July 01, 2026 - No. 26 In This Issue : Cracks discovered on wings of world's largest passenger planes prompt urgent inspection of 16 aircraft : It’s Official: F-35s Are Now Being Delivered Without Radars (Updated) : JetZero secures North Carolina’s largest $4.7B incentive deal for 50% fuel-cut Z4 jets : The Navy can’t afford to slow-roll its new trainer, even as competitors drop : F-35 program chief warns fleet has outgrown its support system amid record-low readiness : Delta Begins Fleetwide Installation Of VCT’s Drag-Reducing 737 Finlets : Boeing and U.S. Army use NGATS Pathfinder to speed AH-64E Apache maintenance and reduce aviation sustainment costs : There’s no going back to the Concorde glory days : Bell Completes First Two Wing Structures for the MV-75 Cheyenne : DARPA X-Plane Designed To Maneuver With Just Bursts Of Air Finally Gets Its Wings : Graduate Research Request Cracks discovered on wings of world's largest passenger planes prompt urgent inspection of 16 aircraft Story by Colson Thayer The European Union's aviation regulator says the cracks on A380 aircraft could “reduce the structural integrity of the wing" Crews work on the wing of an Airbus A380 aircraft. Credit: Jens SCHLÜTER / AFP via Getty © Jens SCHLÜTER / AFP via Getty NEED TO KNOW • The European Union's aviation regulator ordered emergency inspections of 16 Airbus A380 planes after cracks were found in wing components • The impacted aircraft include 15 Emirates planes and one Qantas aircraft • The A380, the world's largest passenger plane, has faced similar emergency inspections over past wing cracks The European Union's top airline safety regulator has ordered the inspection of over a dozen Airbus planes after cracks were discovered in key wing components of some aircraft. On Monday, June 22, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) issued an Emergency Airworthiness Directive targeting 16 Airbus A380 aircraft after the agency determined cracks found on certain aircraft could “reduce the structural integrity of the wing.” To address the “potential unsafe condition,” the manufacturer determined a detailed inspection of the specified aircraft would need to be completed. The agency divided the aircraft into two separate groups. The first group of five planes — operated by Dubai-based carrier Emirates, according to serial numbers shared in the directive — need to be inspected immediately. The second group of 11 aircraft, 10 operated by Emirates and one operated by Australian airline Qantas, can be inspected later but within 25 flight cycles. Airbus tells PEOPLE that it is supporting the inspection and will assess the results with EASA to determine whether repairs are needed or if the aircraft can return to commercial service. A company spokesperson says the emergency inspections follow a December 2025 airworthiness directive that mandated inspections on the Mid Spars, the main structural beam inside the wing. “Specific findings prompted Airbus to inform EASA and to recommend inspections on a subpopulation of A380s,” the spokesperson says. A Qantas Airbus A380 aircraft Credit: Brent Lewin/Bloomberg via Getty A Qantas representative confirmed to the Wall Street Journal that one of its aircraft required additional inspection; however, it “was already in scheduled maintenance.” They added the directive would not have any impact on flight schedules. The carrier did not immediately respond to PEOPLE's request for comment. An Emirates Airbus A380 aircraft Credit: Nicolas Economou/NurPhoto via Getty An Emirates spokesperson tells PEOPLE the company will “comply and carry out” the inspections as required by the airworthiness directive. They say they will begin within the next 48 hours and any required work will be carried out before releasing the aircraft back into service. “We remain in close contact with Airbus and the relevant authorities to minimize any disruption to the operating schedule,” the statement shared with PEOPLE says. According to Airbus, the company's A380 maiden flight took place in April 2005. The model continues to hold the title as the world's largest passenger plane. Never miss a story — sign up for PEOPLE's free daily newsletter to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories. This is not the first time emergency inspections have been mandated due to cracks found on the aircraft's wings. In 2012, the EASA ordered an immediate inspection of the entire A380 fleet after two types of cracks were discovered on a bracket, per BBC. Read the original article on People It’s Official: F-35s Are Now Being Delivered Without Radars (Updated) Delays in the delivery of new AN/APG-85 radars are deeply intertwined with other woes that continue to hound the F-35 program. Joseph Trevithick Published Jun 26, 2026 2:41 PM EDT Note: See numerous photos and charts in the original article. A stock picture of a row of US Marine Corps F-35B Joint Strike Fighters. USMC The TWZ Newsletter Weekly insights and analysis on the latest developments in military technology, strategy, and foreign policy. Terms of Service and Privacy Policy The U.S. military has now confirmed the acceptance of at least six F-35 Joint Strike Fighters for the U.S. Marine Corps without radars. This is due to issues tied to the development of the new AN/APG-85 radar, the first production lot of which is scheduled to be delivered in 2028. The prospect of radarless F-35s had first emerged publicly back in February. The AN/APG-85 is a critical component of the larger Block 4 upgrade package for all variants of the F-35, an effort that has been mired in cost growth and delays. Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Gregory Masiello, head of the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO), disclosed the acceptance of the six radarless F-35Bs at a hearing before members of the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this week. This came as part of a larger back-and-forth between Masiello and Senator Mark Kelly, an Arizona Democrat and a retired naval aviator, about F-35 readiness rates across the U.S. Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy, which have long been a point of concern. Two weeks ago, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a Congressional watchdog, released a report stating that the average F-35 full mission capable (FMC) rate across all variants had fallen from 38 to 25 percent between Fiscal Years 2020 and 2025. GAO defines FMC as an aircraft “that can perform all of its missions.” The F-35 JPO has not disputed GAO’s figures directly, but has openly disagreed with the methodology it uses to determine FMC. The full breakdown of Full Mission Capable (FMC) readiness rates between Fiscal Years 2020 and 2025 for all F-35 variants included the report GAO released two weeks ago. GAO “So, the GAO FMC rate is, they said, 25 percent. Your office claims it’s 56 percent,” Kelly said, leading up to his question. “We’ll go with your number, 50 percent. So, half of the airplanes are not fully mission capable, and I think it’s the Marine Corps that has been accepting airplanes with no radar in it. Is that correct?” “We have accepted six aircraft for the Marine Corps that do not have a radar installed. That is correct,” Masiello confirmed. Kelly then asked if this was due to a lack of available AN/APG-85 radars, which Masiello also confirmed. Reports circulating already say that the aircraft in question are reportedly short takeoff and vertical landing-capable F-35Bs, though Masiello does not appear to have confirmed this during the hearing. The Marines are the only U.S. operator of the B variant, but they also fly carrier-based C models. US Marine Corps F-35Bs. USMC A US Marine Corps F-35C seen on the deck of the US Navy’s Nimitz class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln. CENTCOM “The Block 4 modernization program is necessary to ensure that the Marine Corps and Joint Force can continue to project air superiority against future threats,” a Marine Corps spokesperson told TWZ today when asked for more information. “The Department of War deliberately undertook a highly concurrent development and production program for Block 4 capabilities (Technical Refresh 3 (TR-3), APG-85, etc.) and