July 08, 2026 - No. 27 In This Issue : Boeing-owned Wisk Aero accused of firing manager who raised safety concerns : Hegseth creates powerful new drone office, pulling authority from the military services : United States ...FAA... authorities have finally reversed the 53-year ban on overland supersonic flight, : Aerospace engineers cut composite curing time by almost 50% with 3960-FC material : United Airlines New Boeing 787-9 Grounded Again Amid TCAS Failure : Boeing 737-10 undergoes gruelling crosswinds testing and the footage is wild to watch : US Navy tests 3D-printed composite patches to speed up F/A-18 fighter jet repairs : 3D-Printing Engines To Power Hypersonic Weapons Is Fast Becoming A Reality : Poor B-52 Readiness Creating Testing Challenges For New AGM-181A Nuclear Cruise Missile : Opinion: What Is Really Driving Next-Generation Airliner Timing : Graduate Research Request Boeing-owned Wisk Aero accused of firing manager who raised safety concerns Wisk Aero, the electric air taxi company owned by Boeing, has been hit with a lawsuit from a former employee, who claims she was fired after raising safety concerns. Former software manager Briahna O’Neill sued Wisk in Santa Clara Superior Court earlier this week, alleging discrimination and wrongful termination. The Seattle Times first reported on the lawsuit, noting that Boeing declined to comment. O’Neill said she filed two internal safety reports that outlined how Wisk had engineers reduce the amount of FAA-required software testing being done in order to hit a test flight deadline in 2025. O’Neill claims she was fired just weeks after filing the second complaint. Founded in 2019, Wisk is one of a number of companies trying to develop commercially viable electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft. It’s one of the few companies working on aiming for full autonomy. Wisk is also one of the eight companies that were approved earlier this year by the FAA to join a three-year program for testing such aircraft. Wisk said it cannot comment on ongoing litigation. Hegseth creates powerful new drone office, pulling authority from the military services By Michael Scanlon Jul 2, 2026, 02:02 PM Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in the Oval Office of the White House, Dec. 15, 2025. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon) Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has consolidated nearly all of the Pentagon’s drone and autonomous systems programs under a single new office that reports directly to his deputy and will oversee what Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell called “the most consequential battlefield innovation of this generation.” The Direct Reporting Portfolio Manager for Unmanned Systems, or DRPM-UxS, will become “the single joint integrator for all unmanned and autonomous system programs” in the department, according to a June 29 memo the Pentagon made public Wednesday. Its director, yet to be named, will answer to Deputy Secretary of Defense Stephen Feinberg and oversee how the military develops, buys, fields and sustains unmanned systems in the air, on the ground and at sea. The office’s reach is wide, including small drones in unmanned aircraft groups 1 through 3, unmanned boats, ground robots and counter-drone systems. It also covers the artificial intelligence and swarming software that guides them. Unmanned underwater vehicles will be handled jointly with the Pentagon’s submarine portfolio manager. The office’s authority stops short of the Pentagon’s major defense acquisition programs, the big-ticket programs that already follow a separate approval process set in law. That means large airframes like the Air Force’s Collaborative Combat Aircraft and the Navy’s MQ-25 Stingray and MQ-4C Triton stay with the services, as does the Navy’s medium unmanned surface vessel. Two existing organizations are now moving under the new office. Joint Interagency Task Force 401, which has led the fight against small aerial drones, will expand to countering unmanned threats in every domain. The Defense Autonomous Warfare Group, the Pentagon’s effort to mass-produce cheap drones, becomes a subordinate element. Neither will see its staff or positions relocated, the memo notes. The new office inherits one of the largest spending increases in the Pentagon’s budget. The department’s latest budget request set aside $53.6 billion for autonomous drone platforms, part of what Pentagon officials called an unprecedented commitment to drones and counter-drone systems. Separately, the memo names the Defense Innovation Unit, the Pentagon’s link to commercial tech firms, as the single point of contact for the new portfolio. The office holds significant power. It will act as the milestone decision authority for its programs, the official who decides whether a weapon advances through development, and it will take precedence on drone acquisition matters behind only Hegseth and Feinberg. The office can act as the top buying official on its contracts, order the services to shift money between programs through the Pentagon comptroller, and stop any system from reaching the field. The move also centralizes congressional engagement through the DRPM-UxS, requiring every part of the department to clear its drone-related plans with the office before contacting lawmakers. The memo says the office’s programs, jobs and people are exempt from the department’s hiring freezes, personnel reductions and reductions in force, and gives its chief the power to hire directly. The memo also lays out a staffing timeline. Once a director is named, hiring is to begin within 30 days, an organizational plan is due within 60 and a full list of the programs moving over is due within 90. The reorganization is the latest step in Hegseth’s push to field weapons faster, a broader “speed to delivery” initiative that has already drawn warnings from the government’s top auditor. A Government Accountability Office report released Tuesday found the Pentagon’s independent testing office, which Hegseth cut from 126 civilian jobs to 30 last year, now watches just 15 of about 110 active programs on one fast-track buying pathway, Defense News reported. It is the latest of several direct reporting portfolio managers Hegseth’s team has stood up to pull the department’s top priorities under Feinberg, and the widest in scope. What this all means for the drone programs already underway inside the services is not spelled out in the memo. Ensuring that the United States dominates the new supersonic race, the authorities have finally reversed the 53-year ban on overland supersonic flight, paving the way for the American Concorde to zip at full speed from Los Angeles to New York in just two hours by Sayan Chakravarty The United States is preparing to rewrite one of the most significant rules in modern aviation, opening the door to the return of civil supersonic flight over land more than five decades after it was effectively outlawed. Rather than simply reviving an era defined by the thunderous sonic booms of the past, the proposed regulatory overhaul reflects advances in aerospace engineering that could allow aircraft to travel faster than the speed of sound while dramatically reducing their impact on communities below. The proposal from the US Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration would replace the long-standing blanket ban on overland supersonic flight with a performance-based standard. Instead of prohibiting aircraft from exceeding Mach 1 over US territory, the new framework would permit supersonic operations only if manufacturers can demonstrate that the resulting sonic boom remains below a strict ground-level noise threshold, as reported by Bloomberg. The rule remains a proposal, with the FAA aiming to finalize it, along with separate airport noise standards, by mid-2027. From banning speed to regulating noise The existing restriction dates back to 1973, when the FAA prohibited civil aircraft from flying faster than the speed of sound over land following widespread public opposition to sonic booms. Earlier experiments, including months of testing over Oklahoma City during the 1960s, generated thousands of complaints and damage claims after repeated shock waves rattled neighborhoods, cracked plaster, and shattered windows. At the time, regulators concluded that available technology simply could not prevent disruptive