Of course sensors and weapons are important in air combat, and to imply that anyone thinks otherwise is a bit obtuse.
Obtuse? Really? This entire discussion is about the absurd notion that the F-35's inferior turn performance relative to the F-16 makes it an inferior fighter. All the F-35's other features are neatly and conveniently ignored. Now THAT in my opinion, is obtuse.
The idea was to see how the F-35's characteristics would work out in live combat as opposed to test points.
Indeed. And NONE of those characteristics point to F-35 dog fight performance inferior to an F-16. That was a false conclusion leapt to by the ill-informed.
Also, it's a bit confusing to argue on the one hand that "you're not going to fight 4.5 gen aircraft" (if you must use that thoroughly misleading taxonomy) and in the next moment defend stealth by citing the PAK-FA and J-20. Make your mind up, willya?
OK, I give up. This discussion has become both pedantic and pointless.
But for the record I did NOT "cite PAK-FA and J-20". Someone else did and I mocked them. As for the "misleading taxonomy" of the term "4.5 gen aircraft" I did not use that term. I used 4+ generation. Can
anyone suggest a better term to use when referring to 4th gen fighters upgraded with 5th gen systems as well as 5th gen fighters. Didn't think so. Adios for now.