the largest fighter aircraft production line in the world. DoW officials made this decision with full understanding of the risk of having production aircraft ready ahead of the Block 4 capabilities. The Services’ decision ensured that production aircraft could accept Block 4 capabilities, rather than continuing to build Block 3 F-35s that would require extensive retrofit for Block 4 capabilities, thereby saving multiple years of retrofit hardware installation. ” The Marine Corps deferred any further questions to the F-35 JPO. TWZ had already reached out to that office for more information, as well. “F-35 Lightning II aircraft are being built to accommodate the F-35 advanced radar (APG-85) for U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. When delivered, the F-35 with APG-85 will provide unmatched capability against current and future threats. Initial fielding for some F-35 aircraft is planned for Lot 17,” the F-35 JPO previously told TWZ in May when asked for an update on the radar situation. “The Program in coordination with the Services deliberately undertook a highly concurrent development and production program for advanced capabilities. This decision was made with full understanding of the risk of having production aircraft ready ahead of the capabilities.” A view of Lockheed Martin’s F-35 production line. Lockheed Martin “The program has plans to accelerate APG-85 production capacity to deliver radars that meet capability, stability, and maintainability requirements needed to meet emerging threats,” the office added at that time. “F-35s with APG-85 radars, actual modernization plans, capabilities, and schedules remain classified to maintain program security.” The F-35 JPO had provided TWZ with a similar statement when asked about whether radarless F-35s were already being accepted back in February. In February, the U.S. Air Force also explicitly denied receiving F-35As without radars. There is no confirmation yet that the F-35 JPO has accepted any Joint Strike Fighters for the Air Force or the Navy without radars. Previous reports have said that foreign customers are not expected to be impacted at all, at least in the near-term, since none of them are currently in line to receive AN/APG-85-equipped jets. Today, the standard radar in use on F-35A, B, and C variants is the AN/APG-81, an active electronically scanned array (AESA) type with air-to-air and air-to-ground modes that traces its roots back to the 1990s. It also has a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) mode, which allows it to produce high-resolution map-like images. These can be used for target acquisition and identification, as well as general reconnaissance purposes. A Lockheed Martin briefing slide giving a general overview of the capabilities the APG-81 provides the F-35. Lockheed Martin Examples of the existing APG-81’s SAR mapping capability. Lockheed Martin Details about the new AN/APG-85, which Northrop Grumman is developing, continue to be limited. At the hearing this week, Lt. Gen. Masiello declined to talk about its specific capabilities in an unclassified setting. The AN/APG-85 is also an AESA design, and is expected to offer an array of new and improved functionality compared to the AN/APG-81. As TWZ has previously noted, it will also just be able to leverage decades of additional general technological advancements since its predecessor was developed. In general, the use of gallium nitride (GaN) has had a major impact on modern radar developments when it comes to physical size, weight, and power requirements. It should also be noted that the AN/APG-81 is deeply integrated with the F-35’s extensive electronic warfare capabilities, as well as other sensors and facets of the design. The AN/APG-85 is similarly expected to fuse together with other key elements of the Block 4 upgrade package, especially a planned new electronic warfare suite, which we will come back to later on. Another briefing slide offering a general overview of the fusion of sensors and other systems on existing F-35s. Lockheed Martin As the F-35 JPO noted in its statement in May, the plan had been to start integrating the AN/APG-85 onto F-35s starting with production Lot 17. Deliveries of aircraft from that lot began last year. However, per official budget documents released earlier this year, the first production AN/APG-85s are not expected to be delivered before April 2028. This would actually be a nine-month improvement on the much-delayed delivery timeline for the new radars, the unit cost of which is currently pegged at nearly $9 million. A compounding factor here is that the hardware used to mount the AN/APG-85 on the F-35 is not backwards compatible with the AN/APG-81. According to a report last year from Breaking Defense, the Joint Strike Fighter’s prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, has reportedly at least raised the possibility of developing a common mounting solution, but also said that this would not be ready before Lot 20 aircraft start being delivered. The first Lot 20 jets are not expected to arrive until sometime between 2027 and 2028. A row of APG-81 radars. Northrop Grumman How the Marine Corps, or any other service, might utilize its radarless F-35s in the meantime is unknown. This was among our queries to the Marines today. “The currently fielded Block 3 (TR-2) F-35 Lightning II is the most capable fighter in the world today, having proven its capabilities in combat,” the Marine Corps spokesperson added in their statement. “Its advanced mission systems enable the F-35 to deter, and if necessary, dominate in any clime and place.” Senator Kelly also prodded Lt. Gen. Masiello about this, indirectly, at the hearing this week. “So, I assume that those airplanes can’t count as fully mission capable with no radar?” Kelly asked the JPO head. “I don’t think I would count them as fully mission capable,” Masiello said in response. “You say you don’t think. I can’t imagine a scenario where an F-35 with no radar could be an FMC airplane,” Kelly retorted, which Masiello did not push back on. A US Air Force F-35A heads out on a sortie in support of Operation Epic Fury against Iran in March 2026. USAF TWZ has previously noted that F-35s without radars would not be completely useless, but their capabilities and survivability would certainly be severely degraded. As we previously wrote: “As long as one F-35 in a formation has a radar, all of the other aircraft in said group should be able to benefit from the data it provides via their Multifunction Advanced Data Links (MADL). As such, even without a radar installed, a Joint Strike Fighter would not be without F-35-derived radar data if at least one other was flying cooperatively with it within MADL’s transmission reach.“ “It is possible that radar-less jets could be sent into combat, at least in an emergency scenario, though doing so would still require accepting greater risks. It would limit tactical flexibility, as well, since remaining linked together with other radar-equipped jets would be key. Those jets would also have to rely on using their radars more heavily, which can be a vulnerability. The F-35 also has a host of passive sensors that it can rely on for battlespace information, although none are capable of replacing the radar’s functionality. Data from other platforms transmitted via Link 16 is also available to all F-35 pilots.“ “Maybe one of the biggest issues with having no radar is that it is a major part of the jet’s electronic warfare suite. Its ability to transmit narrow, extremely powerful beams of energy adds to the jet’s potent electronic attack capability. So, without the radar, its ability to defend itself and others by leveraging the electromagnetic spectrum is also curbed.