a third generation coming up with better camera ?

Then you also sneaky changed the word from boat to ship just so that DAS seem to be worse than it is ( even though its resolution is 5 times better than AIM-9X seeker)
FYI , this is a boat

this is a ship


Moreover , human eye are extremely accurate piece of sensor that we have , with angular accuracy of 0.3 arc-minute (0.005 degrees) and resolution equal around 324 megapixels, the human eye can also see in color .Just because DAS have lesser resolution than human eye doesn’t mean its angular accuracy is suddently 1 degree
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/eye-resolution.html