June 24, 2026 - No. 25 In This Issue : FAA Extends Deadline For Pratt-Powered 777 Mods : Missile production push runs into solid rocket motor bottleneck : Voyager wins DARPA contract for solid rocket propellant technology : EXCLUSIVE: Inside the secret struggles of the Air Force’s T-7 Red Hawk : Boeing to bolster P-8A Poseidon’s anti-submarine warfare readiness, gets $880M contract : United’s Brand-New 787 With Polaris Studio Suites Sent Back To Boeing After Operational Woes : FAA Advises on Lower-altitude Speed Limits : Boeing “Encouraged” By C-17 Production Restart Discussions : Sustainable Aviation Fuel Plant Opens in Washington State : Swiss OEM Pilatus Studies Composite Scrap Recycling : Graduate Research Request FAA Extends Deadline For Pratt-Powered 777 Mods Sean Broderick June 18, 2026 Credit: NTSB The FAA has set a firm deadline of March 2033 for Pratt & Whitney-powered Boeing 777 operators to fully comply with engine nacelle upgrade requirements designed to minimize risk following an engine fan blade failure—a five-year extension of the previous deadline. The agency's decision, issued June 16, denied a Boeing request to push airworthiness limitations compliance—or maintenance instruction updates—out to March 2038. It also proactively gave Boeing another two years, or until March 4, 2029, to submit all design changes to the FAA. A 2022 exemption gave Boeing until March 2027 to finalize the proposed changes, and operators an additional year to incorporate them. Pratt also developed modifications as part of the changes prompted by three in-service engine failures, in 2018, 2020 and 2021. The effort's complexity prompted Boeing to petition the FAA in May 2025 for more time than the 2022 exemption provides. Boeing's recent petition included an update on its progress, which the FAA treated as proprietary. The agency, citing the project's "complexity," determined Boeing needed more time to complete its share of the work. In support of this petition, in addition to the regular project schedule provided ... indicates that it is unlikely Boeing will submit for FAA approval all design changes needed to show full compliance by the current deadline of March 4, 2027," the agency wrote in its June 16 decision. "Therefore, the FAA has determined that it is in the public interest to extend the due date ... by two years, from March 4, 2027, to March 4, 2029." The Pratt-powered 777 fleet was grounded in February 2021 following the third in-service incident. Pratt, Boeing and the FAA developed a return-to-service plan that included immediate inlet and thrust reverser modifications and an inspection program. Additional changes, including fan cowl and engine flange modifications being incorporated as part of the package, are subject to the 2033 deadline. The new timeline compresses an already tight window between Boeing's deadline for finalizing the design changes and when operators must have them in place. But the real-world impact may be minimal. United Airlines operates the most Pratt-powered 777s, but the fleet is shrinking. Aviation Week Fleet Discovery shows 40 in service and two parked. When the grounding took place in 2021, United had 52 PW4000-powered 777-200s. The global fleet size, which numbered about 120 five years ago, is also getting smaller. Fleet Discovery shows 71 in service, including six that are parked. Another 25 show as in storage but not formally retired. Missile production push runs into solid rocket motor bottleneck A new CSIS report says planned 2027 interceptor buys will test a supply chain still recovering from years of consolidation by Sandra Erwin June 14, 2026 Credit: CSIS WASHINGTON — U.S. production of solid rocket motors is rising, but not fast enough to meet the Pentagon’s missile-defense program demands, according to a new report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The report says solid rocket motors remain a bottleneck across the U.S. missile industrial base, even as the Pentagon prepares for a sharp increase in interceptor production. The Defense Department’s 2027 budget request includes more than $73 billion for missile programs across mandatory and discretionary funding, up from a prior peak of $29 billion in 2024, according to CSIS. The Pentagon expects deliveries of more than 2,100 air and missile defense interceptors in calendar year 2027, a roughly 70% increase from nearly 1,300 in 2021. But CSIS says that level remains well below the department’s stated production goals of roughly 5,000 interceptors a year across Army, Navy and Air Force programs. By submitting this form, you agree to the SpaceNews privacy policy and terms and conditions and to receive email from us and our partners. You can opt-out at any time. “Achieving these goals will require dealing with myriad challenges to increasing interceptor production,” the report says. It adds that the targets were set before Operation Epic Fury, which could increase pressure to replenish interceptors used in early 2026. The study, sponsored by Raytheon Technologies, Ursa Major and X-Bow Systems, argues that the air and missile defense interceptor industrial base isn’t configured for a long conflict with high missile-expenditure rates. A central concern is that solid rocket motors sit beneath nearly every major U.S. missile program. Problems in motor production, propellant ingredients, nozzles, inspection capacity or the specialized workforce can ripple across multiple weapon lines. The current constraints reflect years of consolidation. Between 2000 and 2015, the domestic