“ Remarks from Lt. Gen. Masiello at the hearing this week also raise new concerns about the capabilities that the AN/APG-85 radars will offer even when they do finally start being integrated onto F-35s. This is tied to what it will take to sufficiently cool the radar and other elements of the Block 4 upgrade package. Thermal management is another long-standing issue for all variants of the F-35, which has already had major negative impacts on readiness rates and maintenance demands, as you can read about in more detail here. An F-35 takes off with its afterburner engaged. Lockheed Martin “So, right now, you’re cooling, you got about 30 kilowatts [of cooling],” Senator Kelly said as part of another question posed to the head of the F-35 JPO. “Block 4 requires 32 [kilowatts of cooling], is what I have here. But to get to the cooling needed to – for the full capability of the APG-85, needs to be somewhat higher, it seems like 62 kilowatts of cooling?” “The requirement that we have for the program going forward is 62 to 80 [kilowatts of cooling],” Masiello said in response. “The challenge I see is if the totality of Block 4, when it’s installed, and on the aircraft, it takes the complete power available, which is 32 [kilowatts].” “There’s no margin, which as you know, is not a smart way to go,” he continued. “So, we have an incremental approach to increase that. And we have an ongoing program to look at a more systemic and affordable upgrade to the power thermal management across the program.” Masiello insisted that this Power and Thermal Management System (PTMS) upgrade would not be required for AN/APG-85 integration, but also made clear that it would be available in time, regardless. “For the engine core upgrade that we anticipate and have asked for additional funding on that, we anticipate that being fielded in 2031, and it will come with a marginal increase in the power thermal management,” he explained. “The actual system that’s under review and looking for the forward program will come a few years later into the system, which is when we would have the additional capabilities beyond Block 4, not yet to be determined that will require that.” Pratt & Whitney F135 engines for the F-35. Pratt & Whitney At the same time, as Masiello himself acknowledged, the current plan offers no margin when it comes to cooling before the PTMS upgrade is available. In response to further questioning by Senator Kelly, he declined to speak in an unclassified setting about what that might mean for the initial fielding of the AN/APG-85 radar. As noted, the entire Block 4 upgrade effort continues to be beset by delays and cost growth, despite efforts to reorganize and accelerate certain components thereof. As of September 2025, the schedule for delivery of a truncated portion of the upgrade package was still running five years behind, according to GAO. The original goal had been for F-35s with the full suite of Block 4 improvements to begin arriving this year. Beyond the AN/APG-85, Block 4 is eventually supposed to include replacements for the Joint Strike Fighter’s AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System (DAS) and Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS), as well as a new electronic warfare suite and a host of other improved capabilities. The Air Force previously described the electronic warfare package, which directly tied in with the APG-85, as a top priority. This is all driving the aforementioned demands for more auxiliary power-generation and thermal cooling capacity, work on which is also now behind schedule. The F-35 program as a whole continues to face growing costs and other challenges associated with operating and maintaining the jets, which are key factors in the low readiness rates of all variants in service today. Spare parts shortages have been a particularly persistent and serious problem, as you can learn more about in this past TWZ feature. US Air Force F-35As undergoing maintenance. USAF “That is now what we’re putting forth is the requirement, which is the reason why, in this generational investment of the 2027 budget will help us. So, we will fill up the available parts,” Lt. Gen. Masiello also said at the hearing this week. “It’s not a systemic issue with the system having the ability. It’s the fact that we didn’t put enough parts and pieces on the shelf. And we’ve increased the demand exponentially with the number of aircraft fielded, and we didn’t do the same thing with the spare parts and the system.” As of last year, the total project cost of the entire program, from initial development in the 1990s through the end of the type’s expected lifecycle in the 2070s, was pegged at $2.1 trillion. The JPO has stressed in the past that this figure includes the acquisition of thousands of jets and that inflation is expected to account for roughly half of the total cost. When it comes to the continuing saga of the AN/APG-85, F-35s are now being delivered without any radars, and it could be years still before that changes. Update: 6/29/2026 – The F-35 Joint Program Office has provided TWZ with the following new statement: “The program in coordination with the services deliberately undertook a highly concurrent development and production program for advanced capabilities. This decision was made with full understanding of the risk of having production aircraft ready ahead of the capabilities.” “As mentioned in the hearing the only aircraft delivered without radars are the six U.S. Marine Corps F-35s. No Air Force or Navy jets have DD-250’d.” “Information on when and how many F-35s without APG-85 radars will deliver in the future, modernization plans, and capabilities remain restricted to ensure ongoing program security and operational integrity.” JetZero secures North Carolina’s largest $4.7B incentive deal for 50% fuel-cut Z4 jets The startup aims to turn its fuel-efficient Z4 aircraft into a production reality while expanding into military applications. By Transportation Jun 16, 2026 06:48 PM EST JetZero Zero has started building its first aircraft factory in North Carolina, betting that an unconventional airplane design can reshape commercial aviation while bringing thousands of jobs to the state. The startup broke ground on a 8 million square foot manufacturing and assembly campus in Greensboro, where it plans to produce its blended-wing Z4 passenger jet. The project comes with $4.7 billion in planned investment and support from what North Carolina officials say is the largest incentive package ever awarded to a startup. The company expects the facility to create 14,500 jobs over the next decade, adding momentum to North Carolina’s push to establish itself as a major aerospace manufacturing hub. JetZero aircraft factory Different aircraft design Unlike traditional tube-and-wing airliners, JetZero’s Z4 uses a blended-wing body design that merges the fuselage and wings into a single structure. The aircraft is designed to carry about 250 passengers over distances of up to 5,000 nautical miles. JetZero claims the design could reduce fuel consumption by as much as 50 percent compared with today’s commercial jets. If those targets hold up in service, the aircraft could help airlines lower operating costs and reduce emissions without requiring major changes to airport infrastructure. JetZero has not yet brought the Z4 into commercial service. The company remains in the development phase as it works toward certification and future production. The startup has previously attracted attention from both commercial and defense sectors seeking more efficient aircraft designs. North Carolina Governor Josh Stein described the investment as a major economic win for the state, pointing to its potential to transform the Piedmont Triad region through new jobs and manufacturing activity. Digital manufacturing JetZero also plans to build the Greensboro facility differently from traditional aircraft plants. The company will use digital design platforms from Siemens and Deloitte to create a virtual model of the factory before construction advances further. Engineers can simulate assembly lines, test workflows, and identify bottlenecks before equipment reaches the shop floor. JetZero says the approach could shorten development timelines and make the plant easier to adapt as production expands. Industry analysts increasingly view digital twins and AI-assisted manufacturing as critical tools for aerospace companies facing pressure to boost output while controlling costs. Major manufacturers have invested heavily in such technologies to streamline production and avoid costly delays. The approach could also help JetZero scale operations more efficiently