January 14, 2026 - No. 02 In This Issue : UL100E advances in race to unleaded avgas : Inside the Boeing 737 Factory Shaping the Pace of Airline Growth : The Air Force’s Great Readiness Nightmare Has Just ‘Landed’ : Coulson Aviation Launches Boeing 767 VLAT Program : The ‘Retired’ U.S. Air Force F-117 Nighthawk ‘Stealth Fighter’ Will Now Fly Until 2034 : Boeing 747 worth $270,000,000 broken down and reassembled in painstaking process that's captured on film for first ever time : Pentagon Paid Lockheed Martin $1.7B Despite Half Of F-35 Fleet Grounded By Poor Maintenance : Army’s noncommittal procurement strategy is creating quandaries for vendors : Lightning Lab gives Pacific Army division drone-building capabilities on the front lines : Ever wondered why jet engines aren’t mounted directly onto the wing? UL100E advances in race to unleaded avgas By General Aviation News Staff January 7, 2026] Another contender is one step closer to an unleaded fuel for general aviation. (Photo by Megan Vande Voort) The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has published its first specification for UL100E, the unleaded aviation fuel co-developed by LyondellBasell and VP Racing. UL100E is undergoing full scale testing by the FAA and engine and aircraft Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) under the FAA’s Piston Aircraft Fuel Initiative (PAFI) program. These evaluations are expected to be completed by September 2026, according to Lyondell officials. PAFI is the only collaborative fuel certification program designed and conducted by the FAA and OEMs, requiring an ASTM specification as a condition of fleet authorization, company officials added. General aviation has been working for years to transition to an unleaded fuel. In 2022, a collaborative industry-government effort to move general aviation to a fleetwide drop-in, lead-free fuel solution no later than 2030 launched with the Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE) initiative. There are three contenders left standing in the race to an unleaded fuel: General Aviation Modifications Inc. (GAMI), Swift Fuels, and LyondellBasell and VP Racing. The unleaded fuel from GAMI, known as G100UL — which received approval through the Supplemental Type Certificate process in September 2022 — is now available for sale at some airports. Swift Fuels received an ASTM International production specification for its 100R unleaded avgas in September 2025. LyondellBasell and VP Racing’s UL100E, the last remaining test fuel in the PAFI program, recently passed a number of testing milestones, including material compatibility testing by several aircraft OEMs including Van’s Aircraft, Piper Aircraft, Textron Aviation, and Cirrus, as well as engine testing by Lycoming Engines and Continental Aerospace technologies and by the FAA at the William J. Hughes Technical Center for Advanced Aerospace in Atlantic City, New Jersey. Flight testing on a Lancair Super Legacy equipped with a turbocharged TSIO-550 engine and a Harvard Mk IV warbird equipped with a Pratt & Whitney R-1340-AN-1 Wasp radial engine is ongoing, according to Lyondell officials. Lycoming recently concluded a 300-hour endurance test on an IO-540-D4A5 engine and met valve seat recession (VSR) performance requirements with UL100E. The FAA Technical Center also finished detonation testing on a Continental IO-550-D engine and identified the optimal timing advance for UL100E in the IO-550-A, -B, -C, -D, -E, -F, and -L series of engines, company officials noted. Next up for testing at the Technical Center is a turbocharged Lycoming TIO-540-AJ1A, which powers the six-seat Cessna T-206 Turbo Stationair. Once PAFI testing is complete, the FAA will use the test results to define the eligible fleet and outline any operational and engine modifications required “for a small portion of the fleet” via a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) for UL100E, company officials added. Progress on UL100E testing under PAFI can be monitored at FlyEAGLE.org. For more information: LyondellBasell.com, VPRacingFuels.com Inside the Boeing 737 Factory Shaping the Pace of Airline Growth Ajay Awtaney January 8th, 2026 at 11:30 AM EST Photo Credit: An overview of the assembly line for the 737 Max at Boeing's Renton facility. Ajay Awtaney Skift Take After a prolonged period of crisis and scrutiny, Boeing says it is ready to grow again – but only at a pace dictated by discipline and regulators. play_circle_filled As Boeing cautiously emerges from one of the most closely scrutinized periods in its history, the aircraft manufacturer says it is ready to move from stabilization to growth. Speaking to Skift during a factory walk-through at Boeing’s Renton facility in Washington State, Katie Ringgold, general manager for the 737 program, said the company’s narrowbody production system is being run with discipline rather than urgency. It’s a shift she said is enabling Boeing to steadily raise output after nearly two years of heightened safety oversight. January 2024’s Alaska Airlines blowout incident triggered increased surveillance of Boeing’s safety practices by the Federal Aviation Administration. The FAA capped 737 production at 38 aircraft per month; the company was cleared to raise output to 42 aircraft last November. By submitting this form, you agree to receive email communication from Skift. As a workhorse aircraft for airlines worldwide, the slower production rate has constrained growth plans across much of the industry. Boeing is now preparing to take another closely watched step in its recovery by further increasing production. The next increase, expected in late spring or early summer 2026, comes as Boeing rebuilds its workforce, restores supply-chain health, and continues to operate under stricter FAA oversight. “The