solid rocket motor industry shrank from six suppliers to two: Aerojet Rocketdyne and Orbital ATK. Those companies are now part of L3Harris and Northrop Grumman, respectively. A new group of entrants has since moved into the market, including X-Bow, Ursa Major, Firehawk, Castelion, Anduril, Nammo, Avio USA and Prometheus Energetics. CSIS says those companies could eventually diversify the supply base, but many haven’t yet shown they can move from prototypes or limited production into large production lots. The report also points to a shift in the space industry. Commercial launch once helped support demand for solid rocket motors, particularly during the Space Shuttle era. But much of the commercial launch market has moved toward liquid propulsion, reducing the space sector’s role as a stabilizing source of demand for solid motor suppliers. CSIS argues that fixing the problem will require more than emergency funding. The report calls for stable demand signals, multiyear buying, direct investment in suppliers, requirements reform and broader acceptance of new suppliers. The Pentagon’s $1 billion investment in L3Harris solid rocket motor production is useful, the report says, but such direct-to-supplier intervention “cannot substitute for more proactive supply chain management by both the government and prime contractors.” CSIS says these investments tend to address visible bottlenecks rather than prevent future ones, and can’t replace sustained demand from the government customer. The report also says acquisition rules and cost-focused requirements can make it harder to introduce new materials, components and manufacturing processes. That can limit flexibility for established suppliers while slowing the entry of newer companies. Voyager wins DARPA contract for solid rocket propellant technology The $16.5 million award is for ‘thrust-control technology’ designed to make solid propulsion systems more adaptable across different missions and weapons programs by Sandra Erwin May 26, 2026 WASHINGTON — The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency awarded Voyager Technologies a $16.5 million contract to continue development of a solid rocket motor thrust-control technology designed to make missile propulsion systems more adaptable across different missions and weapons programs. The award, announced May 26, funds Phase 2 of DARPA’s Burn n’ Go program, an effort launched last year to develop what the agency describes as a “propellant-embedded control technology” that would give solid rocket motors tailorable, post-manufacturing thrust control. Traditional solid rocket motors are largely fixed once they are built. Their thrust output, burn duration and other performance characteristics are determined during manufacturing by the composition and geometry of the propellant inside the motor casing. While that approach supports large-scale production, it limits flexibility because different weapons or missions often require different motor designs. DARPA’s program is aimed at changing that model by enabling aspects of a motor’s performance to be modified after production rather than requiring entirely separate propulsion systems for different applications. The effort comes as the Pentagon pushes to expand missile production amid growing demand for air defense interceptors, long-range strike weapons and other munitions. Voyager, a space and defense technology company, expanded into the propulsion sector last year through its acquisition of Estes Energetics, a manufacturer of solid rocket motors and energetic materials. “This award reflects confidence in our ability to translate advanced propulsion technologies into field-ready capabilities that support U.S. national readiness and deterrence,” Matt Magaña, Voyager’s president of space, defense and national security, said in a statement. During the first phase of the Burn n’ Go program, Voyager developed a conceptual system architecture and preliminary designs for the technology, the company said. The second phase is a 20-month effort focused on validating the concept and conducting “tailorable SRM hot-fire demonstrations,” referring to live tests of solid rocket motors under operational conditions. EXCLUSIVE: Inside the secret struggles of the Air Force’s T-7 Red Hawk From a weather restriction to a "serious" airworthiness risk, the Air Force's newest training jet faces far more issues than previously reported, an investigation by Breaking Defense found. By Michael Marrow on June 22, 2026 1:45 pm Share The T-7 Red Hawk trainer. (Graphic by Breaking Defense, original photos via DVIDS/Getty) WASHINGTON — By 2028, the Air Force expects that the T-7 Red Hawk will be flying with new pilots, heralding a modern era of training. But an internal Air Force presentation, dated August 2025 and viewed by Breaking Defense, says that for the first several years those aircraft will come with a “serious” airworthiness risk, stemming from what the document calls “non-compliance” on the part of contractor Boeing to obtain necessary information on the training jet. It’s one of several, previously unreported issues Air Force officials have been willing to accept to begin operations for the Red Hawk, an investigation by Breaking Defense found. This investigation, which included interviews with sources, current and former Air Force officials and analysts, as well as a review of internal documents, provides the most detailed picture yet of the T-7’s programmatic stumbles, tensions with plane-maker Boeing and the Air Force’s plan to right