Originally Posted by KenV
The helmet, and thus the sensors and weapons, know where the "MkII eyeball" is looking and the fused and linked DAS and radar pictures (the DAS and radar pictures of ALL the F-35s in the fight) compute the range automatically. And if I may direct your memory to Vietnam, Sparrow missiles were used at "short range against a close target with a high sightline rate and manoeuvre" on many an occasion. The same thing happened later over Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the skies over and adjacent to Israel using AMRAAMs. So "close in high maneuvering" fights have not restricted the pilots to using IR missiles and using radar guided missiles is most assuredly appropriate and effective in those situations. Thus lack of an IR missile is not a deal breaker in such a fight. In short, the F-35 is most assuredly capable of fighting within visual range and is most assuredly not crippled by its lack of an internal IR missile. And in such a fight its stealth remains an asset. And in such a fight its fused and linked DAS and radar (along with its "contradictory" helmet system) also remain assets.
I know I encouraged you and a couple of others to be more respectful in posting replies, but I have to say that this is utter rubbish. With all due respect, this and your previous few posts make me doubt your grasp of air-to-air weaponry.
Your post here appears to be based upon the premise that all, or at least some, of the sensors are tracking all the targets. I'm sure your experience will have proved that is seldom the case, especially when the air situation is highly dynamic. The whole point of being able to cue weapons from the helmet is that the pilot can point at a target very much more quickly with his head than he can with any other sensor and that he can launch a relatively high success mx very quickly - essential in a close-in, highly dynamic situation.
Head tracking is very different to eyeball tracking, although that's really not relevant here because the sensor is the same either way.
Your quote about AIM 7 at close range presumably refers to dog fight mode? If your measure of ensuring acurate targeting is based on that, then I would not want You to be my wingman in an F-35 on operations.
As for "most assuredly", assured by whom?
Sorry to be a bit blunt, but your statements do not accord with weaponology.