sonic booms. The regulations severely limited the commercial viability of the Concorde. Also read - The United States had grand plans to crush the Concorde with a massive man-made island airport outside Los Angeles to launch Boeing's 300-seat Mach 2.7 supersonic jet from two 15,000-foot runways. Even before a single brick could be laid, the jet program was canceled. Today’s proposal reflects how dramatically that technology has evolved. Instead of regulating speed itself, the FAA is shifting its focus to measurable environmental impact. The proposed interim standard would require aircraft to keep sonic boom overpressure at ground level below 0.11 pounds per square foot, a level intended to remain well below the threshold associated with property damage. In practical terms, this is not a green light for the window-rattling booms once associated with supersonic travel. It is an attempt to legalize only those aircraft capable of producing a much softer sonic signature. Manufacturers would need to prove compliance using FAA-approved methods that could include advanced computer modeling, acoustic simulations, and extensive flight testing. Once certified under the new framework, aircraft operators would no longer need to seek special authorization for every individual overland supersonic flight, replacing a cumbersome test-era process with a standardized certification pathway. On take off the Concorde roared at 120 db Another important piece of the puzzle is still to come. The FAA plans to introduce separate take-off and landing noise regulations for supersonic aircraft later this year, recognizing that airport noise can be just as politically sensitive as sonic booms during cruise. Future supersonic airliners will therefore have to satisfy both en-route and airport noise standards before entering commercial service.The Concorde lands at LAX A domestic market that Concorde never unlocked The proposal has generated excitement because of its potential to revive commercial supersonic travel, but the real prize extends well beyond glamorous transatlantic routes. Concorde already demonstrated that premium passengers would pay to cross the Atlantic at twice the speed of sound. What it could never do was fly supersonically over the United States, preventing domestic routes from becoming commercially viable. Also read - As fast as the Dark Star jet piloted by Tom Cruise in Top Gun Maverick, this 12-seater hypersonic business jet can fly from New York to Tokyo in just 60 minutes That is precisely the opportunity companies such as Boom Supersonic have been targeting. The Colorado-based manufacturer’s Boom Overture has already attracted orders and pre-orders from major airlines and is designed to take advantage of quieter supersonic technologies. Once the aircraft enters commercial service and the new regulatory framework is in place, Boom says Overture could cut the journey between Los Angeles International Airport and New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport to just two hours, compared with roughly 5 hours and 30 minutes today. Boston based Spike Aerospace is developing a supersonic business jet The administration is also presenting the initiative as an industrial strategy rather than simply a transportation policy. Officials argue that modernizing outdated regulations will encourage investment in advanced aircraft, create high-skilled manufacturing and engineering jobs, accelerate the movement of people and goods, and reinforce American leadership in next-generation aerospace technology. The proposal does not immediately lift the decades-old ban, and commercial overland supersonic flights remain some years away. But by replacing an outright prohibition with a certification system based on measurable noise performance, the United States is laying the regulatory foundation for a new era of faster air travel. If manufacturers can deliver aircraft quiet enough to meet the FAA’s demanding standards, domestic supersonic flight could finally become a practical reality rather than a relic of aviation history. Aerospace engineers cut composite curing time by almost 50% with 3960-FC material The newly introduced 3960-FC is a fast-cure version of Toray CMA’s existing 3960 aerospace pre-preg system. Read Next: Apache vs Ka-52: Which attack helicopter is better for modern warfare? By Rupendra Brahambhatt Science Jul 05, 2026 12:12 PM EST Engineers working on a plane in an aircraft manufacturing facility. Monty Rakusen/Getty Images The aerospace industry has spent decades making aircraft lighter, stronger, and more fuel-efficient. However, today its biggest engineering challenge is no longer designing better aircraft—it’s building enough of them to meet soaring demand. Aircraft manufacturers are currently sitting on record order books. For instance, Airbus alone ended 2025 with a backlog of 8,754 commercial aircraft, highlighting just how far demand has outpaced production capacity. Part of this challenge lies in the materials themselves. Many modern aircraft rely on carbon-fiber composites, and every composite part must be cured (a heat-driven hardening process) before it can move to the next production stage. A single aircraft can contain thousands of composite components, from structural panels to internal supports, and each one must spend time in specialized curing equipment. While the delay for a single part may be measured in hours, those hours add up across an entire production line, creating a bottleneck that can limit how many aircraft a factory can build. Now, a newly developed composite material promises to remove a significant portion of this waiting time. This new material, called 3960-FC, is developed by Washington-based aerospace materials company Toray CMA (Composite Materials America). “3960-FC accelerates manufacturing cycles while maintaining the mechanical and structural performance customers expect,” Jeff Cross, Director of Aerospace Business Development at Toray, said. A faster version of an existing aerospace material The newly introduced 3960-FC is a fast-cure version of Toray CMA’s existing 3960 aerospace pre-preg system. Pre-preg, short for pre-impregnated, consists of carbon fibers that have already been infused with a carefully controlled amount of epoxy resin. Manufacturers stack these materials into the desired shape before curing them to create strong, lightweight aircraft components. Rather than changing the structural capabilities engineers already rely on, 3960-FC focuses on shortening the curing stage itself. During this curing stage, chemical reactions harden the resin and lock the fibers together into a strong, lightweight structure. 3960-FC is designed to complete this step much faster. While Toray has not disclosed the specific chemical modification behind the material, the company says the new formulation can reduce curing times by up to 45 percent. “Engineered for mission-critical aerospace and defense applications, this fast-cure system reduces cure time by up to 45% while maintaining the proven mechanical performance of the 3960 system,” the Toray team notes. The company says the material demonstrates equivalence with data contained in the National Center for Advanced Materials Performance (NCAMP) database, a widely used aerospace benchmark. This could make it easier for manufacturers to evaluate and adopt the material because its performance can be compared against data that is already familiar to the aerospace industry. Moreover, despite the faster processing time, the material retains the characteristics required for demanding aerospace applications. “Building on the material capability of 3960, 3960-FC delivers exceptional toughness, hot/wet performance, tensile strength, stiffness, and damage tolerance,” the Toray team added. Designed for modern aircraft factories Speed is only part of the story. The material is also designed to fit into existing manufacturing workflows, reducing the need for major changes on the factory floor. It is compatible with automated production methods such as Automated Fiber Placement (AFP) and Automated Tape Laying (ATL), robotic systems that rapidly place composite material onto molds to create large aircraft structures. “The material is highly compatible with a broad range of automated manufacturing technologies,” the Toray team said. The system also supports lower-temperature tooling for prototype development, which can