next rate break is to rate 47, and that will happen in the late spring, early summer of [2026] – when the factory is ready,” Ringgold told Skift. Renton in Washington State is the center of Boeing 737 production. photo: ajay awtaney Boeing has also finalized its acquisition of Spirit AeroSystems, bringing a key supplier back into the company as Boeing Wichita. The site produces fuselages for the 737 Max, which are then transported by rail to Boeing’s Renton final assembly facility. Boeing deliberately slowed output throughout 2024 as it implemented enhanced inspections, stricter “move-ready” criteria, and new quality measures. While those decisions initially reduced deliveries, Boeing says they are now delivering tangible results. “We made less airplanes than we wanted to in 2024 – and less than our customers needed – because of the decisions we made,” Ringgold says. “But today, those processes are part of the system, and we’re seeing improved quality and flow because of that discipline.” Why 47 and Not More? Before January 2023, Boeing’s Renton site produced as many as 52 aircraft per month. The company has no intention of operating at that level yet. “There is no plan to run it perfectly where every line moves every night,” Ringgold says. “Our supply chain is rebuilding, and our workforce is rebuilding. Right now, this final assembly plant will only go to a rate of 47 per our master schedule.” Boeing currently operates three final assembly lines at Renton, with a deliberate pause-day rotation built into the schedule to minimize “traveled work,” or tasks completed out of sequence. That work has been reduced by about 60% over the past year, according to Ringgold. At a UBS conference in December, Boeing CFO Jay Malave said the company intends to reach a production rate of 53 aircraft per month for the 737 Max program by the end of 2026. FAA Oversight Embedded One of the most significant structural changes to the program is the FAA’s formal role in approving production-rate increases – a shift from practices before 2024. “Before the Alaska accident, the FAA was involved in our rate discussions, but they were not approving them,” Ringgold says. “We did transition to requiring FAA approval to adjust [the] rate.” Boeing says that approval process is now embedded into normal operations, aligning regulatory confidence with factory readiness rather than acting as an exceptional hurdle. The pace of production in Renton has a direct impact on global aircraft supply. photo: ajay awtaney Supply Chain Ramp Up Suppliers are not waiting for Boeing to formally raise the rate. “All of our suppliers are now producing at rate 42,” confirms Ringgold, adding that some long-lead suppliers have already begun preparing for the move to 47. “Because of shipping times, some suppliers will start breaking from 42 to 47 within the next few months – and that’s intentional.” The 737 program sources roughly 60% of its aircraft components from the supply chain, with the remaining 40% produced internally, depending on configuration. Beyond the near-term rate increase, Boeing is also preparing to activate a fourth 737 production line at Everett, Washington State. It’s a site historically associated with widebody aircraft such as the 747 jumbo jet and 787 Dreamliner. After consolidating 787 production in North Charleston, South Carolina, the Everett line – known internally as the “north line” – is being readied for narrowbody assembly. It is expected to begin low-rate operations in mid-2026, ahead of demand and ultimately intended to produce the yet-to-be-certified 737 Max 10, according to remarks made by Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg last year. “You never want to begin something when you need it – you want to begin before you need it,” Ringgold says. “We’ll start the north line slowly and in an incredibly disciplined manner,” she added, emphasizing that workforce training, not tooling, is the gating factor. A Productive Year Ahead For the first time in nearly six years, Boeing expects 2026 to be a pure production year for the 737, with no stored aircraft left to clear. “That’s a tremendous difference,” Ringgold says. “It brings engineering and production focus back to one place, one system,” she adds, referring to resources previously devoted to reworking and delivering white-tailed 737 Max aircraft in storage. With a 737 backlog nearing 4,800 aircraft as of November 2025 and customer delivery slots effectively sold out until around 2030, pressure to scale carefully remains intense. But as Ringgold puts it, “2026 will be the year of growth.” Clarification: An earlier version of this story said the Renton factory previously produced up to 63 aircraft a month. While the site was technically capable of reaching this figure, the earlier peak output was 52. The Air Force’s Great Readiness Nightmare Has Just ‘Landed’ By Jack Buckby Published December 31, 2025 A U.S. Air Force F-35 Lightning II taxis during a cross-servicing event at NATO Allied Air Command’s Ramstein Flag 2025 exercise April 4, 2025. Successful cross-servicing at RAFL25 is an example of the importance of integrated logistics and maintenance training that enhances U.S. warfighting readiness by strengthening United States Air Forces in Europe – Air Forces Africa’s ability to deploy, sustain, and project fifth-generation capabilities across the European theater. (Royal Netherlands photo by Sgt. Maj. Jan Dijkstra) Key Points and Summary – A new Defense Department Inspector General audit puts a hard number on a problem the Air Force has been warning about for years: F-35s were available to fly only about half the time in fiscal 2024. -That headline finding lands inside a broader downturn, with overall Air Force mission-capable rates falling to their lowest level in