The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[Triton]

Will the F-35A aircraft offered to allies have probe-and-drogue refueling capability? Or will air forces have to have boom refueling capability if they chose F-35A?

 

[GTX]

At this stage the standard F-35A only has boom refueling. That said, it is not inconceivable that it could be fitted for probe (the space/design exists). The customer would need to negotiate for this change and be prepared to pay the cost of being different.

 

[shedofdread]

One presumes the 'B' will have P&D?

Any news re 'buddy' refueling? I ask because I presume that's the way the FAA will re-fuel in-flight...?

 

[2IDSGT]

One presumes the 'B' will have P&D?

Any news re 'buddy' refueling? I ask because I presume that's the way the FAA will re-fuel in-flight...?

The Bee has P&D.

As for buddy refueling, no development that I've heard of. Did the AV-8s ever do that? I couldn't find any indication that the Harrier had such capability; all the pictures show it refueling from something else.

 

[shedofdread]

I don't believe they did. I was just wondering really if it had been considered / whether it would be possible and how [if at all] the FAA (and maybe the USMC) would do the re-fueling...

Regards,

 

[Thorvic]

The F-35B has a retractable refuelling probe but buddy tanking is not in the design requirements. The USMC would make use of either USN carrier based assets such as Super Hornet with Buddy pack if working with a CVN, or use their own Hercules Tankers or allied Air Tanker assets. The UK F-35B would use the RAF A-330 Voyager or again Allied Tanker assets if required.

The buddy tanker issue only appeared after the UK switched from the F-35B STOVL version to the F-35C CATOBAR version in 2010, one of the issues identified was that as the only UK fixed wing Carrier Aircraft, their would not be a suitable buddy tanker available during the landing cycle, because the USN would use its F-18 E/F in the role the capability was not designed into the C or other variants. With the switch back the STOVL in 2012, the buddy tanker issue is no longer relevant.

 

[2IDSGT]

I don't believe they did. I was just wondering really if it had been considered / whether it would be possible and how [if at all] the FAA (and maybe the USMC) would do the re-fueling...

As per the typical limitations for STOVL fighters (namely close weight margins), I don't think it would be very practical. If one really wants an independent refueling capacity for STOVL ships, I'd look at the V-22.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Navy tanking is primarily about safely getting aircraft back on deck. STOVL aircraft don’t have the problem of bolting, pitching deck, etc so IFR really isn’t needed for safe recovery. Of course any F-35B user could want IFR for extension of combat radius in which case if the IFR has to be organic then buddy-buddy is the best option. A V-22 is just way to slow to be part of a strike package and probably carries less offload fuel at radius than a F-35B with external tanks anyway (though I haven’t looked at any numbers for this).

 

[2IDSGT]

Navy tanking is primarily about safely getting aircraft back on deck. STOVL aircraft don’t have the problem of bolting, pitching deck, etc so IFR really isn’t needed for safe recovery. Of course any F-35B user could want IFR for extension of combat radius in which case if the IFR has to be organic then buddy-buddy is the best option. A V-22 is just way to slow to be part of a strike package and probably carries less offload fuel at radius than a F-35B with external tanks anyway (though I haven’t looked at any numbers for this).

Depends on how much gas each can get off the deck and move to where it's needed, but you're right about the speed problem I suppose.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Depends on how much gas each can get off the deck and move to where it's needed, but you're right about the speed problem I suppose.

They can both take off with a maximum of around 25,000 lbs of fuel in a potential tanker config. F-35B and MV-22A both have surprisngly similar MTOW (~60,000 lbs), empty weights (~33,000 lbs) and fuel burn (~15 lbs per NM just using internal fuel devided by range). Of course the big difference is cruise speed, altitude etc which makes F-35B a far better tanker for other F-35Bs.

 

[2IDSGT]

Depends on how much gas each can get off the deck and move to where it's needed, but you're right about the speed problem I suppose.

They can both take off with a maximum of around 25,000 lbs of fuel in a potential tanker config. F-35B and MV-22A both have surprisngly similar MTOW (~60,000 lbs), empty weights (~33,000 lbs) and fuel burn (~15 lbs per NM just using internal fuel devided by range). Of course the big difference is cruise speed, altitude etc which makes F-35B a far better tanker for other F-35Bs.