if demand for the Z4 materializes. Beyond commercial aviation The Greensboro plant could eventually support more than passenger aircraft production. JetZero is developing military versions of its blended-wing platform, including tanker and transport variants. The company says the design could allow refueling aircraft to carry greater payloads or operate over longer distances than conventional alternatives. The defense applications could broaden the startup’s revenue opportunities at a time when military planners are exploring more efficient aircraft concepts. Construction has already begun at the site, while hiring is expected to ramp up gradually over the coming years. For North Carolina, the project represents another attempt to attract high-value manufacturing jobs. For JetZero, it is a high-stakes effort to prove that a radically different aircraft design can move beyond prototypes and into commercial production. The Navy can’t afford to slow-roll its new trainer, even as competitors drop With Boeing and Lockheed both dropping out of the competition to replace the Navy's T-45, service officials need to press ahead, columnist Robbin Laird writes. By Robbin Laird on June 29, 2026 12:49 pm A T-45C Goshawk, attached to Training Airwing (TV) 2, launches from the flight deck of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75). (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Michael Gomez) This is the latest in a series of semi-regular columns by Robbin Laird, where he will tackle current defense issues through the lens of more than 45 years of defense expertise in both the US and abroad. The goal of these columns: to look back at how questions and perspectives of the past should inform decisions being made today. Boeing’s decision this month to withdraw the T-7A Red Hawk from the US Navy’s Undergraduate Jet Training System (UJTS) competition could open up the question of whether the service should slow down or reboot its search for a T-45 Goshawk replacement. The company became the second major competitor to drop out, after Lockheed Martin exited the field. That has left two teams: Textron/Leonardo with a navalized M-346 variant, and Sierra Nevada Corporation leading a consortium “white sheet” Freedom Trainer bid. And in the past, Pentagon officials have delayed or restarted competitions when competitors drop out, under the thinking that fewer bidders leads to a weaker outcome and operational risk. But delaying UJTS in search of a “better” competition would lock in a more immediate operational risk: keeping naval jet pilot production dependent on an aging, failure-prone T-45 fleet, and pushing even more of the basic training burden onto already-stressed F/A-18 and F-35C squadrons. The Navy does have choices to make between Textron and SNC. But it no longer has the luxury of pretending time is an independent variable. The T-45 Goshawk has been the backbone of Navy and Marine Corps carrier jet training since the early 1990s. It has also been the source of repeated training disruptions and safety concerns for more than a decade. In fact, at a recent Sea, Air Space Symposium, the then-outgoing Air Boss lamented failure to get the T-45 replacement moving as one of his biggest disappointments. Beginning with well-publicized physiological episodes tied to the aircraft’s oxygen system, and continuing through engine and component failures, T-45 availability has repeatedly forced the Navy into full or partial standdowns of the entire fleet. In 2017, T-45 pilots effectively refused to fly until the service addressed cockpit oxygen problems; a Navy review warned (PDF) at the time that finding a durable solution had “proved elusive.” More recently, in April 2024, an in-flight engine malfunction prompted Naval Air Forces to pause all T-45C operations while it reassessed the fleet’s airworthiness. Each of these events rippled through the pilot training pipeline. In 2020, the head of naval air training acknowledged that oxygen-system issues, engine problems, and other readiness shortfalls had already stretched strike fighter pilot training from roughly three years to closer to four, contributing to a fleet fighter pilot shortfall approaching 100 billets. T-45 disruptions were a central part of that story. Rear Adm. Gregory Harris, then the Navy’s director for air warfare, told an audience in 2021 that the strike fighter training pipeline had become “too darn long.” Instructor shortages and aircraft availability problems meant the Navy had “underloaded the program,” bringing in fewer students than required and stretching the time needed to develop a strike fighter pilot from about two and a half years to around three or longer. The result was a pilot shortfall already baked into fleet manning. CNATRA has since worked to shorten the backlog and has reported progress toward a “105-percent production” goal designed to burn down the queue. But those efforts are being made on top of a fragile hardware foundation. Even with improved syllabus design and greater reliance on simulation, every T-45 standdown and every year of recapitalization delay forces the command into the same trade-off: cancel or compress training events now and attempt to recover them later in the Fleet Replacement Squadrons (FRSs). The Navy has since launched a Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) for about 145 T-45s to keep the fleet viable into the 2040s. But the service’s own budget documents describe the jet as facing “significant aircraft, engine, and component obsolescence issues” that are “projected to dramatically increase operating costs and affect aircraft availability by 2030.” In other words, the life extension buys time; it does not eliminate the underlying risk. When the trainer fleet cannot deliver the necessary volume or syllabus depth, those shortfalls get absorbed by the operational fleet. The Navy has tried to mitigate those pressures through initiatives such as the “Flight School 2.0” model, expanded use of simulation, and syllabus restructuring, but the basic reality remains: shortfalls in intermediate and advanced training are ultimately absorbed by F/A-18 and F-35C squadrons. That shift carries real costs. The Pentagon’s own oversight bodies have documented how F-35 mission-capable rates have fallen well below program goals, with full mission-capable rates dropping into the mid-20 percent range and sustainment costs projected to exceed affordability targets in the 2030s. Every hour an F-35C or Super Hornet spends compensating for gaps that should have been filled by a trainer is an hour unavailable for high-end mission training and an hour of airframe life consumed on a far more expensive aircraft. From a fleet readiness perspective, delaying UJTS in hopes of attracting more competitors or refining the requirements document effectively trades near-term procurement flexibility for years of higher operating costs and degraded combat readiness. Fewer bidders, but more urgency Against that backdrop, what does the exit of Boeing and Lockheed actually mean? Boeing has been candid that the T-7A, already behind schedule for the Air Force, would have required additional engine qualification and other modifications to meet Navy UJTS requirements within the service’s desired timeline, creating a schedule and development-risk profile the company was unwilling to accept. Lockheed’s decision to withdraw its TF-50N concept has been linked to US content requirements and the economic difficulties of teaming with Korea Aerospace Industries under a tight development cap. Those exits have narrowed the field, but they have also clarified something important: the Navy’s schedule is not a rhetorical device. The service’s earlier requests for information stressed a requirement for roughly 200 aircraft and an initial operational capability (IOC) less than three years after contract award. That is an aggressive ask by Pentagon standards, and it reflects an institutional recognition that the T-45 SLEP is not a long-term solution. While the most recent request for proposal has provided more time from contract to IOC, presumably to give a higher risk “white sheet” design the chance to compete, the need has become no less