at least a decade. F-35 Stealth Fighter. Image Credit: Creative Commons. F-35. Image: Creative Commons. US Air Force F-35 Stealth Fighter. Image Credit: Creative Commons. -The report argues the issue is not just parts and maintainers, but accountability—sustainment contracts without enforceable performance targets and oversight that failed to bite when metrics slipped. -The result is a force forced to triage readiness, prioritizing forward missions while the structural problems persist. Fly, Fix, Fight for the U.S. Air Force: The F-35 Sustainment Wake-Up Call As 2025 comes to an end, the U.S. Air Force’s aircraft readiness challenges have become truly urgent, as an independent watchdog report has revealed systemic sustainment problems affecting the service’s most advanced fighters. A Defense Department Inspector General audit released in December found that the average Air Vehicle Availability rate for all F-35 aircraft in fiscal year 2024 was approximately 50 percent, meaning the jets were available to fly only half the time on average – well below minimum required thresholds and far below expectations for the Pentagon’s most expensive combat aircraft program. But that’s not the entire story. The finding only compounds longstanding, broader readiness trends in the Air Force that drew global attention in early 2025. Data published by Air & Space Forces Magazine in February showed that overall mission-capable rates across all U.S. Air Force fleets dropped to 67.15 percent in fiscal 2024, the lowest in at least a decade and perhaps more than 20 years. The concept of “mission capable” here means an aircraft can perform at least one of its core assigned missions on any given day, and historically, rates of 75 to 80 percent were deemed acceptable for most fleets. The active duty 388th and Reserve 419th Fighter Wings conducted an F-35A Combat Power Exercise with 52 aircraft at Hill AFB, Utah, Jan. 6, 2020. 388th Fighter Wing photo via Facebook. Forty-nine F-16 Vipers and MQ-9 Reapers assigned to the 49th Wing line up on the runway during an elephant walk at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico, April 21, 2023. The 49th Wing is the Air Force’s largest F-16 and MQ-9 formal training unit, building combat aircrew pilots and sensor operators ready for any future conflicts. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Victor J. Caputo) These data now expose a serious readiness problem that had been deteriorating across platforms for some time and is now highly visible in the F-35. This fighter was intended to simplify sustainment and readiness through commonality across allied fleets. The inspector general report specifically identified weak oversight of contractor performance as a central reason for the poor sustainment outcomes, noting that the F-35 Joint Program Office did not include measurable readiness performance requirements in key sustainment contracts and failed to enforce inspection, reporting, and government property safeguards, reducing accountability for Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor. The F-35 program is the U.S. military’s most considerable procurement effort, with lifetime acquisition, operation, and sustainment costs projected to exceed $2 trillion. Yet, its readiness results fall well short of minimum goals. According to the inspector general, the Pentagon paid roughly $1.7 billion under the sustainment contract without applying economic adjustments, even though metrics such as mission-capable and Air Vehicle Availability rates did not meet service-level contractual requirements. Air Force leaders and legislators have been aware of the platforms’ sustainment problems for years as well. Independent analyses and reporting from the Government Accountability Office have previously documented that nearly half of U.S. F-35s were not ready to fly at times due to maintenance bottlenecks and parts shortages. Congress has repeatedly raised the matter, too. Put the news in the context of broader U.S. Air Force readiness, and there’s a clear problem: while overall mission-capable rates declined service-wide in 2024, some individual fleets, such as the F-22 and B-1 bomber, also logged readiness rates of less than 50 percent. The broader readiness downturn stems from multiple factors: aging aircraft increasingly difficult to maintain, spares shortages, and a maintenance workforce that is stretched thin across a number of legacy and modern platforms. The Pentagon’s own Government Accountability Office has identified sustained drops in mission-capable rates for Air Force tactical aircraft over recent years, citing consistent problems with funding for spare parts and maintenance as the primary driver for the problem. The Problem Multiplies for the Air Force As long as these problems persist, the Air Force will face new challenges. Operationally, low aircraft availability forces the Air Force to make tough decisions about how to allocate the limited number of ready jets. The service already increasingly prioritizes aircraft deployed to forward operational theaters or critical missions – obviously. That practice can leave home-based units with significantly lower availability, and that prioritization only masks deeper structural problems rather than solving anything. Instead of being fully prepared for any contingency, the Air Force is focusing limited sustainment resources on specific missions. That does not change the fact that the Air Force (and by extension the United States) is now technically vulnerable. Air Force leadership has acknowledged the seriousness of these trends, too. Chief of Staff Gen. Kenneth S. Wilsbach, in his first letter to the force after assuming office, laid out a simple three-word directive: “Fly, fix, fight.” Wilsbach explicitly tied operational