reduce tooling costs. In addition, it expands vacuum-bag-only (VBO) processing options and supports compression molding consolidation, both of which can help manufacturers shorten production cycles and lower manufacturing expenses. Another notable feature is its relatively low exotherm risk. During curing, some epoxy systems generate significant heat, particularly in thick composite structures. Excessive heat can affect part quality and complicate manufacturing. According to the company, 3960-FC is less prone to these heat-related issues than many other accelerated epoxy systems. What it could mean for future aircraft production 3960-FC is intended for applications ranging from primary aircraft structures and rotorcraft components to mid- and large-sized drones, launch vehicles, and rockets. The significance of this material doesn’t lie in making aircraft stronger than before, but in helping manufacturers produce composite structures more efficiently. By reducing the time parts spend in curing equipment, factories could potentially process more components using the same infrastructure, easing one of the production bottlenecks facing the aerospace industry. However, the technology is not a complete solution to aerospace production challenges. Manufacturers will still need to qualify the material, integrate it into existing production lines, and satisfy certification requirements before widespread adoption can occur. If the material performs as advertised, it could help manufacturers increase production rates without sacrificing the structural reliability required for flight-critical components. United Airlines New Boeing 787-9 Grounded Again Amid TCAS Failure United's flagship Boeing 787-9 with 222 seats and new Polaris Studio cabins suffers another operational setback after repeated TCAS faults forced the cancellation of Flight 939 from London. By Kevin Derby July 4, 20263 Mins Read ShareFollow Us LONDON– United Airlines (UA) has suffered another setback with its newest premium Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner after the aircraft was grounded again following reported Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) problems. The latest disruption forced the cancellation of a scheduled flight from London Heathrow Airport (LHR) to San Francisco International Airport (SFO), raising fresh questions about the reliability of the carrier’s flagship aircraft. The aircraft, registered N61101, recently returned to service after undergoing maintenance at Boeing’s Moses Lake facility in Washington. However, only days after resuming international operations, the Dreamliner encountered another technical issue, preventing its planned transatlantic return and extending a series of operational interruptions that have affected the aircraft since its introduction. Photo: Tony Hisgett | Wikimedia Commons | United Boeing 787 Issues Persist Despite Repairs The latest interruption reportedly centers on the aircraft’s TCAS, a critical onboard safety system designed to alert pilots to nearby aircraft and help prevent mid-air collisions. According to aviation industry reports, the Dreamliner has experienced repeated failures involving the system despite undergoing extensive maintenance. Industry sources indicated that both TCAS antennas were replaced while the aircraft was at Boeing’s Moses Lake facility. Even after those repairs, the system reportedly failed again while the aircraft was at London Heathrow, prompting additional maintenance and another grounding. United had not publicly confirmed the exact cause of Friday’s cancellation at the time of writing. The airline also has not stated whether the latest grounding is directly linked to the previously reported TCAS faults, although the timing closely aligns with the recurring maintenance concerns. Photo: Shared by Airliners.net User Flight Cancelled After TCAS Issues The premium-configured Dreamliner returned from Moses Lake on June 30 before completing a domestic flight to Houston. It then successfully operated its scheduled service from San Francisco to London on July 2, arriving without significant delays after approximately ten hours in the air, Simple Flying flagged The return service, United Flight 939, was expected to depart London at 6:15 p.m. local time. Instead, the flight was canceled after the aircraft developed another apparent technical issue before departure. Flight tracking data later showed the aircraft remained parked at Heathrow while engineers continued troubleshooting the problem. Current operational plans indicate the aircraft is expected to return to San Francisco on a repositioning flight once maintenance is completed, although schedules remain subject to change. Photo: Shared by Airliners.net User Premium Cabin Debut Challenges N61101 represents one of the most important aircraft in United’s long-haul fleet expansion. It is the airline’s first Boeing 787-9 equipped with its new elevated cabin interior, featuring eight Polaris Studio suites, 56 Polaris Business Class seats, 35 Premium Plus seats, 33 Economy Plus seats, and 90 Economy seats. The aircraft also introduces several new passenger amenities, including larger 4K OLED entertainment displays, Starlink-powered Wi-Fi connectivity, and an upgraded premium dining experience. The configuration gives the jet the highest number of premium seats among United’s widebody fleet. Despite its advanced interior, the aircraft has experienced multiple maintenance-related interruptions since entering service earlier this year. The recurring technical challenges have resulted in canceled flights, maintenance inspections, and a return visit to Boeing for corrective work. United and Boeing are expected to continue monitoring the aircraft closely as engineers work to resolve the recurring issues before it returns to regular long-haul operations. Stay tuned with us. Further, follow us on social media for the latest updates. Join us on Telegram Group for the Latest Aviation Updates. Subsequently, follow us on Google News Boeing 737-10 undergoes gruelling crosswinds testing and the footage is wild to watch Published on Jul 03, 2026 at 7:05 PM (UTC+4) by Daisy Edwards Last updated on Jul 03, 2026 at 7:05 PM (UTC+4) Edited by Kate Bain Note: See photos and videos in the original article. Get our stories first Follow Supercar Blondie on Google News The Boeing 737-10 airplane is really good at handling crosswinds and that’s due to the grueling testing process that happens behind the scenes. The aircraft was pushed through intense certification flights designed to prove its autoland system could handle extreme wind conditions in real-world scenarios. Engineers deliberately tested the jet beyond its published crosswind, headwind, and tailwind limits to ensure it could still land safely under pressure. The testing is part of the final certification process for the largest member of the 737 MAX family, where reliability in difficult weather is absolutely critical. Extreme Boeing 737-10 crosswinds testing The Boeing 737-10 airplane uses the same autoland feature found across other 737 MAX variants, but it still has to be individually certified. That means engineers must demonstrate that the system works not just in theory, but in the most demanding real-world conditions it is likely to face. To do that, they intentionally fly in winds that meet or exceed the limits listed in the operations manual. During testing, engineers focused heavily on how the autopilot responds when dangerous crosswinds try to push the aircraft off its flight path. The system must continuously make precise corrections to keep the aircraft aligned with the runway, especially during the final stages of landing. Even small delays or instability are closely monitored and analysed during certification. Boeing Crosswind testing is widely considered one of the hardest parts of flight certification because suitable conditions are unpredictable and difficult to find. Flight test teams constantly monitor weather models and often have only a couple of days of reliable forecasting before being ready to launch. When the right conditions appear, the crew must move quickly to take advantage of the window. Boeing Footage from test flights Footage from test flights shows just how demanding crosswind certification can be in practice. The aircraft can be seen operating in very windy conditions where constant corrections are required