Dont acquire, the sonar is terrible… (at least earlier versions)

How can the “Sonar” be terrible on a P-3? That is an entirely nonsensical comment! The P-3 doesn’t have a sonar fitted, how could it? Sonar is fitted to submarines and boats not aircraft due to it needing to be in the water! What the P-3 does have is a signal processor to interpret the data transferred to it from Sonar-boys. The P-3 uses NATO standard sonar-boys as used by many different types, the signal processor installed in the aircraft has been modernised over the years. The P-3C is a very mature type and an entirely reasonable choice for any nation.

Of course it’s an opinion, what else?

1. F-35 and excellent acceleration… welllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll… OK, how about providing some figures? No pilot quotes, please..
2. Fair enough, sensors are good, in my opinion they are simply evolutionary. Any newer fighters will most likely come with similar/superior hardware installed. Much more important than today’s suite will be the roadmap of future upgrades of the F-35.
3. A-A missiles excellent? Which ones? IMHO, they are pretty much the usual standard, AIM-120C/D and AIM-9X.. Lion share of Gen4+ and all Gen5 aircraft will have similar missiles. Definitely no advantage/drawback for the F-35.
4. F-35 has no long range IR guided missiles, just for your information

1. Why can’t you believe test pilots? Take an F-16 load it up with a standard war load and then compare that to the F-35. At beyond mach 0.6 an F-35 will outpace it. Anyway we have three different variants with varying performance profiles. How about loading down a Typhoon with lots of munitions what is its flight performance then?
2. So? They are still at the cutting edge. They still have a direct influence on combat capability.
3.They are excellent and you have studiously ignored my other point that they are the same/similar as fitted to Typhoon and F22. Air to air missiles are the main method to take out enemy fighters so why when on F35 you see their performance hampered?
4. That is open to debate (ASRAAM – next block AIM-9X) – anyway you misread me. I said short/long range and didn’t preface it with IR.

All the stuff regarding HMD, missiles and other things is of secondary importance as these can be upgraded/integrated on any airframe. I am talking about the aircraft as a platform.

Secondary importance…again your opinion. They form part of the F35 platform and have a direct influence on its combat capability.Why does that have to be ignored and all discussion have to be defined by kinematic performance of the airframe? Does F22 have EOTS? Does it have an HMD? Yet it uses the same missiles. All I ever see these days in F35 debate is an obsession with instantaneous turn performance and studious ignoring of what else it brings to the table.

Canada.. F-yeah!

you guys are missing out eh

Of course the irony is the Mig-31 is similar in capability and performance to what the Canadians wanted out of the Avro Arrow.

Dear Mr sanfu352,

I think you for putting up the links to our prior exchanges, it clearly makes my point that you are rather selective in your memories. “Pot Kettle Black” describes it best, you ignore what I say and treat my replies with contempt throwing out accusations of Strawman when you don’t like what you read.

You clearly said you were going to put me on your ignore list, that you haven’t only confirms my suspicions about what you are here for.

As for an apology, certainly not. I don’t apologise to bullies. Look it is VERY SIMPLE, I support the F35 program, I am positive about its future BUT I am happy to accept it has problems. I will not be brow beaten into your entirely different view, you are entitled to your views I am entitled to mine. Put me on ignore and then you don’t have to deal with me.

So no examples to supply then contary to your claim.

You don’t even bother to attempt to address the points i make re cost and timeframe. Which suggests you either don’t understand them or actually agree that they are serious issues, but are not man enough to admit it.

It seems that your ideal discussion of the F35, or any aricraft for that matter, should be essentially about how shiny and zoomy it is, real issues are not to be mentioned or heaven forbid discussed.

Another one for the ignore list unfortunately.

Please do go away and sulk it will make things much nicer. I am perfectly happy to discuss F35 issues, I have said so on many occasions. It is you who has a rather nasty attitude to anybody who doesn’t agree. It is you who ignores arguments and then accuses anybody who doesn’t agree with your views as aggressive or rude. Pot Kettle Black. I don’t disagree that the program is over budget and delayed but I also see the positives and it is you who can’t admit the industrial benefits to the UK.

Examples please.

You will note that i don’t use the type of language and hand out abuse in the same fashion the F35 gang do. I generally make observation and predictions of behaviour that sadly are too often shown to be accurate.

With regard to aviation, my objections to the F35 are clear and essentially centre around cost, or to put it simply bang for buck. These have not varied since i commenced participating in what passes for discussion on this forum.

I have no doubt that eventually the program will get fully functional and somewhat effective F35’s in operational service.

I do have severe issue with the timeframe this has and will take and the costs that this will incur.

If you care to review the postings over several years you will see a tendancy for those who are supportive of the F35 program to consistently try and dismiss any and all concerns and claim there are few to zero issues. This has proven to be false time and time again.

So to try and ignore that history and pretend that previous expediture and timeframe are of no consequence to focus solely on progress being made today at continuing cost is ignorant and dangerous in my view.

This part is simply hyperbole: “Any positive stories about the F-35 program must be countered by you and anybody who disagrees is rabidly abusive apparently” and quite untrue. I suspect you make the comment as you and i have had discussion you did not like in the past.

Well thanks for making my point, you have your example.

You do have a rather selective memory. Actually most people here who are pro F-35 are also perfectly happy to admit the problems, you on the other hand can only see the negative and get rather tetchy when called out on it. I do remember a previous discussion that I didn’t like, the one where you just couldn’t acknowledge that the UK would benefit industrially or economically from the program despite the fact it is a tier 1 partner and will build significant proportions of every single airframe.

The rather insulting attitude to what you call the “F35 gang” only proves my point…You can’t cry fowl about the apparently insulting to you F-35 supporters then do exactly the same.

as I said

Pot Kettle Black

Have a nice weekend

On the one hand i sympathize that minor temporary issues causes disproportionate concern, like the hook and other temporary stuff,
on the other hand it is getting overwhelmingly repulsive to read drivel like F-35 fly nearly exactly as fine as F-22,
and for sure better than anything else ever built.

I do sympathize with that sentiment, that kind of marketing can get rather irritating albeit I must point out it isn’t exactly unique to the F-35 marketing department. Pretty much every fighter jet on the market gets portrayed as the best thing since sliced bread in comparison to other types and the best thing ever built.

That they have built 100+ F-35 before finding cracks is not some kind of oversight in this case or even a problem when you actually read the article. The F-35B where cracks were found was the ground based fatigue test article. The minor cracks were found after the aircraft had been put through the equivalent of 9,400h, considering the F-35B has a design life of 8,000 flight hours this is actually a good news story. There is no problem yet anybody would think that there was if you went by how it has been reported.

Funny how quickly it gets spun otherwise through omission.