readiness to daily behavior across the service, arguing that leaders must remain connected to the aircraft and missions they oversee, stressing that time in the cockpit and inside maintenance units is essential to understanding readiness shortfalls and fixing them. But while the Air Force may know how to fix the problems, ultimately it’s down to Congress and the White House to determine whether the service has the funding it needs to achieve its stated goals. The F-35 sustainment findings in particular raise questions about the Pentagon’s ability to hold defense contractors accountable while managing some of the most technically complex aircraft systems in the world, too. The inspector general’s recommendations are as follows: enforceable performance targets in sustainment contracts must be established, and stronger oversight mechanisms are now necessary to ensure that aircraft availability targets are not merely aspirational goals but contractual obligations. As the Air Force looks toward 2026, the message from the data is clear. Without structural reform to sustainment oversight and contracting accountability, even the most advanced fighter aircraft in the U.S. inventory will continue to fall short. Coulson Aviation Launches Boeing 767 VLAT Program Abdullah Faisal Dec 22, 2025 12:16 PM EST Note: See photo in the original article. ‍PORT ALBERNI — Coulson Aviation has announced the launch of its Boeing 767 VLAT (Very Large Airtanker) program to replace aging aerial firefighting aircraft with a more modern, capable, and reliable platform. Coulson Aviation's main headquarters are in Port Alberni, British Columbia, Canada, where the company started, but they have significant operational bases and offices globally, including locations in Reno, Nevada (USA) and Bankstown, Australia. “The firefighting community is seeing rapid changes in available airframe types, and agencies need solutions that are safe, efficient, and supportable for decades,” said Britt Coulson, President and CEO of Coulson Aviation USA. What Is a VLAT? VLATs (Very Large Airtankers) are aerial firefighting aircraft designed to carry extremely large volumes of water or fire retardant to combat large-scale wildfires. These aircraft are typically used during major fire events where rapid, wide-area retardant delivery is required to slow fire spread and protect critical infrastructure. VLATs, such as the Boeing 767, offer clear advantages over legacy platforms. Current VLAT operations are primarily dominated by older aircraft, most notably the McDonnell Douglas DC-10, which remains the most widely used VLAT today, along with earlier-generation Boeing 737 conversions. While effective, many of these aircraft face increasing maintenance and lifecycle challenges. Coulson’s 767 VLAT Coulson’s Boeing 767 VLAT will use the largest version of the company’s RADS retardant delivery system, allowing it to release fire retardant more effectively. The aircraft can also be converted back into a passenger plane, with space for more than 160 passengers if needed. In its firefighting role, the Boeing 767 is expected to carry more fire retardant than any VLAT currently in service. This would make it especially useful in large, dangerous wildfire situations. With improved fuel efficiency, higher payload capacity, and easier long-term maintenance, the Boeing 767 VLAT is expected to be a more practical and reliable option for future wildfire firefighting operations worldwide. While not related to commercial aviation, we do like to see how aircraft like the Boeing 767 are used to benefit communities, especially in emergency situations. The ‘Retired’ U.S. Air Force F-117 Nighthawk ‘Stealth Fighter’ Will Now Fly Until 2034 By Steve Balestrieri F-117. Image Credit: Creative Commons Note: See photos in the original article. The ‘Retired’ U.S. Air Force F-117 Nighthawk ‘Stealth Fighter’ Will Now Fly Until 2034 Key Points and Summary – Despite being officially retired in 2008, the Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk remains operational as a critical training and testing asset for the U.S. Air Force, with plans to fly until at least 2034. -Developed in secrecy by Skunk Works to penetrate dense air defenses, the Nighthawk was given the misleading “F” (Fighter) designation to mask its true ground-attack role and attract elite pilots. A back lit front view of a F-117A Stealth Fighter aircraft. From Airman Magazine’s February 1995 issue article “Streamlining Acquisition 101”. Four F-117 Nighthawks fly in formation during a sortie over the Antelope Valley recently. After 25 years of history, the aircraft is set to retire soon. As the Air Force’s first stealth fighter, the F-117 is capable of performing reconnaissance missions and bombing critical targets, all without the enemy’s knowledge. (Photo by Bobbi Zapka) F-117. Image Credit: Lockheed Martin. -Currently based at the Tonopah Test Range, a portion of the remaining 45 airframes serve as “red air” adversaries to simulate enemy stealth threats, proving that the world’s first stealth aircraft is still relevant decades after its combat debut in Operation Just Cause. The F-117 Nighthawk Is Still Training Pilots Today The Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk was the world’s first operational stealth aircraft. It was developed in response to a need for an aircraft capable of attacking high-value targets without being detected by radar. It utilized a faceted design and radar-absorbent materials to minimize its radar cross-section. The F-117 Nighthawk is still flying, even though it was officially retired from combat service in 2008. A portion of the fleet remains airworthy and is used by the US Air Force for testing new technologies and training, including acting as an adversary to simulate enemy stealth