compelling. Textron/Leonardo and Sierra Nevada now offer two different paths to recovering lost time. The M-346N brings a mature, in-service integrated training system with a well-established production capability and a proven track record training fliers for 5th generation aircraft in allied air forces. SNC’s “Freedom Trainer” offers a clean-sheet design similar in appearance to Textron’s Scorpion Jet which, while unproven and as yet undeveloped, claims to be optimized specifically for the Navy’s training needs. I don’t know which is the better choice for the Navy, but I do know this: Both are more likely to close the Navy’s training gap in a timely fashion than any notional restart that attempts to bring Boeing or Lockheed back into the competition. It is easy, in debates over acquisition strategy and industrial base, to treat “delay” as the safest option. In the case of UJTS, it is not. Waiting for more bidders or a revised requirement set does not freeze the current situation in place. It means more years in which the T-45 fleet faces rising obsolescence and safety risk, more chances of fleet-wide pauses that clog the training pipeline, and more pressure to offload fundamental training tasks onto frontline aircraft already struggling with their own readiness challenges. It further disrupts a program that is already late to need. Breaking Defense readers know that perfect should not be the enemy of good enough, especially when the “good enough” on offer has, in at least one case, already been well proven and represents a significant leap in capability and reliability over the status quo. In UJTS, the operational risk of further delay is no longer abstract. It is already visible in pilot shortfalls, lengthened pipelines, and a T-45 fleet the Navy itself describes as approaching an inflection point on cost and availability. On this program, every moment of delay spent searching for a “better” competition is an increased risk of training and readiness the fleet will not soon recover. F-35 program chief warns fleet has outgrown its support system amid record-low readiness By Michael Scanlon Wednesday, Jun 24, 2026 Marine Corps F-35B Lightning II aircraft with Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 214, Marine Aircraft Group 12, 1st Marine Aircraft Wing receive fuel from a Forward Arming and Refueling Point at Gwangju Air Base, South Korea. (Cpl. Chloe Johnson/Marine Corps) The F-35’s program chief conceded to senators Tuesday that the fighter has outgrown the system built to support it, weeks after a GAO report put readiness at the lowest level on record. Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Gregory Masiello, who took over the F-35 Joint Program Office last July, testified before an open session of the Airland Subcommittee as the program defends a fiscal 2027 request that bundles more than $13 billion for the jet in fiscal 2027 alone. The request includes a buy of 85 U.S. aircraft and full funding for the Block 4 modernization effort and the engine core upgrade. This hearing marks the first time the F-35 program’s leader has appeared before the subcommittee since 2016. Since then, the fleet has grown from 170 aircraft to more than 1,300. In his written testimony, Masiello pointed to a sustainment system that was originally built to support 700 to 800 aircraft, well short of the fleet now flying. “If I have over 1,300 operational aircraft out there, I believe we have set and enabled a sustainment system for about 7 to 800,” he said. “So there is our challenge in readiness.” The hearing comes on the heels of a Government Accountability Office report this month that found just one in four F-35s were fully mission capable (FMC), meaning able to fly all assigned missions. Overall mission capable rates of jets able to fly at least one mission fell from 67% in fiscal 2021 to 44%. Masiello put the program’s mission capable rate at 56%, above GAO’s 44%, a gap he ascribed to methodology. He stopped short of contesting the GAO’s FMC figure, but emphasized that “context matters,” arguing the discrepancy results from how his program defines mission capable. Partially dragging down the FMC rate is the acceptance of incomplete jets. Pressed by ranking member Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., Masiello confirmed the Marine Corps has accepted six F-35Bs with no radar installed, opting instead to wait for a newer APG-85 radar. When Kelly asked whether an F-35 with no radar could be considered FMC, Masiello conceded, “I don’t think I would count them as fully mission capable,” adding that he would discuss the radar’s capability in more detail in the closed session that followed. Masiello blamed years of underbuying spare parts as the fleet grew, not a broken system. In response, the program has launched what it calls the Global Support Solution Reset, a roughly $13.7 billion effort through 2031 that targets five problem areas including spares, depot capacity and maintenance plans. “It’s not a systemic issue with the system having the ability,” he said. “It’s the fact that we didn’t put enough parts and pieces on the shelf, and we’ve increased the demand exponentially with the number of aircraft fielded, and we didn’t do the same thing with the spare parts and the system.” Asked what is most responsible for keeping jets from FMC status, Masiello pointed to software issues and the jet’s canopies, whose limited lifespan he called a particular problem on a low-observable jet. The modernization track is running behind as well. The full Block 4 suite, once due in 2026, is now years off. Masiello said the program has fielded 22 of 55 planned Block 4 capabilities, the suite of new sensors, electronic warfare and weapons meant to keep the jet ahead of modern air defenses. The program fielded seven of those in last year’s software upgrade, with another six due this summer. Contributing to modernization delays are the jet’s power and cooling capabilities. The engine core upgrade, slated for fielding in 2031, is meant to power and cool the full Block 4 suite, whose new radar and sensors draw more power and generate more heat than the current jet can handle. On program accountability, Masiello said in his written statement that the program would revise contracts to carry “meaningful incentives and penalties,” a change GAO has urged for years after finding the program paid Lockheed Martin millions in fees even as readiness slid. But that isn’t GAO’s only recommendation. GAO has made 46 sustainment recommendations since 2014, including three in this month’s report. As of March, the Pentagon had implemented just 14, leaving most still open a decade later. Asked by the committee’s newest member, Sen. Ashley Moody, R-Fla., how many of the GAO’s recommendations the program had closed, Masiello wouldn’t commit to a specific number, preferring to note that they were “probably all to some degree in process.” Despite all the criticism, the jet’s unique capabilities drew high praise from across the aisle. Kelly, a Democrat and former Navy combat pilot, called himself and the committee strong supporters of the F-35 program. Kelly recalled flying an F-16 against an F-35, noting that he “could not see it on radar even when I’m looking right at it.” But he tied that support to accountability, telling Masiello the program needs to show it can improve readiness and control costs. Masiello made the same case from the program side, citing the jet’s prominent role in recent operations, including Epic Fury, the U.S. air campaign against Iran. He said operators had told him it was “the only aircraft that can hit some of the targets” those missions required and could “act as a quarterback of that joint force.” The program’s global reach adds to the sustainment burden. Allied nations own and operate most of the F-35s based in Europe and the Pacific, and they keep buying more. Masiello said Poland signaled plans to double its 32-jet order during his visit this month, though he had not yet seen a contract. That growing fleet draws on the same global spares pool and sustainment system now straining to keep U.S. jets ready, even as it spreads the program’s cost and industrial base across allied countries. Masiello warned that funding only part of the fiscal 2027 request would slow the production line and cut deliveries. For now, the readiness fight, modernization and the sustainment reset all hinge on a budget Congress has yet to pass. Delta Begins Fleetwide Installation Of VCT’s Drag-Reducing 737 Finlets Graham Warwick June 24, 2026 VCT's blade-like finlets smooth out the flow over the aft fuselage of the 737NG, reducing drag. Credit: Vortex Control Technologies Delta Air Lines is installing drag-reducing finlets across its fleet of 240 Boeing 737-800s and -900ERs following an extensive in-service evaluation with developer Vortex Control Technologies that validated a 1.2% reduction in fuel burn from the modification. The 25 in.