Well, now that the V-22 has pretty-much been ruled out, I guess the only question is: how useful is that 25,000 lb margin for tanking purposes? It can't all be fuel (tanks, hose and reel equipment to factor in). For comparison, a Shornet tanker hauls 29,000 lbs in fuel alone.

 

[GTX]

I sometimes wonder if one day we will see a development of the Terma Multi-Mission pod that allows for buddy refueling:

 

[Thorvic]

I suspect that Buddy tanking is a would be nice to have rather than a must have so even if somebody dos eventually fund it they won't really kick in development and testing till the next dcade once the must-have requirements have been sorted. Even then its likely to be the USN F-35C variant rather than include it in the FA-XX requirement.

The USMC are simply not going to be doing the long range strike as thats not part of their mandate, the USN or USN would do the strategic and deep tactical strikes, the UK won't fund it either as whilst they would use the F-35B in stategic strikes the tanking would be provided by our Voyagers (their are rumours that Air Tanking have the rights to all UK Air to Air refuelling, thus the RAF have already siad the Atlas will not be used in the Tanker role despite the capability being built intio the design).

 

[shedofdread]

Thanks for all that, gents.

So, for the time being, it's Voyagers or 'nowt' for UK F35Bs' IFR, then? It wouldn't surprise me to see some sort of carrier borne capability ('buddy' being the only realistic way, it would seem) eventually as [sadly] I'm sure we can all guess at scenarios where UK F35s are needing as large a radius of action as possible...

 

[GTX]

I suspect that Buddy tanking is a would be nice to have rather than a must have so even if somebody dos eventually fund it they won't really kick in development and testing till the next dcade once the must-have requirements have been sorted. Even then its likely to be the USN F-35C variant rather than include it in the FA-XX requirement.

Not disagreeing there.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

One thing about the F-35 program is the ability to use systems for one variant on another. So if the USN requires buddy buddy on the F-35C then it is very likely to be useable on the F-35B (and F-35A). However the USN already has a tanker in the fleet with the Super Hornet. So the need is low. Also the F-35B has low need for an organic tanker. It really becomes critical if someone was to be operating a CATOBAR carrier with an F-35 only air wing (as the RN briefly planned to do).

 

[2IDSGT]

One thing about the F-35 program is the ability to use systems for one variant on another...

About that. I'm starting to get a little concerned. Recently posted over in the news thread regarding Norway's JSM...

...Lockheed Martin have received a contract through the JSF program in the USA that includes conducting such tests on all variants of the F-35, as well as conducting tests in the internal weapons bay on the CTOL model as Norway plan to buy...

Wait, what? If the Norwegian A-variants are going to be certified for external AND internal carriage, shouldn't all A & C planes be so-capable no matter who's buying them?

 

[GTX]

Recently posted over in the news thread regarding Norway's JSM...

...Lockheed Martin have received a contract through the JSF program in the USA that includes conducting such tests on all variants of the F-35, as well as conducting tests in the internal weapons bay on the CTOL model as Norway plan to buy...

Wait, what? If the Norwegian A-variants are going to be certified for external AND internal carriage, shouldn't all A & C planes be so-capable no matter who's buying them?

No need to be concerned. The only reason Norway got special mention in that story was because it was a Norwegian story and involved a Norwegian missile. If another country (say Australia which has been very interested in the JSM) wanted to use it then they too would be so capable because of this.

 

[Arjen]

Johan Boeder at JSFNieuws has been tracking the whereabouts of F-35 AF-23.
On March 11, AF-23 lands at Lubbock International, 'after a caution light came on in the cockpit'.
March 19, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reports it had not arrived at Nellis AFB yet.

Three of the $67 million jets landed at the base earlier this month, and a fourth was cleared to fly Tuesday from Lubbock, Texas, where it made a precautionary landing March 1 [11, actually]. It was on its way to Nellis from Lockheed Martin’s production plant in Fort Worth, Texas.

“There was a wire connector issue in the flight control system, but the pilot was never in danger,” Lockheed spokesman Michael Rein said.

He said the plane has a triple redundant backup system for flight control. “We fixed it, powered up the airplane, and everything checked out.”

The plane had not arrived at Nellis late Tuesday.

March 20, Air-Attack.com also reports three out of four having arrived on March 19:

NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE, Nev. (AFNS) -- In the Thunderbird Hangar filled to capacity, Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Lofgren, U.S. Air Force Warfare Center commander, formally accepted delivery of three F-35A Lightning IIs March 19.