to maintain a stable approach and landing path. These scenarios are essential for confirming that the autoland system can perform safely even when the weather is working against it. And especially important when the plane’s full of passengers. Boeing Test pilots also deliberately explored worst-case scenarios, including situations where certain systems were not functioning as expected. This allowed engineers to assess how the aircraft would behave under worst conditions and ensure there was enough safety margin built into the system. Boeing Boeing test pilot Dan Mangel praised the plane and the test, highlighting how efficiently the team was able to complete the test. He described the jet as ‘a pilot’s airplane,’ adding that it remained enjoyable to fly even in challenging conditions. Despite the intensity of the campaign, engineers described the process as highly efficient, managing to capture the necessary wind conditions within a short testing window. The 737-10 airplane ultimately demonstrated performance consistent with other Boeing aircraft from the MAX range when it comes to autoland capability. Props to the Boeing 737-10 and the team behind it! US Navy tests 3D-printed composite patches to speed up F/A-18 fighter jet repairs The engineers have designed 3D-printed composite patches that can be manufactured and applied directly on the aircraft. By Mrigakshi Dixit Military Jul 02, 2026 11:57 AM EST An F/A-18 Super Hornet pilot prepares for flight at Fleet Readiness Center Southwest in San Diego. NAWCAD Visual Information The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD) and Fleet Readiness Center Southwest (FRCSW) have co-developed a 3D-printed composite repair method designed to reduce F/A-18 Super Hornet maintenance times by approximately 50 percent. When an F/A-18 fighter jet gets damaged at a remote base, fixing its advanced composite parts typically takes weeks. The Navy had to wait for specialized technicians to arrive or ship massive parts across the globe to repair depots in the US, keeping combat jets grounded. Also, the Navy faces a drop in critical combat readiness as it struggles to keep up with fighter jet repairs. The new method could solve this challenge. The engineers have designed a high-performance, 3D-printed composite patches that can be manufactured and applied directly onto grounded aircraft. Rather than waiting weeks for a shipping container, sailors at forward bases can soon hit print. “Our goal is to put capability directly into the hands of the Fleet,” said NAWCAD Commander Rear Adm. Todd Evans. “By simplifying a complex repair so it can be done forward, our engineers would get aircraft back in the fight faster – it’s a smart solution that makes our squadrons more self-sufficient and directly improves operational readiness.” Print, patch, fly The strategy’s real advantage is that it leverages infrastructure the Navy already owns. As per the official release, the service has deployed industrial 3D printers to 22 maintenance sites around the world. The process strips away geographic vulnerability. Sailors can complete repairs on-site instead of waiting for replacement parts to be shipped from repair depots in the United States by manufacturing the necessary patches where the aircraft are deployed. Transitioning 3D printing from a novelty to a flight-ready combat repair requires extreme precision. To guarantee safety, the joint engineering team developed extensive application procedures and specialized quality checks. The patches are designed to withstand the extreme aerodynamic forces and thermal environments typical of supersonic fighter operations. The technology has already passed strict laboratory tests. Flight testing expected soon In the summer, it faces the ultimate test: a live flight demonstration on an operational Super Hornet. This is the U.S. Navy’s primary carrier-based, twin-engine fighter jet. It handles everything from air-to-air combat to precision bombing runs. Testing the 3D-printed patch on an operational jet, instead of a stripped-down laboratory model, will be a huge milestone. It will ultimately showcased whether or not the Navy is confident enough to let a pilot fly a frontline combat jet at high speeds with a 3D-printed part attached to it. Reportedly, this deployment of the new patch method aligns with a major structural shift for the U.S. Marine Corps, which plans to deactivate all remaining Hornet squadrons by 2030. The service is phasing out the maintenance specialties associated with the aging fighter jet as it transitions entirely to a tactical fleet of fifth-generation F-35 Lightning II aircraft. Nevertheless, if the method gets widely adopted, the patch method will fundamentally alter how naval aviation views sustainment. The Navy will be able to respond to the demands of modern combat with much greater speed and agility. 3D-Printing Engines To Power Hypersonic Weapons Is Fast Becoming A Reality Branded Content: 250 years since America’s founding, Ursa Major’s new approach to solid rocket motors and hypersonics supports the next era of U.S. defense innovation. Jamie Hunter Published Jul 1, 2026 11:44 AM EDT Note: See photos in the original article. “Imagine the scenario; one of our Havoc hypersonic missiles loaded on an F-15EX Eagle with a mission profile locked-in and ready to go. This new missile is designed for low-cost and high-effect – it’s very difficult for an adversary to track in flight,” explains Chris Spagnoletti, chief executive officer of Ursa Major, as he discusses the company’s expanding hypersonics activities. Part of a company strategy to help overcome critical Department of War munitions shortages, Ursa Major’s Havoc was unveiled in early 2026. With a unique 3D-printed propulsion system, Havoc has been envisioned as a hypersonic missile that aims to re-write the rulebook for these types of weapons. Ursa Major’s ambitious vision comes at a time of something of a renaissance in U.S. aerospace development and defense manufacturing, with newer firms establishing major positions within a rapidly evolving marketplace. These fresh takes on cutting-edge defense technologies also come as the United States celebrates its 250th birthday and looks back on a history of unlikely up-starts changing the world with new ideas and ways of doing business. It’s in this same spirit that Ursa Major looks to stake its claim. Ursa Major’s Affordable Rapid Missile demonstrator, powered by the company’s Draper liquid rocket engine. U.S. Army via Ursa Major The firm is evolving from a propulsion provider into a prime contractor and integrator with a keen focus on hypersonics and solving a need for affordable high-speed missiles at scale for the U.S. and its allies. In recent operations, the U.S. has fired a vast number of standoff air-to-ground weapons including more than 850 Tomahawks cruise missiles in the recent war with Iran and hundreds of high-end interceptors, stressing a system that’s been constrained by prolonged replenishment timelines. Spagnoletti says he strongly believes that hypersonic missiles are “the most important and pressing issue within critical munitions, with solid rocket motors coming close behind.” The company’s approach to design and production in both of these areas means Spagnoletti sees Ursa Major as being “well positioned to solve” these pressing requirements for the U.S. military. “We are innovating on manufacturability and on new munition systems,” he continues. “It’s all under the umbrella of scalable munitions. Ursa Major’s founders really focused on developing very complicated propulsion systems, but with a strong propensity on design for manufacturability – essentially developing very high performing rocket engines as low-cost and as reliably as possible.” Ursa Major has produced hundreds of engines and motors and accumulated more than 135,000 seconds of hotfire test time in under a decade. From its very beginnings the company has innovated through advanced manufacturing techniques that have evolved to leverage AI-enabled 3D-printing, specifically metal printing. “We’re looking at the problem set, and the landscape here is about how we can help the United States catch up as quickly as possible. We don’t just want a “me too” product, because we find there’s a lot of that in this space. This is about finding real answers to the desperate need to replenish our critical munitions fast,” says