-long, 2.5 in.-tall blade-like aerodynamic devices are installed on the aft fuselage of the 737NG to reshape the airflow, reduce flow separation and improve pressure recovery on the aft fuselage, lowering drag and reducing fuel consumption. Delta committed to fleetwide installation of finlets following an in-service performance validation involving 22 aircraft. Seattle-based Vortex Control Technologies (VCT) is now working with the airline to identify other types in its fleet that could benefit from finlets. Finlets were developed by key former members of the Lockheed Martin team who designed and tested drag-reducing microvanes for the Lockheed C-130 and Boeing C-17 airlifters. The devices were certified on the 737-700 in 2018, followed in 2023 by the -800 and -900ER. In service since October 2018, finlets are flying on 737s operated by six airlines including Avelo, Copa, Norwegian, Southwest and SunExpress, accumulating some 1 million passenger-carrying flight hours so far, says VCT chief engineer Rick Hooker. As its largest finlet order to date, Delta’s fleet retrofit is a milestone for VCT. “This followed successful completion of an in-service performance validation effort that was pretty extensive,” he says. “Keep in mind it’s not just about the performance. It’s about ease of installation of the devices, how they are to maintain.” Delta plans to install the finlets during maintenance checks as well as overnight outside at its Atlanta hub and aims to complete the fleetwide retrofit in just 18 months, which is half the time it took the airline to install split scimitar winglets on its 737NGs, says Jesse Miers, director of sustainability at Delta. Four finlets are installed asymmetrically on the 737NG’s aft fuselage, three on the left-hand side and one on the right-hand side where the “bicycle seat” vortex generator on the auxiliary power unit inlet already modifies the airflow over the aft fuselage. Weighing 1.8 lb., each finlet is machined from a block of aluminum. “They cost the same as a 3D-printed finlet, and it’s easier to scale production when they’re machined,” Hooker says. Lightly loaded aerodynamically, the devices are bolted directly to the skin with eight standard fasteners in an unpressurized area of the fuselage. Installing finlets enables the row of vortex generators between the 737’s horizontal and vertical stabilizers to be removed, reducing drag and eliminating a source of tailplane vibration, he adds. For a small company, the partnership with Delta was important, Hooker says. Based in Atlanta, the VCT design team was able to get access to Delta’s aircraft and conduct scans to ensure they had accurate geometry for their computational fluid dynamics tools. VCT was also able to work with Delta mechanics to streamline the installation process. “When we needed an aircraft for FAA certification flight testing, Delta helped us out,” he says. For the in-service validation, VCT and Delta collected data on the aircraft for three months before installation of the finlets and then three months after, looking at the performance increment. A control group of unmodified 737s went through the same process to see if there were any systemic changes over the six months, Hooker says. “Everyone wanted to prove to themselves, what do we actually see in our operation, in the real world?” Miers says. “And we’re so happy that we already have it on those 22 aircraft, with the recent spike in oil prices.” Boeing and U.S. Army use NGATS Pathfinder to speed AH-64E Apache maintenance and reduce aviation sustainment costs By Martin Chomsky (Defence Industry Europe) Air | June 29, 2026 Photo: U.S. Army. Boeing and the U.S. Army have completed a 12-month operational maintenance exercise intended to improve AH-64E Apache readiness and reduce sustainment costs. The effort used the first Aviation Test Program Set on the existing Next Generation Automatic Test System Pathfinder. Army sustainment personnel piloted new fault diagnostic and test procedures for the Apache aircraft interface unit at Fort Rucker in Alabama. Boeing supported the work, which officials said produced more than $1 million in cost avoidance on a single part. The exercise focused on helping maintainers diagnose faults faster where aircraft maintenance is performed. It also extended Boeing’s NGATS work from ground vehicles into aviation systems. NGATS has historically supported ground vehicles such as the Stryker, Abrams and Bradley platforms. Boeing Global Services previously upgraded the system last year to include the first aviation test program set. “Leveraging existing technology like NGATS to its maximum effect is going to show real returns for Army aviation,” said Col. Tim Harloff, commander of the Army Aviation and Missile Command Combined Logistics Command. His comments underlined the Army’s focus on using existing test technology to improve aviation maintenance outcomes. The U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence at Fort Rucker operates equipment equivalent to five combat aviation brigades. It also conducts 40% of the Army’s aviation flight hours, making it a significant test bed for maintenance improvements. Boeing said the work gives Army maintainers a new way to test aviation systems. The approach is intended to support readiness by improving fault isolation and reducing unnecessary costs. The company plans to continue expanding NGATS testing to more aviation platforms. Future applications are also expected to include unmanned aircraft and watercraft. “Further expansion using newly developed Aviation test program sets utilizing NGATS will continue to improve maintenance and sustainment outcomes and significantly reduce cost for the Army,” said Tammie Lalla, NGATS program manager. The statement points to a broader effort to apply the system beyond the Apache aircraft interface unit. The maintenance exercise reflects an effort to improve sustainment performance through faster diagnostics and better use of existing Army test infrastructure. Boeing said the work supports readiness and cost reduction as the Army looks to improve maintenance across multiple platforms. There’s no going back to the Concorde glory days Nasa’s experimental quiet supersonic aircraft X-59 flies over California - REUTERS/David Swanson Until Nasa and Lockheed Martin claimed their experimental X-59 may lead to a son of Concorde, the notion of commercial supersonic travel had been in long retirement. While the performance of any future American supersonic transport will be less extreme than Concorde’s, it will certainly be quieter. One reason for Concorde’s commercial failure was US authorities banning it from flying across America for fear of its sonic boom disturbing sleepy homesteaders. Thus, it was denied the lucrative West Coast market. While Concorde was a financial disaster, it had astonishing technology, was thrillingly beautiful and embodied eccentric national values which won unusual admiration and affection. Like the Spitfire, Concorde was both magnificent and absurd. Thus, essentially English. Concorde was an aeronautical and metallurgical marvel - Getty Images It was an aeronautical and metallurgical marvel. At its cruising speed of 1,300 mph, Concorde’s nose reached a temperature of 127 celsius. The fuselage skin – made of sci-fi-sounding Hiduminium RR58 – became so hot it stretched by several inches. The cabin walls were warm to-the-touch. Passengers could – with the first of many glasses of champagne to hand – see the