aircraft. The Air Force plans to continue these operations through at least 2034. The Air Force keeps all the F-117s at the Tonopah Test Range Airport, which is located within the boundaries of the larger Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR), which lies adjacent to Nellis Air Force Base. Why Was It Given An “F” Designation, As In Fighter? The F-117 Nighthawk got its “F” (Fighter) designation primarily for secrecy and bureaucratic reasons, to hide its proper attack/bomber role as a “black project.” The US Air Force’s Tactical Air Command (TAC) wanted elite fighter pilots, and the “F” designation was more appealing to them than an “A” (Attack) or “B” (Bomber), and potentially as a cover story for its intended missions against Soviet AWACS, fitting into the USAF’s “Century Series” numbering for tactical jets, despite being a dedicated ground-attack stealth aircraft. This was done even though the F-117 didn’t carry any air-to-air capability. F-117 Stealth Fighter. The Oldest Stealth Aircraft Are Still Useful The F-117 first saw combat action during Operation Just Cause in 1989. It was retired by the US Air Force in 2008, but remains an iconic example of stealth technology and a subject of public fascination. Its small radar signature, Low Observable (LO Stealth) technologies, and advanced targeting system allowed the aircraft to penetrate dense threat environments and deliver precision weapons against heavily defended, high-value targets with pinpoint accuracy. Primary missions included precision attack, air interdiction, Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD), and special operations. But for all the hoopla generated around the aircraft, it wasn’t heavily armed. Meet The F-117 Nighthawk The F-117A’s story dates back to the 1970s, when the US Air Force began to realize that increasingly sophisticated Soviet Air defense systems and radar, particularly surface-to-air missiles, were jeopardizing American air supremacy. The Defense Research Projects Agency, more commonly known as DARPA, contracted with Lockheed’s fabled Skunk Works division to design and build the Have Blue stealth technology demonstrator, the similar-looking predecessor to the F-117A Nighthawk. The turnaround time, from contract award to initial operating capability, was incredibly short, just seven years, which was a testament to the talented team at Lockheed’s Skunk Works. The first F-117As became operational in 1983. But the Air Force didn’t acknowledge its existence until 1988. During Operation Desert Storm in 1991, the F-117 accounted for only 2 percent of combat sorties but covered 40 percent of the targets. The Nighthawk’s Stealth Technology The F-117’s unique design incorporates flat, angled panels that scatter and reflect radar waves. Bolstered by an external coating of radar-absorbent materials, which reduces its radar signature, the aircraft was nearly invisible to radar. The F-117’s design utilized flat, faceted panels to deflect radar waves away from the source, minimizing its radar cross-section. The aircraft was coated with RAM, further reducing its radar signature. F-117 Stealth Fighter. Image Credit: US Government. The radio-wave-absorbing materials covering the F-117 weighed almost 1 ton and were held in place with adhesive. The gaps between the sheets are filled with a putty-like material called “butter.” The F-117 did not utilize radar for targeting; instead, it relied on infrared sensors and a laser designator. The F-117’s internal weapons bays further reduced its radar profile. The Air Force built only 59 F-117s, but they punched above their weight, especially during Operation Desert Storm. Technical Specifications Engines: Two General Electric F404-F1D2 engines, 9,040 lbf thrust each Maximum speed: 684 mph (0.84 Mach) Range: 1,070 miles (unlimited with aerial refueling) Crew: 1 Length: 65 ft 11 in (20.09 m) Wingspan: 43 ft 4 in (13.21 m) Height: 12 ft 5 in (3.78 m) Wing area: 780 sq ft (72 m2) Empty weight: 29,500 lb (13,381 kg) Max takeoff weight: 52,500 lb (23,814 kg) The F-117s’ Armament Capability Wasn’t Big The F-117 Nighthawk was designed as a stealth attack aircraft, primarily focused on delivering precision-guided munitions. It carried its weapons internally in two bomb bays, and its arsenal consisted mainly of laser-guided bombs (LGBs) and GPS-guided bombs (JDAMs). The GBU-27 Paveway III was a key munition, designed to penetrate hardened targets. The F-117’s stealth design required that all weapons be carried internally, limiting its payload capacity to two bombs. The F-117 was equipped to deploy laser-guided bombs (LGBs) such as the GBU-12, GBU-16, GBU-10, and GBU-27, which were guided by the aircraft’s laser designator. Later in its service, the F-117 also used GPS-guided bombs such as the GBU-31 and GBU-38, providing an alternative to laser guidance. The F-117 was designed solely for air-to-ground missions and lacked any air-to-air weapons or a gun for engaging enemy aircraft. Curiously, the Air Force used the designator as a fighter (F) instead of an attack aircraft (A) due to a combination of factors, including a desire to attract top pilots and potential security considerations. While primarily a stealth attack aircraft, the “F” designation was seen as more appealing to fighter pilots and may also have been used to obscure its true nature from potential adversaries. Why Are The F-117s Still Flying? The Nighthawks continue to fly for the Air Force despite being officially retired from the USAF in 2008, and they are still providing the service with several valuable tools. Why is the USAF still flying them? The aircraft is used as a testbed for new technologies, such as radar systems, infrared tracking, and stealth-enhancing materials. The Nighthawk serves as a valuable “red air” asset