What took / is taking so long? No pilot available? Has AF-23 arrived at Nellis?

Johan Boeder also notes Cannon AFB is 100 miles northwest of Lubbock International, and speculates the pilot was in a hurry to land.

 

[2IDSGT]

Hard to see how a reporter would misinterpret "remained on the airport’s runway apron by 5:30 p.m. Monday" into "took off for Nevada." http://lubbockonline.com/local-news/2013-03-11/caution-warning-prompts-lockheed-martin-f-35a-land-lubbock#.UU7pBBzYggJ Then again, I've had personal experience with local news types screwing up the simplest things on multiple occasions. Looks more like the usual journalistic incompetence than a conspiracy. Choose your own adventure I guess.

 

[Arjen]

Loomis reportedly saying 'The malfunction was fixed by the evening and the plane took off for Nevada at 5:30 pm' - call me gullible, just sounds like a goof, by Loomis or the reporter. At least two sources confirm AF-23 hadn't arrived at Nellis by March 19. Retracting the March 13 Status and Fast Facts just seems odd to me, with the reported data already in the public domain. If there's any conspiracy here, it's singularly inept.

I'm mainly curious to find out what took / is taking so long to fix.

 

[2IDSGT]

just sounds like a goof, by Loomis or the reporter.

Most likely the reporter since whoever wrote the story I posted above managed to get it right. I'm not overly concerned about why it's still there though; it's probably to do with a lack of proper facilities. Even if the problem is minor, I wouldn't be surprised if they find trucking the thing back to Ft. Worth (or maybe Abilene) cheaper than moving all the necessities out to West Texas for a one-off.

 

[Arjen]

...it's probably to do with a lack of proper facilities. Even if the problem is minor, I wouldn't be surprised if they find trucking the thing back to Ft. Worth (or maybe Abilene) cheaper than moving all the necessities out to West Texas for a one-off.

Minor is what I'm thinking too. If it's big, you'd better get if off your chest immediately. From Moonstruck:

Loretta Castorini: What am I going to tell him?
Cosmo Castorini: Tell him the truth. They find out anyway.

However:

...wire connector issue in the flight control system...

- that's one fiddly wire connector.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

the $67 million jets

 

[Arjen]

Well, I did correct the March 1 typo because I didn't think that was what the Las Vegas Review-Journal meant anyway.

$67 million: I'm now officially on the record for passing on Good News About The F-35. Happy Sunday!

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Johan Boeder also notes Cannon AFB is 100 miles northwest of Lubbock International, and speculates the pilot was in a hurry to land.

it does? 100 miles is a long way away if you have incentive to be cautious right now. or are getting cautions and warnings, but don't feel it would be prudent to push your luck. It doesn't mean he was "in a hurry" for all we know the problem occurred 100 miles from Lubbock but 200 is bit further than he felt comfortable, so lets land there rather than push to Cannon or Kirtland. IF the plane landed at Cannon could the author then speculate that is was a super duper emergency because he didn't push to Kirtland? Can we see how this formula without any facts can be applied to anything?

The light came on and the pilot landed. this does not measure the intensity or level of emergency required to land. For all we know someone asked "would you like to do Cannon?" and the pilots thought and then said "no, lets just do Lubbock and not risk it" Or that the pilot was ordered to land immediately, even though he thought he could make it all the way to Nellis. speculating about where it landed having anything to do with the nature of the emergency is a special kind of stupid that makes me wonder not about the incident but the author.

Airplanes break or get caution lights for so many reasons that you can't list them all, and the circumstances, nature of the problem and the pilots judgement at the time all factor into where or when he lands (or even if he declares an emergency.) We had a harrier that had the brakes go out so the pilot just rode it down the runway, until he ran out of runway and went into the dirt. The pilot then calmly said "I'm getting out now" and exited the aircraft. Years before that I had a firefighter tell me the story of a harrier pilot that ejected out of the aircraft because he thought it might be almost out of fuel. So here is case of a real emergency being handled with no fuss, and a non emergency being handled with the pilot ejecting and a loss of the aircraft.