curvature of the Earth from its tiny windows. The sky was purple and orange. Nothing better illustrates the distinction between English and American cultures than a comparison between Concorde and the Boeing 747 which first carried passengers in 1970, six years before Concorde’s original revenue flight. Concorde’s task was to facilitate the high-speed travel of a free-spending elite: people who were prepared to pay for showing off about getting to New York for lunch and be back in London in time for dinner. When Charles Saatchi was asked if he ever used public transport he said: “Yes. Concorde.” Concorde’s task was to facilitate the high-speed travel of celebrities such as Sting, pictured in 2001 - AFP/STEFAN ROUSSEAU Boeing, by contrast, wanted to democratise intercontinental travel. In a 747, comfort was secondary, but convenience and economy were prioritised for its 500 passengers nibbling miserable sachets of peanuts in conditions no more glamorous than an aerial day-care centre. Instead, Concorde’s passengers enjoyed not just a unique experience of flight, but de luxe design too. Air France’s Concordes had tableware and interiors designed by the raffish designer Franco-American Raymond Loewy. Jean Patou and Nina Ricci did the attendants’ uniforms for the French airline. There was no better way to travel. The “oh-my-god” thrust on take-off, soon followed by a sedative diet of that grande marque champagne, first-growth claret, smoked salmon and caviar. Perhaps a little Armagnac to finish. A strange quietness, as I recall, when going flat out. In the thin air, you were way above turbulence. Paradoxically, it was so gorgeous on-board, arriving in New York so quickly was a disappointment. It should have gone on forever. It will in my memory. Air France’s Concorde passengers enjoyed not just a unique experience of flight, but deluxe design too We feel so fondly of Concorde because it restores a fading memory of when England was second only to the US in aerospace. The de Havilland Comet was the first jet transport. The Fairey Delta 2 was the fastest plane of the 1950s. Hawker Siddeley built a fighter that could take-off vertically. Concorde was the end of something old rather than the beginning of something new. Like the bongs of Big Ben, Londoners came to know and adore the magnificent sound of the impossibly slim Concorde, seen in imitable silhouette, on evening flights to Heathrow. You could set your clock by it. And clock it was: despite unique engineering brilliance, Concorde’s flight deck had Spitfire-era manual controls, twitchy analogue instruments, valves, levers, pulleys and solenoids. It even had a flight engineer, monitoring the critical movement of fuel to keep the craft stable at Mach 2 on the edge of space. No one would bet against Nasa and Lockheed-Martin building a fine plane but is twice the speed of sound really what’s needed in air travel? Speed isn’t what it once was. Civilised airports would be a more valuable contribution to well-being. Meanwhile, there may be other supersonic planes. But there will never be another Concorde. It was a futuristic anachronism. Bell Completes First Two Wing Structures for the MV-75 Cheyenne Note: See photos in the original article. Fort Worth (June 11, 2026) – Bell Textron Inc., a Textron Inc. (NYSE: TXT) company, has successfully completed the assembly of two wing structures for the MV-75 Cheyenne, marking a significant milestone in the development of the next-generation aircraft. Bell will integrate these wings into the first two MV-75 test aircraft, advancing the program’s build process. The tiltrotor wing is a key piece of structure for the MV-75. It provides the structural backbone of the aircraft with robust strength, optimized stiffness, and enhanced survivability. As the industry leader in tiltrotor technology, these wings are a core competency for Bell. All key components are made within our facilities, including the composite wing skins and spars, the tailored aluminum substructure, and assembly. “After decades of building V-22 wings, we’ve learned new ways to do things better, faster and smarter by implementing these lessons into the design upfront,” said Culley Shafer, director of operations, Amarillo, Bell. “The team is constantly evolving, making adjustments, refining sequencing and implementing engineering changes to keep raising the bar on quality, safety and efficiency.” The first wing, completed in February, was fabricated with 90% fewer labor hours compared to the initial V-22 wing build. Building on this success, the second wing was produced with an additional 40% reduction, highlighting the team’s focus on affordability and production readiness. With the completion of the wing structures, the team is currently integrating their system provisions. The next step of the build assembly involves mating the wing structures with the fuselage, currently being assembled at the Wichita Assembly Center, and the Nacelle, which is also progressing through assembly. “As the assembly line continues to evolve, and systems content starts being populated into wings, we’ll keep learning and improving. This ongoing innovation will help shape how we build this aircraft for decades to come,” said Shafer. This achievement underscores Bell's commitment to advancing the MV-75 Cheyenne program build while upholding the highest standards of quality and safety. With the completion of the wing structures, Bell is making significant progress on the MV-75 test aircraft and is accelerating toward the program's test phase and production. This material is based upon work supported by the Army Contracting Command - Redstone Arsenal under Contract No. W58RGZ-23-C-0001. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Army Contracting Command - Redstone Arsenal. DARPA X-Plane Designed To Maneuver With Just Bursts Of Air Finally Gets Its Wings Aurora Flight Sciences and DARPA hope to see the X-65 drone fly next year after suffering delays and cost growth. Joseph Trevithick Published Jun 23, 2026 2:00 PM EDT Note: See photos in the original article. Aurora Flight Sciences The TWZ Newsletter Weekly insights and analysis on the latest developments in military technology, Terms of Service and Privacy Policy Aurora Flight Sciences is now putting the wings on the X-65 experimental drone. This is an important step forward for the X-65, which is designed to maneuver with bursts of air rather than traditional control surfaces. This is technology that could have significant implications for future military and civilian aircraft developments, especially when it comes to stealthy designs. The X-65 is being developed under the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (DARPA) Control of Revolutionary Aircraft with Novel Effectors (CRANE) program, which kicked off back in 2020. DARPA subsequently chose Aurora Flight Sciences, a subsidiary of Boeing, to proceed alone with the development of its design. Aurora moved into the latest phase of the program in 2024 and is now targeting a first flight next year. CRANE has suffered several delays and cost growth over the years, which we will come back to later on. A rendering of the X-65. Aurora Flight Sciences “The wings have arrived — the next big milestone for X 65!” Aurora Flight Sciences wrote in a post on its official account on X today. “Built at our WV [West Virginia] facility, the triangular wings enable active flow control testing across multiple sweeps. Integration is underway in VA as we push toward first flight for the @DARPA CRANE program.” A look at one of the wing sections for the X-65. Aurora Flight Sciences In November 2025, Aurora had also announced progress in construction of the central fuselage. The company has also done wind tunnel testing of subscale models, as well as digital modeling in past phases of CRANE. The X-65 has a so-called Co-Planar Joined Wing (CJW) planform that includes two sets of wings attached that merge together at the tips, creating the triangular shape on either side. They also have small extensions that extend from those tips, giving the drone a 30-foot wingspan. The design also has a twin vertical tail arrangement. There is a chin air intake under the forward fuselage, as well as