Spagnoletti. Solid rocket motors in high demand Having started out with liquid rocket engines, Ursa Major increasingly saw a burgeoning requirement for solid rocket motors (SRMs) for munitions, which Spagnoletti says have remained tied to traditional manufacturing approaches. Ursa Major says its approach to SRM manufacturing is designed to complement and strengthen the broader defense industrial base by providing flexible manufacturing capacity, common architectures, and modernized production methods. Ursa Major’s manufacturing approach fundamentally changes how SRMs are designed and built using additive manufacturing, modular tooling, and software-backed production cells. This enables rapid switching between SRM variants without expensive retooling, which reduces production timelines and increases flexibility. Ursa Major makes significant use of additive manufacturing across its engines. Ursa Major In addition, Ursa Major’s highly-loaded grain technology increases motor performance and range without increasing motor size. By leveraging common architectures and using a limited set of qualified propellants, it says it can reduce qualification timelines and simplify production across multiple variants. The company’s energetics (solid propellent grain) strategy aims to expand domestic propellant capacity and reduce dependence on fragile supply chains, while using reliable mix, cast, and cure processes. “Both in the liquid rocket engine side, and in solid rocket motors, the approach from the outset is deeply embedded in our culture; how we design, how we build, how we scale,” says Nick Doucette, co-founder and vice president of strategic operations for Ursa Major. “We came at the manufacturing problems from a completely different direction. We started out building liquid rocket engines, which were – to a degree – supporting the launch industry. That approach allowed us to develop new platforms that use new types of fuels or higher performance rates and lower costs.” “From the start it helped support a growing launch industry, but very quickly it started to find its way into the hypersonics community as our engines, products, and performance points really started to solve some interesting problems. As we leaned heavily into the hypersonics needs, we realized that the early Ursa Major approach in manufacturing and the types of tech that we’re using are really solving some of the actual problems, and that led to our solid rocket motor programs.” When building solid rocket motors, the inert part of the manufacturing leverages additive manufacturing heavily – Ursa Major avoids fixed tooling. “For example, after we qualify a motor, say a specific diameter booster, and then the government comes back to us and says that the adversaries have adapted. Now they want slightly different thrust, or maybe get additional range. We’ve already thought about that, our manufacturing line doesn’t need to change. We can use the same manufacturing line and adapt it,” explains Spagnoletti. Solid rocket motor testing. Ursa Major “We kept the energetics formulation essentially the same – it’s tried and true and it has been munition-tested for years – but we looked at the problem from the manufacturability of the entirety of the system. From a contracting point of view, this gives the government a lot more flexibility and to be as agile as the adversary. This has been happening on the development side for the past three years, working with several primes and the U.S. Navy. They’re inherently leveraging our ability to turn things fast, and now that’s translating into contracts for us.” “The Navy really understood our approach to manufacturing,” adds Doucette. “They challenged us to apply our approach with liquid rockets to the solid rocket motor industry. To look at the problems and peel back the onion on solid rocket motors. What we found is that the choke point actually lies the metallic components that make what we call the inert tube section, that then gets packed with the energetics. The energetics are difficult for sure, but what actually chokes the supply chain is the 36-plus months to make the metallic tube structures. To compound the problem, all these production lines of the last 30, 40, 50 years are designed around one platform. Can you imagine an automotive company that has a huge expensive factory but only ever makes one car model! I mean, it would economically go out of business.” “We have demonstrated that, by looking at the steps to make a solid rocket motor, be it metal printing the end domes or how we do the internal features and make the actual case to how we in some cases load the highly-loaded grain to get more performance, we can do all of it on the same production line for any motor between two inches and 22 inches in diameter. The same equipment, the same people, the same factory footprint. If we want to scale, we just copy paste the factory. If the demand signal changes in a year – which if recent conflicts give us any indication they probably will – that factory can switch over to a different munition. We just stop making one size and tool up for the new size in a matter of months.” Ursa Major’s primary 93-acre corporate headquarters is located in Berthoud, about an hour north of Denver, Colorado. Here the company has the facilities to test its liquid rocket engines on site and it also designs, develops, and manufactures here. “Our main building is really split in half,” explains Spagnoletti. “On one side we have liquid rocket engine manufacturing and development to power hypersonics, and on the other behind a steel rolling door are the solid rocket motor development and low-rate production as part of our replenishment of critical munitions.” Live fire testing of a small diameter solid rocket motor. Ursa Major “At the Colorado site, we’re actually grinding, mixing, casting, curing thousands of pounds of energetics per year for our solid rocket motors, with a lot of automation built-in to not only protect the people but also to make the process more consistent. We have another site for our high volume solid rocket motor production – it needs a lot of space – and we are targeting to manufacture hundreds of thousands of pounds of energetics for use in various shapes and sizes by the middle of 2027.” The company has expanded with more than 400 acres for SRM production in Galeton, Colorado. Solid rocket motors of all sizes Nick Doucette already sees the solid rocket motor work evolving. “We will eventually boost-power our Havoc system with our solid rocket motors. Remember, we got into SRMs due to seeing the critical munition needs, with an open door for manufacturing innovation and a problem we want to help solve. So we’ve built a manufacturing approach and we are now building a multitude of different size classes for different customers.” The smallest SRM that Ursa Major is actively working on is for the Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System, or APKWS, from BAE Systems. “This currently uses a very dated motor and there’s been a lot of need in the industry to essentially innovate on that motor,” explains Doucette. “So we’ve been working extensively with both BAE Systems and the U.S. Air Force on that particular platform, especially with highly loaded grain, and we see a very promising future there.” Doucette explains that Ursa Major has already made several hundred 2.75-inch motors for testing and development. This will be an extended range version of the motor, packing a significantly larger amount of energetic material into the same size rocket casing. A common modular solid rocket motor in test. Ursa Major In 2024, Ursa Major won a contract with the Naval Energetics Systems and Technologies (NEST) program to develop and test a new design to apply its SRM manufacturing processes to the Mk104 dual-thrust rocket motor that powers the U.S. Navy Standard Missile 2 (SM-2), used for surface-to-air defense, and the SM-6 anti-air, land, and sea missile. Trusted solid rocket motor providers are in limited supply, and the versatility of Ursa Major’s production process opens up a raft of potential opportunities, particularly in the missile defense space. The 10-14-inch range is what Doucette calls a “sweet spot” for interceptor missiles. Asked about air-to-air missiles, Doucette says: “of course, we’re looking at it. There’s been a lot of conversations around how Ursa Major would approach the