Rules, regulations, special safety concerns all factor into how pilots handle emergencies there is some leeway in some cases and other cases where there is none (IE If this light comes on you land, and land now, because it could mean that X,Y,Z is happening, it could also mean the light is broken, but we can't chance that, no hero stuff just land and we will hook our test equipment up and find what happened) Pilots are limited to what their instruments tell them and what they sense. They can not diagnose specific problems nor troubleshoot what is going wrong with the aircraft while they are flying it, for this reason many pilots are trained to be careful and think long term, for themselves and the health of the aircraft, and of course to take caution lights seriously even if they are later revealed to be false alarms. "No one ever got in trouble for following proper procedures in the rule book" If you ignore the book and you are wrong they will "throw the book at you"

Trying to use airfield distance as a kind of "emergency mood ring" is just asinine especially with the limit of information involved, or where the emergency occurred, relative to his landing options. The name of the game for the F-35 is "play it safe" the program is under such scrutiny that a light bulb turning on and a divert are international news. That's beyond "being under a microscope". The F-35 program is going to be super cautious. There is a level of scrutiny being applied here that has never been applied to other programs.

For all we know the aircraft had a major emergency and disaster was narrowly avoided, or a light came on and the pilot lazily made his way to Lubbuck...

Its speculation on top of speculation

just sounds like a goof, by Loomis or the reporter.

Most likely the reporter since whoever wrote the story I posted above managed to get it right. I'm not overly concerned about why it's still there though; it's probably to do with a lack of proper facilities. Even if the problem is minor, I wouldn't be surprised if they find trucking the thing back to Ft. Worth (or maybe Abilene) cheaper than moving all the necessities out to West Texas for a one-off.

Yep. "With the proper tool and part I can have this fixed in 10 minutes and tested and airworthy within the hour"

"what if you don't have the proper tool, part or test equipment?"

"Then nothing happens"

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

http://defense.aol.com/2013/03/25/singapore-poised-to-announce-purchase-of-12-f-35bs/

WASHINGTON: Singapore is expected to announce sometime in the next 10 days that it plans to buy its first squadron --12 planes -- of some 75 of Lockheed Martin's F-35Bs, further bolstering what had been the flagging fortunes of the world's most expensive conventional weapon system.

The fact that American allies in the Pacific are the ones committing to the controversial and over-budget aircraft is telling. If you want to understand the calculus driving these choices, first look at China, which to countries such as Singapore, Japan, South Korea and Australia is the primary long-term threat.

The Singaporeans are extremely shy about declaring their intentions in public, eager to offer few chances for China and Malaysia to react, but two sources familiar with the program confirmed the likely announcement. Given Singapore's tiny size its choice of which of the three F-35 versions to buy is not surprising. A plane that can take off almost vertically and can land vertically is able to operate from a much smaller footprint than, say the F-35A (the Air Force version) or F-16 Block 60s. And, given Singapore's geography, the F-35B makes great sense for its ability to operate closely with the US Marines -- as well as with F-35Cs operating from our aircraft carriers.

The Singaporeans decision will eventually leave China -- and Russia, still something of a Pacific power -- facing 50 to 100 Australian F-35As, 42 F-35As in Japan, 75Bs in Singapore and however many of the three versions built and fielded by the Untied States are regularly in the Pacific. Then consider the F-35, which offers the first true integrated global supply chain for a major weapon system and offers highly classified capabilities which America had previously not made available to allies.

But the underlying reason for the choice of Singapore and the other Pacific countries may be found in the conclusion of these countries about the F-35's effectiveness. One senior official from the region, who has access to the most sensitive classified information about the system, told me recently that the F-35 is "simply undefeatable." And this official said the aircraft is expected to maintain its dominance for at least one quarter of a century.

Moving right along

 

[Archibald]

the F-35 is "simply undefeatable

So was the Maginot line (supposedly)

Couldn't resist...

 

[Arjen]

From Everything Lubbock:
AF-23 still stuck in Lubbock.

More Problems For F35 Jet Diverted To Lubbock International Airport
By: Allison Morrison
Updated: March 29, 2013

A new problem for the F35 fighter jet that made an emergency landing in Lubbock two weeks ago.
Lockheed Martin officials tell us the jet tried to leave Lubbock and fly back to Ft. Worth this week, but experienced a problem with a communications channel of the flight control system and couldn't leave.

The jet has been at Lubbock International Airport since March 11th, when a warning light forced the pilot to land here instead of Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada.

The fighter jet remains at Lubbock International Airport this morning.