a single exhaust. Renderings have shown that the design will have on t op of the forward end of the fuselage. At the time of writing, neither Aurora nor DAPRA appear to have disclosed details about the drone’s main propulsion arrangement. The X-65 is said to have a gross weight of approximately 7,000 pounds. This wind tunnel model offers a good general sense of X-65’s planform. Aurora Flight Sciences As noted, the most intrigueing aspect of the X-65 is the banks of active flow control (AFC) “effectors” that use bursts of highly pressurized air to roll, pitch, and yaw. Traditionally, fixed-wing aircraft use a mixture of flaps, rudders, and other surfaces that physically move to maneuver in flight. “The AFC system supplies pressurized air to fourteen AFC effectors embedded across all flying surfaces,” according to a press release Aurora put out last year. “The triangular wing design enables testing across multiple wing sweeps and is modular with replaceable outboard wings and swappable AFC effectors to allow for future testing of additional AFC designs.” “The X-65 will be built with two sets of control actuators – traditional flaps and rudders as well as AFC effectors embedded across all the lifting surfaces,” a 2024 press release from DARPA also notes. “This will both minimize risk and maximize the program’s insight into control effectiveness. The plane’s performance with traditional control surfaces will serve as a baseline; successive tests will selectively lock down moving surfaces, using AFC effectors instead.” This rendering of the X-65 highlights the banks of AFCs, in light gray, along the edges of the wings. DARPA “The X-65 conventional surfaces are like training wheels to help us understand how AFC can be used in place of traditional flaps and rudders,” Dr. Richard Wlezien, then the CRANE program manager at DARPA, also said at that time. “We’ll have sensors in place to monitor how the AFC effectors’ performance compares with traditional control mechanisms, and these data will help us better understand how AFC could revolutionize both military and commercial craft in the future.” “We’re building the X-65 as a modular platform – wing sections and the AFC effectors can easily be swapped out – to allow it to live on as a test asset for DARPA and other agencies long after CRANE concludes,” Wlezien also noted.... A DARPA briefing slide showing how the designs of traditional control surfaces, at their core, have remained largely unchanged after more than a century of other aviation technology developments. DARPA Being able to eliminate traditional moving control surfaces presents a host of potential benefits, as TWZ has detailed in past reporting on the CRANE program: “Getting rid of traditional control surfaces inherently allows for a design to be more aerodynamic, and therefore fly in a more efficient manner, especially at higher altitudes. An aircraft with an AFC system doesn’t need the various actuators and other components to move things like ailerons and rudders, offering new ways to reduce weight and bulk.” “A lighter and more streamlined aircraft design using an AFC system might be capable of greater maneuverability. This could be particularly true for uncrewed types that also do not have to worry about the physical limitations of a pilot.” “The elimination of so many moving parts also means fewer things that can break, improving safety and reliability. This would do away with various maintenance and logistics requirements, too. It might make a military design more resilient to battle damage and easier to fix, as well.” All of this could be especially valuable for stealthy aircraft designs, as we previously wrote: “While all of this could be beneficial for many aircraft type, AFC technology could be especially significant when applied to stealth designs. Designers of stealthy aircraft have to be mindful of any joints or other gaps between exposed surfaces, and try to generally keep them to a minimum, to ensure the radar cross-section remains as low as possible.“ “As such, traditional control surfaces, which by definition cannot always be flush with the rest of the aircraft’s external shape, are a major and currently inescapable issue. Fly-by-wire designs also keep these surfaces fluttering at all times to keep the stealthy aircraft stable in forward flight. AFC technology holds the promise of being able to change this reality and make it easier to optimize the radar-evading qualities of a stealthy design. Other technologies, like the ability to dynamically warp wing structures to provide flight control, could also help in future stealthy aircraft radar signature control.” A US Air Force B-2 bomber flies together with four Japanese F-35A Joint Strike Fighters. USAF A design like the X-65 that has the option of using either traditional control surfaces or AFCs could offer further flexibility. Deeper exploration of the potential of an AFC design is exactly the point of DARPA’s CRANE program, which is now aiming to kick off actual flight testing next year. As mentioned, there have been multiple delays in work on the X-65 over the years. The original goal was for the drone to fly for the first time in 2025. “The costs to produce the prototype aircraft for test flights ended up being higher than expected” and “DARPA chose to ‘strategically pause’ the X-65’s development and reevaluate the program,” Defense News reported in November 2025. Aurora also “confirmed technical and supply chain challenges were a factor in the program delays, as well as the inherent riskiness involved in working on a DARPA project.” It should be noted here that this is not the first time AFC technology has been experimented with. U.K.-headquartered BAE Systems, which also submitted a design for CRANE, tested a flying subscale AFC-equipped design called MAGMA in the 2010s, which you can learn more about here. Pentagon budget documents show that DARPA has received nearly $63 million in funding for CRANE since Fiscal Year 2024, when the program entered its third phase. DARPA is not asking for any additional money for this effort in Fiscal Year 2027, which it says reflects the expectation that it will conclude by the end of next year. As DARPA has said in the past, future programs could further continued use of the X-65 drone, as well as the technology it demonstrates. “We’re excited to continue our longstanding partnership with DARPA to complete the build of the X-65 aircraft and demonstrate the capabilities of active flow control in flight,” Larry Wirsing, Aurora’s Vice President VP of aircraft development, said in a statement last year. “The X-65 platform will be an enduring flight test asset, and we’re confident that future aircraft designs and research missions will be able to leverage the underlying technologies and flight test data.” With its wings finally delivered, the X-65 continues to take shape as Aurora and DARPA push toward finally getting the drone and its novel control arrangement into the air. Graduate Research Request Candidate in Aviation with a specialization in Human Factors at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. With nearly 40 years of experience in aircraft maintenance and aviation safety, his dissertation research examines how Aircraft Maintenance Technicians (AMTs) experience and describe decision-making during troubleshooting, inspection, and repair activities in Part 121 and Part 135 operations. The IRB-approved study seeks currently employed Part 121 and Part 135 AMTs with at least one year of maintenance experience to participate in one confidential 60 to 75-minute virtual interview focused on real-world maintenance decision-making. Participation is voluntary and confidential, and no proprietary or company-specific information will be requested. Although employed by the FAA, this research is conducted solely in an academic capacity and is not affiliated with or conducted on behalf of the FAA. Individuals interested in participating or learning more may contact Steve Poiani at poianadf@my.erau.edu. https://sites.google.com/view/aircraftmaintenancestudy/home Steve Poiani Doctoral Candidate Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University poianadf@my.erau.edu Curt Lewis