the ship. Among this investigation’s findings: The first 82 T-7 aircraft are projected to fly with a “serious” airworthiness risk. Sources familiar with the program are concerned that attempts to get the T-7 to the fleet faster could increase risk for junior pilots. The Air Force has assessed sustainment of the aircraft as “high risk.” Internal Air Force documents say Boeing’s failure to provide certain data on the aircraft amounts to “non-compliance” on the part of the company. The plane currently cannot fly in the rain, and the program has struggled with a ground-based simulator. Air Force and Boeing officials are mulling a plan to change how the government buys the aircraft’s engines, at an “additional” taxpayer cost of up to $1.5 billion, which could come in exchange for technical data Boeing would provide on the company’s 747-8i jumbo jet. Two sources who spoke with Breaking Defense said the Red Hawk shows promise, and believe officials are dedicated to safety. But they raised concern about the aircraft’s speed of development, and argued the government has failed to hold Boeing to the terms it signed up for, pointing to consequences like delays and millions of dollars of added costs that may have to be carried by taxpayers. presented by In contested seas, autonomy must anticipate, not just navigate As missions stretch farther and comms grow less reliable, predictive software could become the edge that keeps missions afloat. By Breaking Defense “I’m concerned about the government losing capability because of a lack of enforcement of a contract,” a source with direct knowledge of the T-7 program, who like others was granted anonymity for this story, told Breaking Defense. This is part one of a three-part series looking at the T-7 Red Hawk. Part two and three will be published in the coming days. Many of the problems ultimately trace back to the initial T-7 contract awarded to Boeing by the Air Force in 2018, a fixed-price agreement that has caused the company to lose billions of dollars and been marked by disputes between the two sides about what the contract requires Boeing to provide. With a pressing need for a new trainer, Air Force officials have sought workarounds and new initiatives to keep the program moving forward. In an interview and in response to written questions, Air Force officials confirmed issues facing the T-7, but emphasized the Red Hawk will be safe and effective when delivered to pilots. While the program has been marked by technical challenges and contractual disputes, officials believe even if the T-7 is a work in progress, mitigation measures largely under the aegis of a new “active management” strategy should sufficiently ameliorate concerns and resolve points of contention. And, they argue further, extending operations of the aging T-38 Talon, the legacy trainer the T-7 is designed to replace, poses its own unique challenges. “The Air Force acknowledges the urgency of replacing the 60-year-old T-38 and is deliberately balancing the schedule risk of the T-7’s development with the significant operational risk of extending the T-38. The goal is to get the capability to the warfighter as quickly and safely as possible, and the program is confident in the safety of the new aircraft,” Air Force Brig. Gen. Matthew Leard, director of plans, programs, requirements and international affairs at Air Education and Training Command (AETC), told Breaking Defense. In response to a detailed list of questions, Boeing told Breaking Defense, “While we are working to get this capability to the warfighter as quickly as possible, we will not forgo safety or quality. Safety is paramount to Boeing and the T 7A program. “Post contract award, the Boeing T 7A Red Hawk program has safely accumulated over 344 flight test hours across more than 350 test flights,” the company added. “As we continue to collaborate with the U.S. Air Force, the T 7 program’s active management approach allows us to provide a production ready configuration to the Air Force prior to low rate initial production, further reducing future risk and accelerating the path to delivering this critical capability.” ‘Going Fast’ The Air Force says it needs to move quickly on the T-7 for many reasons, such as more modern features that can better prepare pilots to fly next-generation aircraft and an ejection system that can accommodate a wider range of body types, particularly for female aviators. But the program to this point has been dogged with delays. Boeing won the $9.2 billion T-7 contract in 2018, and struggles have set back the trainer’s schedule by over two years. Formal production was approved in May, and prevailing plans call for the Air Force to declare initial operational capability (IOC) — consisting of 14 aircraft ready for pilot training — in fall 2027. Air Force instructors are slated to begin what’s known as Type 1 training in production-representative planes this year, but the first new pilots are expected to fly in the aircraft beginning in spring 2028. In the meantime, the Air Force will have to keep operating the T-38, whose obsolete airframe is already compressing the pilot training pipeline, according to Leard. (While the cause of a May 12 T-38 crash remains under investigation, the Air Force was forced to ground the fleet for a week.) Yet even when new pilots start flying the T-7, there will still be more testing to do. The Red Hawk won’t have a fully expanded envelope — meaning the Air Force will not have completely evaluated the aircraft’s entire spectrum of operations. The jet