for training pilots to counter and defeat modern stealth aircraft from other nations. Using the F-117 for these purposes is less risky and expensive than testing these systems on more modern, active-duty aircraft like the F-22 Raptor or F-35. The F-117 can be used to simulate stealthy cruise missiles during large-scale exercises. The F-117 Paved The Way For The Stealth Aircraft Of Today The F-117’s development and operational use paved the way for other stealth aircraft, such as the B-2, F-22, and F-35. The Air Force still uses the F-117, and an official said, “On occasion, we fly certain [F-117A] aircraft to support limited research and training activities.” F-117s have recently been involved with and supported several exercises in 2020, operating more frequently and openly alongside Aggressor aircraft at Nellis and MCAS Miramar. In 2023, a USAF spokesperson said, “We have approximately 45 F-117s currently. As we demilitarize the aircraft, they will be made available to museums, if requested, or be disposed of.” The number had reduced by six compared to the total given in 2019. Lockheed originally built five YF-117As and 59 production aircraft. Thirteen of these have been retired to museum or display use, and six were lost. This leaves 45 aircraft, of which at least five are active. Eventually, all of the 45 remaining aircraft will be retired. Then they’ll be scrapped or donated to museums. Currently, 10 are slated for museum duty. Boeing 747 worth $270,000,000 broken down and reassembled in painstaking process that's captured on film for first ever time Published on Jan 11, 2026 at 12:44 AM (UTC+4) by Henry Kelsall Last updated on Jan 08, 2026 at 9:39 PM (UTC+4) Edited by Amelia Jean Hershman-Jones Note: See the VIDEO here. In this first-of-its-kind and rare footage, a Boeing 747 airliner worth $270 million was stripped down into its parts before reassembly for flight. The giant aircraft was the subject of an On The Move documentary several years ago, and it was being moved to Cardiff in Wales in order to recertify for flight. Airplanes like the 747 are designed to be disassembled and then put back into service as part of their maintenance regime. As the documentary showed, it is a complex process, and one that takes a lot of precision and care. Why the Boeing 747 was being broken down The airplane was residing in London, but needed to be relocated to Cardiff for recertification for flight. This formed part of its regular maintenance programme. After so many flight hours, an aircraft needs to be stripped down, renovated, and any expired parts replaced. This particular documentary actually marked the first time British Airways allowed the process to be filmed. The airline was the operator of this particular 747. Remarkably, the scheduled completion date for the overhaul was also a day the airliner was booked to fly again. As the documentary showed, the aircraft is stripped right down to its basic components. Even the interior was stripped out, allowing it to be reupholstered and fully renovated. Why an aircraft needs breaking down and reassembling There are multiple reasons why an aircraft like this Boeing 747 needs to be renovated in this manner. Over time, parts can expire and will need replacing. It would be dangerous to fly the aircraft with old and worn-out parts. Parts such as the engines can be refurbished, and the structural integrity of the aircraft can be checked. Plus, as the documentary showed, it’s a chance to refresh the cabin and seats for the passengers. If you are on an airliner for a long period of time, you will want to be as comfortable as possible. The latter part of the video shows the airliner being tested on the ground before it takes to the skies once more. The renovation would have allowed the aircraft to continue flying for many years to come. Boeing 747 Timeline 1966 (April): Program Launch Pan American World Airways places the first order for 25 aircraft, effectively launching the program. 1968 (September 30): First Rollout The first 747 is rolled out of the custom-built assembly plant in Everett, Washington. 1969 (February 9): First Flight The 747 makes its maiden test flight, piloted by Jack Waddell, Brien Wygle, and Jess Wallick. 1970 (January 22): Commercial Debut Pan Am operates the first commercial jumbo jet service, flying from New York (JFK) to London (Heathrow). 1989 (February 9): The 747-400 Era The most popular variant, the 747-400, enters service with Northwest Airlines, featuring winglets and a glass cockpit. 2005 (November 14): 747-8 Launch Boeing launches the final generation, the 747-8, incorporating technology from the 787 Dreamliner. 2011 (October 12): 747-8 Service Entry The first 747-8 (a freighter version) is delivered to Cargolux; the passenger version follows in 2012 with Lufthansa. 2023 (January 31): End of Production Boeing delivers the final 747 (a freighter) to Atlas Air, ending a 54-year production run with 1,574 aircraft built. Pentagon Paid Lockheed Martin $1.7B Despite Half Of F-35 Fleet Grounded By Poor Maintenance Defense Express December 25, 2025 6012 5th generation F-35 fighters / Photo credit: U.S. Departament of War Note: See photos in the original article. Pentagon audit found poor F-35 maintenance by Lockheed Martin, weak external oversight, and damage to fleet readiness This year, half the fleet of fifth-generation F-35 fighters in U.S. service was grounded due to various problems. Their maintenance by the manufacturer company Lockheed Martin was blamed for this. Such a conclusion was reached in a Pentagon audit regarding oversight of contract execution for these aircraft. It's stated that no questions arose for the contractor despite constant failures. 