18 days and counting.
It seems AF-23 was meant to return to Fort Worth in stead of going to Nellis AFB, its original destination. Temporary fix, to be completed at the factory?

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

DSCA Notice for the Korean F-35 Bid released

WASHINGTON, April 3, 2013 – The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress March 29 of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Korea for 60 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) aircraft and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $10.8 billion.

The Government of the Republic of Korea has requested a possible sale of (60) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) aircraft. Aircraft will be configured with the Pratt & Whitney F-135 engines, and (9) Pratt & Whitney F-135 engines are included as spares. Other aircraft equipment includes:
Electronic Warfare Systems; Command, Control, Communication, Computer and Intelligence/Communication, Navigational and Identification (C4I/CNI); Autonomic Logistics Global Support System (ALGS); Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS); Full Mission Trainer; Weapons Employment Capability, and other Subsystems, Features, and Capabilities; F-35 unique infrared flares; reprogramming center; F-35 Performance Based Logistics. Also included: software Development/integration, aircraft ferry and tanker support, support equipment, tools and test equipment, communication equipment, spares and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documents, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics personnel services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $10.8 billion.

http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2013/Korea_13-10.pdf

deserves a repost here

 

[sferrin]

From Everything Lubbock:
AF-23 still stuck in Lubbock.

More Problems For F35 Jet Diverted To Lubbock International Airport
By: Allison Morrison
Updated: March 29, 2013

A new problem for the F35 fighter jet that made an emergency landing in Lubbock two weeks ago.
Lockheed Martin officials tell us the jet tried to leave Lubbock and fly back to Ft. Worth this week, but experienced a problem with a communications channel of the flight control system and couldn't leave.

The jet has been at Lubbock International Airport since March 11th, when a warning light forced the pilot to land here instead of Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada.

The fighter jet remains at Lubbock International Airport this morning.

18 days and counting.
It seems AF-23 was meant to return to Fort Worth in stead of going to Nellis AFB, its original destination. Temporary fix, to be completed at the factory?

A development plane had a problem? Stop the presses.

 

[2IDSGT]

18 days and counting.
It seems AF-23 was meant to return to Fort Worth in stead of going to Nellis AFB, its original destination. Temporary fix, to be completed at the factory?

: The world holds its breath.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

18 days and counting.
It seems AF-23 was meant to return to Fort Worth in stead of going to Nellis AFB, its original destination. Temporary fix, to be completed at the factory?

: The world holds its breath.

This one aircraft seems to be a bigger deal than when the entire fleet was grounded after the blade crack...

 

[2IDSGT]

18 days and counting.
It seems AF-23 was meant to return to Fort Worth in stead of going to Nellis AFB, its original destination. Temporary fix, to be completed at the factory?

: The world holds its breath.

This one aircraft seems to be a bigger deal than when the entire fleet was grounded after the blade crack...

That was over in just one week... not really enough time for the *concern-trolls* to formulate a good conspiracy theory.

 

[Arjen]

I'm not suggesting there's something seriously wrong with AF-23 - nothing that would lead to grounding all F-35s.
I am puzzled how a faulty wire connector takes more than three weeks to fix.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/143872/faulty-f_35-still-parked-in-lubbock.html

Faulty F-35 Stuck in Lubbock Since March 11


(Source: defense-aerospace.com; published April 2, 2013)



PARIS --- An F-35A fighter has been parked at the Lubbock, Texas, airport since March 11, when it made an emergency landing there, and is still waiting to be repaired three weeks later.
Lockheed Martin officials told a local news website, EverythingLubbock.com, that the aircraft, serial AF23, “tried to leave Lubbock and fly back to Ft. Worth [last] week, but experienced a problem with a communications channel of the flight control system and couldn't leave.”
No explanation has yet been given for the original reason why the pilot landed at Lubbock, the nearest airfield, on March 11, after a warning light came on.
Lockheed Martin spokesman Benjamin J. Boling told Defense-Aerospace.com in an April 1 e-mail that “during pre-flight of AF-23 on March 25, a discrepancy was noted in a single communications channel of the triple redundant flight control system. After repairs are made, the aircraft will return to Fort Worth on a check flight to confirm the corrective action resolved the problem before proceeding to Nellis Air Force Base.”
He declined further comment, and referred all other questions to the F-35 Joint Program Office, which has not yet responded. Yesterday, April 1 was a public holiday.
Boling’s explanation raises the question of why a “triple-redundant” flight control system should prevent an aircraft from flying because of a “discrepancy” in a “single communications channel.”
The lack of precise information about the incident from both Lockheed Martin and the Joint Program Office, fully three weeks after the original event, raises questions about the nature of the incident.
Intriguingly, Lubbock airport personnel appear to have taken a proprietary and protective interest in the fate of the F-35. On Sunday, March 24, a man who identified himself as “Gary” working at Lubbock airport operations, told Defense-Aerospace.com by telephone that the aircraft had flown out of Lubbock “several days ago” and referred all other questions to Lockheed.
A March 12 story by Reuters on the aircraft’s landing at Lubbock quoted a Gary Loftus, which it identified as the airport’s operations manager.
-ends-