under current plans will be designed to be safe to fly, but with limits pilots must obey. It’s not unusual to field aircraft and other weapon systems with high concurrency, or an overlap between a weapon system’s development and production phases. What’s different for the T-7, sources said, is that it is going to be operated by pilots relatively early in training, without the instincts and experience of a seasoned aviator. And while there will be an instructor in the back seat, things happen very quickly up in the air. The Air Force is “task saturating new pilots without a fully developed envelope,” the source with direct knowledge of the program said. “That scares me.” A government source familiar with the T-7 program told Breaking Defense they believe officials are being mindful of safety, but due to previous delays, they noted the program will need to move quickly through remaining development, potentially raising unforeseen consequences. “It’s the unknown, and they are going fast,” the person said, who was granted anonymity for this story. “When you go fast, things get screwed up.” Regarding the 2028 timeline, “If all the stars and moons align, 2028 is realistic,” the person said. “I hope so, but I don’t think so. I think it’s going to be close, but not make that mark.” APT-2, the first T-7A Red Hawk for the USAF, flies over Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. (Air Force photo by Bryce Bennett) Leard emphasized the aircraft will be safe when it is declared operational. “Where risk is concerned” regarding the timeline for the jet to enter service, “I would say we’ve shifted to accept more programmatic risk of concurrency to mitigate the operational risk of further delay,” he said. Rodney Stevens, the Air Force’s program executive officer for training, previously told Breaking Defense the T-7 will initially be held to a standard of being “as good as, if not slightly better, from a flight sciences perspective,” as the T-38 when new pilots begin to fly it. The Red Hawk will then be improved through additional development. Roughly a year ago, according to Leard, “We pivoted our approach and said, okay, let’s stop delaying the T-7 for capabilities the T-38 doesn’t have. Let’s take the T-38 equivalent airplane today, while testing continues. That way when testing is complete, we have trained [an] initial cadre and are ready for” the program’s initial operational test and evaluation phase. “I take that very personally as a taxpayer,” the government source said, describing the decision to accept aircraft only as good as the T-38 as “not the next-generation trainer that was sold to Congress to award the contract.” ‘Risk Burndown Plan’ The Air Force evaluates an aircraft’s safety of flight using an “airworthiness” criteria, which includes a matrix measured by three degrees of risk. The T-7 will have to fly with what’s defined as a “serious” risk, the second highest. And in the case of the Red Hawk, officials can’t apply limits that could avoid the underlying issue causing the problem. That’s because, according to the August 2025 presentation, Boeing is missing crucial data for the aircraft’s critical safety items, or “a part, assembly, or support equipment whose failure could cause loss of life, permanent disability or major injury, loss of a system or significant equipment damage.” Specifically, the presentation asserts Boeing did not ensure its supplier agreements included data, dubbed “critical characteristics,” on those critical safety items. In layman’s terms, that lack of data means officials can’t be sure whether a critical safety item meets specifications, including why one might fail or when it may need to be inspected. And if any one of those items malfunctions or breaks, by definition the aircraft or even a pilot’s life could be at risk. The presentation projects the first 82 T-7s, slated to be produced between now and 2031, will be affected as a result. Stevens confirmed the airworthiness risk associated with the dearth of critical safety item data, but reasoned similar problems are “not uncommon” across weapon systems and are managed “day-in and day-out” by the Air Force. Still, he said no “operational limit” in this case can be applied in lieu of the missing data. “We’ll have to evaluate individual manufacturers” who supply affected elements “to ensure that components were manufactured to the [critical safety item] criteria level,” Stevens said. “Otherwise, that risk will be carried forward for that aircraft. We’ll work hand-in-hand with AETC on managing that. “As we learn information and start to eliminate any uncertainties with components that are on the CSI list, we will reevaluate whether the airworthiness risk can be reduced,” he said. Additionally, he said that collaboration with Boeing on critical safety items “is part of a broader risk burndown plan for the T-7 program, which is designed to reduce system safety risks within the first few years of fielding.” JJ Gertler, an analyst at the Teal Group, told Breaking Defense that serious airworthiness risks “are not unprecedented,” but that the military services typically have enough information on the underlying problem to impose operational restrictions “so that they don’t impinge on whatever that particular safety area is.” In the case of the T-7’s critical safety items, the missing data means the Air Force cannot impose similar restrictions. “If this were the commercial world, there’d be a whole lot of liability lawyers lining up, sharpening their knives,” Gertler said. But Leard, for