5th generation F-35 fighters / Photo credit: U.S. Departament of War The inspection found that although half the required time F-35s couldn't take to the air, and their maintenance didn't meet requirements. Despite all this, the American defense department paid Lockheed Martin $1.7 billion for corresponding services. At the same time, no corrections were made due to economic situation and existing problems. No additional checks were conducted on service execution status and readiness under contract terms, or availability of all necessary components. 5th generation F-35 fighters / Photo credit: U.S. Department of War Lockheed Martin says they know about everything and are already working on eliminating root causes of fleet downtime. Among everything, procurement of additional volumes of spare parts needed for maintenance is being organized. However, the current discovery is not a rare, but another case with problems in the F-35 program, and was also mentioned earlier. Constant delays in delivering new aircraft, postponement of modernization due to lack of necessary systems, and significant exceeding of planned budgets have been haunting fifth-generation fighters for years. F-35 production process / Photo credit: Lockheed Martin Interestingly, this situation develops not because of the aircraft's quality itself, but because of everything else around it. So the U.S. is forced, despite all nuances, to continue purchasing F-35s, postponing and simplifying its own plans to get results. Currently, it's important for the Pentagon that it can organize its work, optimize processes around large-scale procurement, and create reserve for independently ensuring military combat readiness. However, implementing this is clearly not simple, considering the emergence of such huge projects as Trumps battleship. Army’s noncommittal procurement strategy is creating quandaries for vendors It's creating tension that the government is likely going to have to solve, one expert says. BY MEGHANN MYERS STAFF REPORTER The Army’s new acquisition strategy—buy fast, in small quantities, then maybe buy a lot more—is causing headaches for at least one of the vendors working on the service’s new medium-range reconnaissance drone. Anduril is one of two firms working to produce drones that can give Army maneuver companies at least six miles of visibility for up to 30 minutes at a time, but the service’s Continuous Transformation strategy is making it tough to plan ahead for production—which may prevent the company from delivering if the Army decides to start buying the drones by the thousands. “The way the Army is approaching this now…they want flexibility and they want routine competition, because they know that we're going to keep investing and keep improving the systems,” Jason Dickinson, general manager for the Ghost-X drone program at Anduril, told Defense One. “But because it's a little opaque for us right now, it's very hard to right-size your production capacity.” The piecemeal buying strategy could also be in conflict with a recent Defense Department memo calling for the military services to treat small drones like munitions rather than aircraft, along with a call to start acquiring new technology as if the country is at war. Dickinson’s team is investing in Ghost-X production capacity based on how confident he is in where his platform stands with the Army, he said, knowing that he has one co-vendor now, but expecting that there could eventually be three or four. In 2025, that meant deploying 200 Ghost-X systems with the Army, with the expectation that another 200 would be needed this year to keep outfitted the Transformation-in-Contact brigades testing them. But beyond that, it’s a bit of a question mark. “How do I think about growing responsibly so that I can meet the needs of the Army, and also sell into other allied nations, sister services and those kinds of things?” Dickinson said. Particularly painful, he said, is trying to figure out how to meet the Army’s sustainment needs for Ghost-X, because there’s no process in place to start procuring replacement components. In a traditional program of record, repairs and maintenance would be factored in, with a guaranteed number of years and an expected payment to give the vendor an idea of how much money to sink into a production line. “But again, for us, it's ‘When does that start?’” Dickinson said. “We don't know. How many are they going to buy? I don't know.” ‘More competitive and responsive’ Army officials have stressed recently that they expect contractors to make the initial investments into developing new technology. At the same time, the Pentagon is pushing the services to turn up the volume on procurement. That’s creating tension that the government is likely going to have to solve, said Mackenzie Eaglen, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. “I mean, I know we’ve got to make numbers and live in the budget, but the government has to take the lead, I think, in a lot of cases,” Eaglen told Defense One during the State of Defense Business Acquisition Summit in November. The Army declined to make an official available to Defense One to discuss this tension. The office that oversees Army aviation acquisition provided a written statement, which said that while they are committed to “a more competitive and responsive procurement environment,” they believe their increased spending on small drones in general should reassure vendors. “The current UAS procurement strategy has obligated all appropriated funds from previous years, and the Army is prepared to accelerate the procurement of UAS when Congress appropriates FY26 funds, further establishing a consistent demand signal to industry,” said the spokesperson, who was not authorized to speak on the record. In its 2026 budget request, the Army asked for just under $804 million to sink into its small UAS programs. Changing