Yes, but that mean you also put yourself at great risk of getting a shot yourself (refer to my previous comment on geometry, speed, and energy)
Well, apparently that it didn't justify, thus you don't see it, nor hearing any costumers want it.
Yes, experienced pilots can also exploit DAS to maximize its advantage too 
. See how this kind of vaguely talk with no hard logic lead to? Your argument is too vague to be legitimate. What does it mean to avoid? Does that mean not to use it in the low speed regime at all? What is there to maximize?
Why is it a bit wasted? How do DIRCM, EOTS being a tactically waste in a theoretical scenario with the rather unimpressive raw performance of the f-35? Please elaborate! I can't make a case against these vaguely statements as there's really no content in it to make a case against.
taking from pilots words:
http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/idr/idr010529_1_n.shtml
There are 2 possibilities of your first sentence: either you saying I'm insulting you or I'm insulting russian scientists. If it's the former, please don't let your emotion cloud your mind. I never insulted your character, nor your intelligence; I seemly criticize your opinion, and occasionally throw in a little of sarcasm, which is pretty common among a typical debate, even on this board. If it's the latter, I never said they were stupid to put TVC where it doesn't need it. Last time I check, advance flankers and fulcrums that are equipped with TVC didn't have the recent emerging HOBS capabilities that are rapidly introduced. It doesn't have the 360 degree lock and shoot like marketed by the f-35.
Well, TVC WAS the future until the introduction of f-35 EODAS. And or course, there's no book on how effective EODAS is to make a statement that it's the future of air combat, as it hasn't been tested in combat yet (back to my comment that I'm doubtful that "maneuvering is irrelevant until I see pilot testimony"). And of course, it seems rather lacking when you compare it to the titan-of-capability f-22.