problem, but we have a lot going on already, so we’re making sure we don’t try to swallow the whole critical munitions list at once.” “Most of these larger hypersonic weapons are all boosted,” adds Doucette. “These have a booster in the back end, and we have additionally completed internal work to develop that 22-inch diameter SRM capability. So now we can do anything from 2-inch to 22-inch on that same production line using our common modular manufacturing approach.” Unleashing Havoc Ursa Major’s parallel efforts in hypersonics brings the story full circle. Alongside the solid rocket motors business, hypersonic missiles have become a critical part of the company’s efforts, as Nick Doucette picks up the story. “There’s two specific products that Ursa Major makes in the hypersonics realm right now. The first is an engine that’s liquid oxygen-powered with rocket fuel. We call it Hadley, and we’ve had that for the better part of a decade. Hadley powers the Stratolaunch hypersonic Talon A testbed, for example. We don’t make the vehicle, we just provide the engine and support services, and Hadley has flown 10 times now.” The Talon A testbed, powered by the Hadley engine. Ursa Major “The challenge with Hadley is that it uses cryogenic liquid oxygen, which presents a whole suite of issues from a tactical perspective. A military user can’t sit and wait for the propellant to get cold, like you do with liquid oxygen. We needed to make a similar engine, slightly lower thrust, a little smaller, but essentially in the same packaging, make it storable and most importantly, make it tactical, so that you can drop it from a plane or shoot it vertically from a ship. So we switched from liquid oxygen to hydrogen peroxide.” “The catch there was that the only way we were able to do that in the right packaging, tightness, and density, was to use 3D-printing. Fast-forward through six years of insane additive development and the Draper engine became a reality. It simply would not have been possible without massive advances in the additive world because of the complexity of what we’re doing geometrically. It’s a really challenging thing to do.” Draper is a 4,000-pound-thrust engine that is powered by hydrogen peroxide and rocket fuel. Its use of non-cryogenic storable propellants enables long-duration storage, rapid deployment, and operational flexibility in real-world conditions. Its massive potential drove Ursa Major to search for a suitable hypersonic vehicle design to match it with. “We strongly believed that Draper introduced a differentiating threat vector for any adversary,” Doucette continues. “China has had boost-glide hypersonics for a decade. Other hypersonic designs use a scramjet, which are costly and complex. Draper opened up hypersonic performance, where you have a wide range of trajectories and adaptability as well as other really creative mechanisms that, to be honest, the adversaries don’t have. I mean it’s wildly different, which we see as being a very valuable asset to the national security arsenal. The Draper engine, which is powered by hydrogen peroxide and rocket fuel. Ursa Major “The concept of using a liquid rocket engine for a hypersonic weapon is absolutely game changing. Draper can be throttled – unlike solid rocket motors that use a pre-mixed propellant and oxidizer that cannot be controlled once ignited – plus it’s designed to be more safely stored than other liquid rocket engines, providing the tactical storage capabilities that are typical of a solid rocket motor.” Doucette says that Ursa Major looked to find a partner for the vehicle itself, but concluded that none were suitable, particularly when it came to moving fast. The decision was made to go it alone in-house with an air vehicle. The result is Havoc, which is designed like other hypersonic programs to fly in excess of mach 5, and intended to be launched in a variety of ways; as a single-stage from an aircraft or ground-launched with added booster stages. It’s also designed to run out at circa $3-million apiece. “We entered a rapid campaign in partnership with the Air Force Research Laboratory and we went from concept to flight-ready in about six months,” Doucette says. Hypersonic missiles currently in testing with the USAF include the AGM-183A Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW), which is a boost-glide hypersonic system, with rocket boost and an unpowered glide vehicle inside. The Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile, or HACM, also features rocket boosters, but with an air-breathing scramjet second stage vehicle. Both are limited to operations in the Earth’s atmosphere – whereas Havoc can operate either in or above the atmosphere. An artist’s rendition of Havoc. Ursa Major “With regard to propulsion in aerospace defense, there’s three main types; air-breathing, solid powered, and liquid powered,” Doucette explains. “In the world of hypersonics, specifically, we’re talking about fast-moving, somewhat unpredictable, missile systems that are moving at over five times the speed of sound. You have the same propulsion methods, but liquid fuel has never really been introduced.” “The air-breathing hypersonic weapons are typically scramjets and ramjets, which the U.S. has been developing for a very long time. They’re expensive and exquisite, but very long range. A hotfire test of Draper. Ursa Major “China has something in the order of 600-700 operational boost-glide systems in its arsenal right now. This is not new to them. They’ve been practicing, watching, and rehearsing.” Doucette warns that the U.S. fielding a boost-glide or scramjet hypersonic weapon may not really change the dynamic, which is why Ursa Major’s argument for its liquid-powered weapon is so strong. “The novelty of being liquid-powered is that it carries its own oxidizer and fuel, which means it can go anywhere – in the atmosphere, out of the atmosphere, high, low. A solid rocket can technically do the same thing, but the big difference with the liquid system is that it can turn on and off an infinite number of times. A solid is going where it’s going, but a liquid could be on one trajectory and a split second later turn it off, then instantaneously head on a different trajectory because you can maneuver it from a powered vector perspective. Draper is also fully throttleable down to 10% all the way up to 100%.” There are currently no competing systems that have the ability to bridge the gap between running in atmosphere and out of atmosphere with such a degree of throttle control. Ursa Major is currently the only company with a hypersonic vehicle and experience in the liquid-powered hypersonic realm. It has twice ground-launched from a rail what it calls “Havoc Block 0” in partnership with the Air Force Research Laboratory, under its Affordable Rapid Missile Demonstrator (ARMD) program. These demonstrator flights have been designed as multi-domain tests. “The great thing about Havoc is that we can alter the wings, add our solid rocket motor boost system, and it means we can ground launch, VLS [vertical launch system] launch, or air-launch,” Doucette says. A flight test of the Draper-powered Affordable Rapid Missile Demonstrator. Ursa Major “Havoc provides something the Department of War has not previously seen,” adds Chris Spagnoletti. “Having a mid- and long-range tactical weapon that can deep throttle, turn on and off at will, is agnostic to atmosphere, rapidly change vector, accelerate and de-celerate, skim the sea, fly outside the atmosphere – this really opens up the aperture of what a munition can do. This is very tough for conventional systems to figure out what it’s intending to do.” Rapidly scaling production Spagnoletti says Ursa Major’s hypersonic program can scale quickly because of the company’s additive manufacturing and AI-driven manufacturing processes. Draper’s liquid propellant also has additional advantages when it comes to production. “We can drain the fuel, bring them into a facility, and that now-inert system doesn’t need massive keep-out distances,” explains Spagnoletti. “So, say in a 100,000 square foot building, we can produce 500 full-up missile systems per year inert, then fuel them right before we ship them or at the operational location.” “Some companies are advocating for things like multi-year contracts, and that really matters to them because they’re setting up rigid long-term production lines. We’ve flipped that on its head where if a customer decides in say five years they want this weapon to look different, we have a common modular approach that we can swap things out. Most of the aerospace systems I’ve worked on in my career have long five or 10-year windows. Design, build, qualify – they don’t want to make hardware changes because it’s going to take ages and cost a lot of money to modify and qualify those systems. They’re inherently resistant to change, not because they don’t want to help and adapt, but because the system allows a massive amount of inertia, production lines have rigid tooling and processes, they can’t adapt. What’s different about Ursa Major is, again, that we design for manufacturability and leverage advanced manufacturing.’ Ursa Major Additive Manufacturing In addition to its Colorado facilities mentioned earlier, Ursa Major also has a plant in Youngstown, Ohio, which is a center of excellence for 3D-printing, they then ship to Berthoud for final assembly and test. A lot of parts and components are manufactured in house, including valves, tanks, pressurization systems, avionics, but it does have dependency on some external suppliers where appropriate. “We have some really strong partnerships where we can’t bring things in-house. We’re such experts in additive manufacturing that we know when not to do it.” “Importantly, we are not reducing costs by using the cheapest parts. In my 36 years in the aerospace industry, when it comes to building a critical munition, I know the devil’s in the details – it has to work every time and there’s only so cheap you can go before you start to sacrifice reliability. Some of our competitors are trying to achieve a lower cost hypersonic system, which is great, but those are typically salvo weapons where you just launch a lot of them. The Havoc missile system is more of a strategic asset.” Ursa Major’s adaptable additive manufacturing process is known as Lynx. Ursa Major Ursa Major is making significant moves in the U.S. military’s missile stockpile recapitalization effort. It has opened up versatile methods of producing solid rocket motors, and it has demonstrated the functionality of Havoc with the Air Force Research Laboratory, including the concept of operations with the liquid rocket. Spagnoletti points out that the U.S. used to use liquid rockets prior to the advent of solid rocket motors. Use of additive manufacturing and 3D-printing is always in the conversation too, it’s how this company can scale its innovations fast. The next major milestone it’s driving towards is a follow-on demonstration phase for Havoc – a boosted, full hypersonic flight. “We’re pushing for that in 2027,” says Spagnoletti. As America marks its 250th year, the dream of a hypersonic missile with a 3D-printed engine that can be delivered in large quantities at an affordable price could materialize into another significant landmark in the story of American defense innovation. At least that’s Ursa Major’s goal, and it appears to look more promising by the day. Poor B-52 Readiness Creating Testing Challenges For New AGM-181A Nuclear Cruise Missile The B-52 fleet is in need of an upcoming upgrade and has been in high demand, as well as suffering a tragic loss. Joseph Trevithick Published Jul 7, 2026 7:46 PM EDT Note: See photos and video in the original article. Add TWZ (opens in a new tab) More information Jarod Hamilton The TWZ Newsletter Weekly insights and analysis on the latest developments in military technology, strategy, and foreign policy. Email address Sign Up Terms of Service and Privacy Policy The Government Accountability Office (GAO) says low availability of unnamed “legacy” aircraft has created hurdles for flight testing of the new AGM-181A Long-Range Standoff (LRSO) nuclear-armed cruise missile. The B-52 is the only platform known to be involved in this effort. The fleet of these bombers is highly in demand, underscored by heavy use in strikes on Iran earlier this year, and has also recently suffered a tragic loss. U.S. Air Force officials have previously highlighted how the relatively small number of B-52s in service and the heavy demands placed on them create challenges when it comes to modernizing the aircraft themselves. GAO, a Congressional watchdog, provided new details about flight testing plans and other aspects of the LRSO program in an annual report published last week. The AGM-181A has been in active development since 2020, when the Air Force chose Raytheon to be the prime contractor. A B-52 bomber seen carrying LRSO prototypes, or relevant test articles, earlier this year. Jarod Hamilton “LRSO reported unfavorable cost and schedule changes over the past year,” GAO reported. “For example, flight testing challenges, largely due to the poor readiness rates of legacy aircraft supporting LRSO testing, resulted in a 4-month delay to its initial capability.” The Air Force is now aiming to reach initial operational capability with the AGM-181 in November 2030. GAO says that there have been nine LRSO test flights since October 2024. That is when developmental testing of the missile began. Six of those flight tests, along with seven ground test events, occurred last year. In a report dated December 2022, the Pentagon had previously disclosed nine more test flights as part of earlier phases of the program. Whether additional test flights occurred between December 2022 and October 2024 is unclear. “Since our last assessment, program officials realigned the test schedule, leaving less time to complete the 27 remaining test flights before operational testing starts in September 2027,” the report GAO put out last week also notes. “However, they noted that some re-testing can still be accommodated.” As noted, the B-52 is the only aircraft known to be involved in LRSO flight testing, and certainly meets the definition of a “legacy” platform. The last of these bombers rolled off Boeing’s production line in 1962, though the remaining examples have been upgraded repeatedly since then. The sighting last year of a B-52 carrying a pair of AGM-181s, or relevant test articles, on a pylon under its right wing offered the first public glimpse of the missile. Spotters have caught these bombers supporting LRSO tests on several other occasions since then. A close-up look at the LRSO prototypes, or relevant test articles, seen under the wing of a B-52 bomber earlier this year. Jarod Hamilton The Air Force currently has 75 B-52H bombers in service, in total. The entire fleet is never available at any one time for taskings of any kind, due to routine maintenance and other factors. The mission-capable rate for the bombers has been hovering between 50 and 55 percent in recent years. In addition, only one of the bombers is explicitly set aside to support test and evaluation efforts. B-52s from operational units are also used to support research and development and test and evaluation work on a more ad hoc basis. This is on top of the heavy operational demands put on the fleet, both for conventional combat operations and as a key component of the air leg of America’s nuclear deterrent triad. As mentioned, B-52s were heavily utilized just earlier this year for conventional strikes on Iran, adding to these strains. Last month, the Air Force also lost one of its B-52s in a fatal crash at Edwards Air Force Base in California, which tragically killed all eight individuals onboard at the time. The aircraft in question was headed out on a flight test in support of a critical radar modernization program for the bombers when it went down, as you can read more about here. The radar modernization effort is part of a slew of major upgrades for the B-52 fleet, which also includes all-new engines, improved communication suites, and more. The upgrades are so substantial that the bombers’ designations will change from B-52H to B-52J in the process. They are also in line to see their arsenals grow, including with the addition of the LRSO. The future B-52Js are set to continue serving through at least 2050. Other aspects of the B-52 modernization plan have also been beset by cost growth and delays. Air Force officials have said this has been compounded by the total size of the fleet and operational demands placed on it. “The challenge with B-52 that I think everybody forgets, it’s such a small fleet that has such a tremendous requirement in terms of readiness,” Air Force Gen. Dale