the budget to a capability bucket instead of line items for individual platforms is a win for more agile acquisitions, but it does leave vendors having to guess what their slice of that pie will look like. The Army’s response did not address specific questions about ramping up production capacity and supply chains to respond to sudden increased demand, or whether the service is looking into making some of these investments itself. It takes about three months to increase production capacity, Dickinson said, and twice that long to get the supply chain to meet it. “And so I have to sit here and weigh, do I invest a couple million dollars in high-tech production capabilities without knowing what the actual demand is? Am I going to get the return on that?” he said. And once there’s floor space and technicians hired, the supply chain has to surge. “If I'm asking them to produce tens to hundreds right now, and I'm like, ‘Hey, now I need you to go to a thousand’—that's a major step change,” he said. “And we find some suppliers, they can't cut it, right?” So for now, it’s a guessing game. “I am leaning forward on the production and the supply chain, because I know that that boat is so long to turn,” Dickinson said. “And so I know the Army has a requirement—they have a gaping wound right now of no UAS in many, many brigades.” Lightning Lab gives Pacific Army division drone-building capabilities on the front lines The small group of soldiers can produce gear—and then immediately take feedback to make it better. JENNIFER HLAD JANUARY 12, 2026 SCHOFIELD BARRACKS, Hawaii—The 25th Infantry Division is all about drones: Drones that sense. Drones that shoot. Drones that get blown to smithereens for HIMARS target-practice. And more and more, drones built by soldiers themselves. Tucked away in the converted storage room of a former movie theater, a handful of soldiers are producing drones by the dozen as part of the division’s Lightning Lab, a 13-person unit borrowed from other parts of the division and rapidly trained to build drones, training aids and ad hoc solutions to problems encountered on the battlefield. The Lightning Lab troops also take their 3D printers on the road. When the division was deploying to the Philippines last summer, the unit was tasked with producing drones to use during the training, said Chief Warrant Officer 2 John Crutcher. They decided to produce a 3D-printed unibody frame they called the kestrel, so they “went out to the Philippines, made 125 of them out there in the field, and took a lot of good feedback from the field,” including that soldiers needed to be able to fly the drones indoors, for training and room-clearing, Crutcher said. So, a week after they returned to Hawaii, they made a new model, dubbed the Falconette. The rapid—some might even say “lightning-fast”—speed at which the lab can gather feedback and adapt is a key component of the U.S. Army’s Transformation in Contact initiative, and a radical departure from the traditional yearslong defense acquisition process. Lt. Col. Eugene Miranda, spokesman for the 25th Infantry Division, said much of what the lab does is “soldier-driven innovation from the point of need.” “A lot of that innovation is being powered down to the soldiers who are actually the users of the things. So we get that real-time feedback, versus these age-old systems where it’s optimized only for the process of the planning, programming, budgeting and execution time horizon.” In addition to the Kestrel and Falconette, the lab also makes one-way attack drones that cost just $12 in components to make, and is working with a company that won an Army innovation competition on swarm tech. The company brought its winning tech here and “in 24 hours, we had redesigned our Kestrel frame to be able to fit their components to be able to get up and fly a swarm,” Crutcher said. It’s not just drones. During the Philippines trip, Crutcher said, they printed 110 new buttstocks for rifles, because the scopes were sitting too high to easily and comfortably use them with the original buttstocks. They also print training aids. So how much training do the soldiers need before they can build drones? Crutcher said his expertise came from “YouTube University, Google University, Reddit University.” One soldier who showed up on a Tuesday morning had built his first drone by the afternoon, and was building drones unsupervised by Thursday, he said. The lab also teaches other units how to use the printers and build drones, because “we don’t want to be the single point of failure for the 25th ID,” Crutcher said. “You can’t rely on a 13-person shop to mass-manufacture at scale, right? Anybody who knows how to do math is going to be able to figure that out pretty quickly.” Ever wondered why jet engines aren’t mounted directly onto the wing? The answer lies in the pylons—a critical yet often overlooked part of aircraft design •Structural Support: Pylons carry the enormous weight of jet engines and transfer those loads safely into the wing structure. •Aerodynamic Efficiency: Their carefully contoured shape minimizes drag and preserves smooth airflow between the wing and engine. •Vibration Damping: Pylons help isolate engine vibrations, protecting the wing and airframe from fatigue and stress. •Ease of Maintenance: Mounting engines on pylons allows quicker inspection, servicing, and replacement. •Safety by Design: In extreme situations, pylons are engineered to fail in a controlled way, allowing the engine to detach without compromising the aircraft. Pylons are far more than simple mounts—they’re a precise balance of strength, aerodynamics, and safety engineering. Did You Know? Many modern pylons use lightweight titanium alloys, strong enough to support engines weighing more than 15,000 pounds. Curt Lewis