Anything from specialised equipment to repair the connector, to new parts unavailable for an aircraft still very much in development?

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

I'm not suggesting there's something seriously wrong with AF-23 - nothing that would lead to grounding all F-35s.
I am puzzled how a faulty wire connector takes more than three weeks to fix.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/143872/faulty-f_35-still-parked-in-lubbock.html

Faulty F-35 Stuck in Lubbock Since March 11


(Source: defense-aerospace.com; published April 2, 2013)



PARIS --- An F-35A fighter has been parked at the Lubbock, Texas, airport since March 11, when it made an emergency landing there, and is still waiting to be repaired three weeks later.
Lockheed Martin officials told a local news website, EverythingLubbock.com, that the aircraft, serial AF23, “tried to leave Lubbock and fly back to Ft. Worth [last] week, but experienced a problem with a communications channel of the flight control system and couldn't leave.”
No explanation has yet been given for the original reason why the pilot landed at Lubbock, the nearest airfield, on March 11, after a warning light came on.
Lockheed Martin spokesman Benjamin J. Boling told Defense-Aerospace.com in an April 1 e-mail that “during pre-flight of AF-23 on March 25, a discrepancy was noted in a single communications channel of the triple redundant flight control system. After repairs are made, the aircraft will return to Fort Worth on a check flight to confirm the corrective action resolved the problem before proceeding to Nellis Air Force Base.”
He declined further comment, and referred all other questions to the F-35 Joint Program Office, which has not yet responded. Yesterday, April 1 was a public holiday.
Boling’s explanation raises the question of why a “triple-redundant” flight control system should prevent an aircraft from flying because of a “discrepancy” in a “single communications channel.”
The lack of precise information about the incident from both Lockheed Martin and the Joint Program Office, fully three weeks after the original event, raises questions about the nature of the incident.
Intriguingly, Lubbock airport personnel appear to have taken a proprietary and protective interest in the fate of the F-35. On Sunday, March 24, a man who identified himself as “Gary” working at Lubbock airport operations, told Defense-Aerospace.com by telephone that the aircraft had flown out of Lubbock “several days ago” and referred all other questions to Lockheed.
A March 12 story by Reuters on the aircraft’s landing at Lubbock quoted a Gary Loftus, which it identified as the airport’s operations manager.
-ends-

Anything from specialised equipment to repair the connector, to new parts unavailable for an aircraft still very much in development?

No one on the outside knows what is going on or what the nature of the problem was. Until you know the circumstances or the whole story I wouldn't jump to any conclusions. The delay may not even to have anything to do with the aircraft being "hard broke" but with red tape, federal custody, possible investigation etc. who knows?

 

[Arjen]

I would hate to be in the shoes of the official who's holding up AF-23's departure with injudicious application of red tape.

 

[2IDSGT]

;D Cute... have fun everybody.

Why Australia should scratch the F-35 and fly Sukhois
http://indrus.in/blogs/2013/04/08/why_australia_should_scratch_the_f-35_and_fly_sukhois_23629.html

 

[2IDSGT]

F-35 fighter leaves Lubbock for Nellis AFB
http://www.kcbd.com/story/21912408/f-35-fighter-leaves-lubbock-for-nellis-afb

Well, that little episode seems to be over... on to the next thing now I suppose.

 

[Triton]

;D Cute... have fun everybody.

Why Australia should scratch the F-35 and fly Sukhois
http://indrus.in/blogs/2013/04/08/why_australia_should_scratch_the_f-35_and_fly_sukhois_23629.html

For the coming military clash with Indonesia?