White, the service’s Direct Reporting Portfolio Manager for Critical Major Weapon Systems, told TWZ and others at the Air & Space Forces Association’s (AFA) annual Warfare Symposium in February. “You’ve got to have a certain number on the ramp. That’s a requirement.” The question becomes “how do you get these through the depot while at the same time meeting the operational requirements?” Gen. White further explained at that time. “That choreography, I think, is going to be tough.” It’s worth pointing out here that both the war with Iran and the crash at Edwards came after the cutoff date for GAO’s report, and further impacts on the LRSO flight test schedule would not have been recorded therein. There has also been a broader surge in demand across the U.S. military for flight test assets. This is being driven by the needs of modernization efforts for several aircraft beyond the B-52, including the F-22 Raptor, as well as next-generation developments, like the F-47 sixth-generation fighter. Going back to LRSO, GAO’s latest assessment also highlights other challenges that the program has been facing that are unrelated to flight testing. An official rendering of the AGM-181A LRSO. USAF “Program officials stated that 12 of 14 software releases are delivered, with the final delivery planned for March 2026. According to program officials, nuclear certification of LRSO software continues to be a risk that they expect to fully address by November 2026. As we reported last year, the program risks delays if additional LRSO software development is needed to satisfy this certification requirement,” per the report. “LRSO cybersecurity testing continues with some delays reported during the past year. Program officials stated these delays did not bring about any cost or schedule changes, with the final cybersecurity assessment still planned for September 2027.” “The missile’s technology maturity has advanced since our last assessment, with only two out of the six critical technologies still approaching maturity. They are both expected to be fully mature in fiscal year 2026, about 5 years after development start. DOE [Department of Energy] also identified critical technologies for the warhead, of which 80 percent are considered mature, more than double the percentage reported last year,” the report adds. “However, DOE may not mature all the remaining warhead technologies until the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2026. As we previously reported, both the missile and warhead started development with immature technologies, requiring parallel technology and design maturity efforts. This method falls short of the best practice to start with mature technologies and would have minimized the risks of future cost increases and schedule delays associated with concurrency during system development.” There is also cost growth, as well as cost discrepancies. “Program costs increased by $347 million after Air Force leadership directed a 1-year extension to LRSO production due to near-term budget constraints,” according to GAO. “As we previously reported, Office of the Secretary of Defense and Air Force officials continue to work together to resolve a $1.9 billion difference between their production cost estimates for future LRSO production,” the report also says. “While a fully updated estimate is not expected until later in 2026, program officials now agree that OSD’s higher cost estimate provides an appropriate basis for the program’s fiscal year 2027 budget request and future year procurement funding needs.” Buoyed in part by the successful flight testing it has conducted to date, GAO says the Air Force remains confident that it can meet its goal of starting low-rate initial production of the LRSO next year. Hitting that milestone will be key to staying on schedule to start fielding the missiles in 2030. Opinion: What Is Really Driving Next-Generation Airliner Timing Share Richard Aboulafia July 02, 2026 Credit: Rolls-Royce The views of the two jetliner prime CEOs have diverged on next-generation single-aisle timing. In his Aviation Week interview, Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg said he sees the service entry of Boeing’s next narrowbody “moving to the right,” possibly beyond the 2030s (AW&ST June 29-July 12, p. 32). Airbus CEO Guillaume Faury, meanwhile, said the launch of his company’s next single-aisle program is on track for 2030 followed by service entry “in the second half of the decade” (AW&ST June 29-July 12, p. 36). There are sound reasons to be skeptical about the timing of the next-generation single-aisle (NGSA), given the delays driven by supply problems with current generation jets, new technology maturation, customer preferences for better aircraft readiness and other factors. But in reality, the timing of the NGSA is not really in their hands. Consider the events that led to the launch of today’s single-aisles. In July 2008, fuel prices hit an all-time high—$147 per barrel on the spot market. This led to the launch of Bombardier’s C Series (Airbus’ A220 today) also in July 2008. That program prompted Pratt & Whitney to develop its geared turbofan (GTF), which Pratt hoped would restore its single-aisle market presence. CFM International responded to this new engine with the Leap-1 series. Airbus responded to the C Series with the A320neo, using the Leap-1 and GTF. Boeing responded to the A320neo in 2011 with the 737 MAX powered by the Leap-1. Yet before this chain reaction began, neither the Airbus CEO nor the Boeing CEO would have said he wanted a new aircraft. The only difference now is that Boeing—and probably Airbus—needs clean-sheet jets. Otherwise, the catalysts behind the last series of product launches are still in play. So we can identify three primary factors—as well as many smaller ones—that will determine when replacements for the A320neo and the 737 MAX might arrive: 1. Engines (and engine OEM competitive pressures). Propulsion is the most important factor. While CFM continues to develop its RISE next-generation product, it is safe to say that anyone with a single-aisle market share of at least 75% is not in a rush to change the game. Pratt is still ironing out the kinks in its GTF series. Rolls-Royce, whose 2012 decision to exit the single-aisle market looks even worse in hindsight, is the wild card. This year, the company began discussing its UltraFan 30, leveraging the geared architecture of its previously proposed twin-aisle engine. All Rolls needs is an application—and about €3 billion ($3.4 billion). 2. Airframer competitive pressures. Who would bring competitive pressure on a reluctant duopoly? In the 2000s, China, Russia, Japan and Bombardier all played roles in selecting next-generation engines. Today, China is unlikely to move beyond the Comac C919 anytime soon, and Japan is in no hurry to repeat the Spacejet disaster with a larger jetliner. Russia is not a factor in the market, and neither is Bombardier, since it sold off its jetliner business. A new Embraer aircraft, perhaps using a Rolls engine, is the ultimate wild card product. The big problem is resources. The C Series happened in large part because United Technologies Corp. (now RTX) provided extensive support. Embraer, a much smaller company than Bombardier was at the time, would need even more support, but Rolls’ pockets are not that deep. But then there is Airbus. Airbus might think that its higher production rates and stronger balance sheet give it a competitive advantage over Boeing for the next few years. If Faury follows through with a 2030 launch, Boeing might have little choice but to respond, just as it had little choice in 2011. Then again, if none of the engine primes wants to invest in a new engine, Airbus will have a hard time launching an NGSA. 3. Fuel prices and the market. Airlines have a very different attitude toward fuel savings when fuel is expensive. According to Argus, the U.S. jet fuel index averaged $4.29 per gallon in April, almost double the January average of $2.21. Given thin airline margins, if a carrier can save 15% off its fuel bill with a new-generation engine and fuel is at the outer end of that range, it will push the airframers to develop an NGSA with that new engine. Clearly, the jet-makers can strategize, plan, market and message, but the timing of the next generation is largely out of their hands. 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