no, the only thing you demonstrated was a disconnect from reality, or wishful thinking, if there is any difference,
DAS doesnt have 40 times better angular accuracy than any other MAWS.

No , i demonstrated simple logic ,with an angle accuracy of 1 degree , you cant actually see the visual image of target like you do now with DAS ( moreover ,as DAS is said to be able to keep track of specific target in case pilot lose track , it must be able to distingush the shape ) , what you did is picking up a generic number about MWS accuracy ( not even specific what type) in a book then insisting that all infrared system have the same angular accuracy, which is absolutely nonsense. That would be similar to me looking at radar range , resolution from Mig-21 eras then insisting that all modern radar regardless of size and shape , proccessing power have exactly same or lenser characteristic compared to the RP-21 Sapfir.
For references this is what a normal MWS look like

This is what the DAS sensor on F-35 looked like

Each sensor of DAS alone is like 5 times the size of the previous generation of MWS , but you insisting that there are no improve in performance whatsoever ? so those engineers are just are bunch of morons who like to increase the size of the box for absolutely no reason ?

Now here is another reference point :

Photo below shown the initial capabilities of DAS : the size of the focal plane array (FPA) is 640*512 That is about 5 times better resolution than the sensor on AIM-9X and the like with size of merely 128*128 .So let me recap , Rafale can use IR sensor on MICA ( which is no better than AIM-9X sensor) as a subtitude for its main IRST and everyone cool with it , some even say that is better because of better FoV , but when F-35 use sensors that have 5 times the resolution of AIM-9X, twice as good as the one on Python-5 , that suddently not enough ? , suddently that not better than a simple MWS ? double standard much ?

if you got a degree scale and a paper with scale, or any equivalent computer program,
you can make a similar but accurate drawing, suggested assumptions are 1 degree angular accuracy and a formation flying 1 km apart

Not so long ago , everyone were talking about how legacy aircraft can easily counter stealth fighter by a spreading formation 25-35 km apart so that their radar can always looking at stealth aircraft from a vulnerable aspect. But suddently when it come to F-35 and triangulation , the pilots can only fly 1 km apart from each others ? bias much ?

It’s just an added benefit. That is not the primary function of those cameras.”

Well there are alot others pilots praise the DAS too, why should opinion of one single pilot be considered more valuable than the others ?. I really dont get the logic of people when it come to the F-35 ,if the pilots praise the aircraft then it always either ” he dont know what he talking about ” or ” he was bought by Lockheed Martin “. But if he critise any aspect of it , then his words suddently taken as god words ??? why are everyone have such strong confirmatory bias ?
.Moreover, human eye have much better resolution than fire control radar on aircraft. Practically speaking, you can literally see the specific shape and color of an aircraft by your eye, while that not possible with fighter radar (unless in SAR mode) but that doesnt prevent radar from giving firing solution for missiles. So your attempt to get the conclusion ” DAS having inadequate resolution for triangulation ” from ” DAS have less clarify than human ” simply doesnot make any sense.

all i got is MSpaint & calc.exe so i cant give numbers, angular accuracy is probably 1-2 degree,
those F-35 were probably, judging by the spacing i gave, flying 40 km apart, far more than any known formation intended for mutual support

If the distance is 1000 km and the angle is 1 degree then the base of the triangle would be about 17 km. Moreover, 1-2 degrees is like beam width of radar , angular accuracy of infrared system is about 30-40 times better (otherwise you cant actually see the visual image of target).
http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/calrtri.htm

,
#DAS can pinpoint and get a firing solution on a ballistic missile launch site well over 1000 km away,

Technically this could be possible if you triangulate between several F-35 , assuming weather is good

no it wouldnt, the high aspect ratio wings provide more efficient lift compared with stub wings of equal area

But then they dont always have equal area, in fact it kinda impossibile to give a fighter a pair of high aspect ratio wing with equal area to a delta wing

Youre taking me too litterally, of course the fuselage does not match the exact same purpose as LERX in that its not providing an over-wing vortex. But the fuselage area does provide lift forward of the CoL of the wings, and in that way provides increased leverage in a turn the same way the LERX on say the Mig-29 provide ahead of CoG lift in which to lever against.

Iam not sure what are you trying to prove but even a tube body will provide certain amount of lift at positive AoA , so any aircraft body will provide lift when they are at positive Aoa.LERX are often mentioned simply because it much more efficient in that aspect.

I guess I overemphasized the of the tail surfaces being small in proportion to the wings and overall size of a/c, I guess Im comparing it more with modern 5th gen fighters like the F-22.

still look rather big IMHO

I never said the purpose of distribution of lifting surfaces reduced drag

You said this :

The fact that the Tomcat could get away with such small tail surfaces indicates how well balanced the aircraft was in the way that the wings and tail surfaces leveraged the large lifting area of the fuselage. So lots of thrust was not needed to maintain energy in a turn like jets with high wing loading like the F-16,

Talking about turn rate, an engineer made a similar comparision between USAF 4-5 gen aircraft ( equalize combat radius and weapon load )

http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=22895&sid=fceea8e076beb5734e1905ae96dd3c30

NSM was quoted to have ca 160 km range a couple of years ago fired from ships and the ground!

Fired from air NSM will have the planes speed to start with, and the heigt from ground, so then the range was quoted as 280 km.

Now JSM will only be fired from air, with high start speed and height, so it’s rang will proberly also be about 280 km.
BUT, if you fire JSM from land or ship, it’s range will be about 200 km quoted in 2016

AFAIK, NSM is quoted to have range of 185 km ( same as SLAM-ER) , anyways JSM and NSM doesn’t have the same aerodynamic or carry the same amount of fuel so i dont think we can deduce range of one from the other. JSM can be launched from submarine as well. From producer brochure seem like range mostly affected by cruising altitude.

Look, It is not me that I’m claiming that but the same ones that have done actual test, both in interwiew than in articles.
Given that they are all members of the Sant’ Anna of Pisa i.e. the Italian ecquivalent of MIT, I trust them.

I just read both your article and the journal Marcell :p it didnt mention anywhere that the system will have super image like resolution at long distance ( compared to legacy system). There may be some others articles that you didnt cited claim so , but i think it could be due to journalist misunderstanding or misinterpreted what the producers , inventors said (which not quite uncommon IMHO)