I don't question the ability of the DAS to function vs. live plume threats as a MAWS and I supposed that would extend to close-in aircraft in the SAIRST mode. Which is all it should be asked to do to avoid quiet-ambush as it's stealth nominally protects it from long range launch.
I am less sanguine about the use of the system as a close in targeting or recce aid, simply because the helmet is a lousy way to rapidly sort and assign targets, even disregarding confined canopy and RQ look angle limits.
I would suggest that the SAD on the F-22 is a better example of how to PPI display a large number of contacts without putting G on the get to point the pilot at them within helmet limits.
If the YT video is correct, DAS auto-sorts the sheep from the goats so it's not a matter (for instance) of choosing a target by looking at it, caging the EOTS to the blip and having a human eyeball recognition of the enhanced magnification image. I assume this happens via multisensor (divided photoarray) stare angles to get pixel to pixel fractal geometries but it could also be a function of looking at plume chemistry or a couple other methods.
If DAS can do the sort, then the azimuth plus range condition will dictate the WEZ and whether you shoot, turn in or turn away.
In this, it must be remembered that _if_ you let the threat get within 20-25nm FQ and anything up to 50nm RQ, it's dedicated IRST may well pick up the F135s exceptionally hot plume, regardless and if you aren't giving them an RF return, that's free IFF, even if EOID is not possible due to range.
It is also likely true that the aircraft has aspects where it's nominal -40/-50dbsm frontal RCS is more like -25dbsm which will limit turn away from unwanted fights with limited missile loads.
Hence, given the F-35 appears to be a bit of a slug buggy (more F-117 than F-16, especially given it's present laydown delivery of hammer class weapons) the notion that it's going to be accepting fights at all must be highly questioned rather than presumed survivable based on RFLO 'to the anchor in' commit.
It will instead be the fat ninja looking to avoid all possible fights and potentially unable to do so once other platforms or begin to field DAS like capability sets (the big MAWS boxes on the F/A-18 ASH spine and undernose areas and the similar pattern windows on the second J-20 prototype both suggest this while a UCAV would automatically have to have such a capability).
IMO, the aircraft will be useful in an FNOW mission set as a DEAD and OCA(AB) bomber, especially once GBU-53 and/or SPEAR-3 come online to allow for standoff. The EOTS sensor resolution doesn't bother me. Sniper-XR shows imagery from 20nm (lase) and even 40nm (area) which is compatible with cueing an imaging sensor on the munition to a target centroid via datalink. More than this is not the issue.'
What IS important is cost as a 2,400 airframe program economic factor hides what is the traditional black hole of a stealth aircraft R&D by pretending it's 'not a big number spread over a small fleet' but a 'huuuuge number, spread over a massive fleet'.
This is wrong because, after Day-3, everyone in a Gen-4.5 with AARGM and SDB of their own will be able to survive, just fine, once the 1-2 batteries of Hyper-SAM that non Peer State powers can afford, are hunted down and killed.
If you choose to fight China in her own backyard, you first have to resolve the base-in issues as Carrier survivability vs. BASM and airbase attack by tactical ballistic and sublaunch cruise weapons (Andersen is within 2nd Chain reach). The F-35 is an utter failure here due to lack of SSC for fast transit and thus extreme pilot fatigue issues such as plagued OEF despite a pumped manning ratio.
The obvious alternative is fast missiles with drones to hold the target picture while HSSW (M8 to 800nm) or Hoplite (M3 to 200nm) play fast ambulance on both static and TCT targets, faster than a stealth asset can respond at the long end of a 700-1,000nm radius.
Here, a 200 million dollar realistic F-35 price for <500 jets must be counted against the fast restock of missile rounds using automan assembly lines so that even a series of wars expending 1-4 million dollar rounds like water could completely restock for the price of a squadron of F-35s.
It is never technology by itself. It is always technology driving doctrine and economics that determines how useful a weapons system is.
Now for my own question: Folks here have used a DSLR/Foveon example of multi-diode stacking of detector arrays on a SFPA while others have stated IR is 'all monochrome'. If midwave (3-5u vs. .4-.76u for visible) IR is a longer wavelength does this not impose a fixed detector array size limit? And is everyone -sure- that DAS isn't doped with multicolor pixels to pull out decoys and plumes of various sorts as opposed to say post burnout bow shocks off a radome? I would think cross doped detector arrays were pretty much derigeur since I first heard of them on the Stinger POST back in the 80s.