his part, said the airworthiness problem posed by the lack of critical safety item data is different from other flying risks where data shows a reason to be worried. The aircraft’s ejection system, for example, showed issues in earlier tests, but officials believe design tweaks have ameliorated concerns. Leard contrasted those problems with missing data on critical safety items for the aircraft, which includes systems that have already demonstrated reliability like the GE Aerospace F404 engine that powers the Navy’s F/A-18 Hornet. “On the Critical Safety Item Issue as it relates to the engine, our perspective is, this is a proven engine. It’s not a new engine,” he said. “For many of these CSI parts, we’re carrying the risk not because of known information that makes it high risk. It’s because we don’t have data on some of the parts, which I think is an important distinction … from an operational risk perspective, we view that much different than the risk we were previously carrying associated with the escape system.” The “serious” airworthiness risk does technically translate to an elevated chance of an accident. However, the two sources who spoke with Breaking Defense noted that issues stemming from a lack of data, if they arise, would more likely culminate in impacts like the need to ground the aircraft. While Stevens said the Air Force “is not anticipating” a need to ground the fleet, he acknowledged, “Obviously, we can’t predict the future, and ultimately, a fleet grounding determination would have to be made by the AETC commander.” Among other requirements the Air Force claims Boeing “did not flow down” to its suppliers include those for configuration status accounting, which “[p]rovides a detailed audit trail of the aircraft configuration and its evolution over time,” the August 2025 presentation says. The document says “[c]urrent impacts” of the configuration status accounting problem range from an unknown aircraft configuration to errors ordering parts and inefficient maintenance. In the longer term, the problem raises a host of issues like “runaway sustainment costs,” “compromised airworthiness” and “massive operational disruption,” according to the presentation. Like with critical safety items, Stevens said establishing configuration status accounting is a keen focus of the new active management strategy with Boeing that was initiated last year, which “was specifically designed to mitigate risks by ensuring we have the right processes in place for long-term sustainment, availability, and airworthiness.” Essentially, data will have to be captured and entered into an Air Force database as aircraft are delivered, “which will ensure a stable and supportable fleet for the warfighter that is currently in place and will continue to improve its fidelity through the first few lots of aircraft delivery,” he said. A T-7A Red Hawk trainer aircraft from the 416th Flight Test Squadron, takes off from St Louis Lambert International Airport (Boeing) ‘Inhibitors’ To Flight Testing Beyond data woes, Boeing’s performance issues on the T-7 program have been publicly documented, where program delays and developmental challenges so far have driven $3.2 billion in losses for the company. Sources who spoke with Breaking Defense detailed the issues as wide-ranging. The government source described a key issue as Boeing “not knowing what they built” due to insufficient information on the vast web of suppliers and thousands of parts that make up the supply chain of a complex modern aircraft. That lack of knowledge about the Red Hawk, the source said, has turned relatively minor hiccups during development into more substantial setbacks. “It takes them an enormous amount of time to figure out what to do when there is discovery” of a new problem, the person said. Staffing has been a concern as well. The company leads what’s known as pre-operational support (POS), providing logistical and engineering resources for the current phase of the program. A March 2026 presentation between Boeing and the Air Force, viewed by Breaking Defense, notes that “POS manning quantity is improved but immature/incomplete documentation” along with “experience level and attention to detail have created challenges.” Among other key “flight test inhibitors” described in the presentation are a lack of test point availability — itself a result of a backlog of analysis exacerbated by manpower limits — and parts shortages, where spare components need to be cannibalized from some aircraft to keep others flying. Some tools like digital design also haven’t entirely worked out as planned, with a 2025 Government Accountability Office review finding that Boeing did not provide necessary data. “The Air Force has no digital anything for the T-7,” the source with direct knowledge of the program said. “They can’t account for data. … It’s not even an enhancement over current processes. T-7 is a legacy acquisition.” To be sure, the person noted there’s blame to go around. “I think the Air Force is still struggling with digital stuff, it’s a little bit of Boeing and the Air Force,” they said. (Stevens said digital tools accelerated design work and offered predictive value, while also facilitating a modern manufacturing approach known as full-size determinant assembly that speeds up production.) Other challenges have been more mundane. For example, the aircraft currently cannot fly in the rain because exterior access panels don’t seal properly, potentially allowing water to seep in and damage the aircraft’s subsystems. The underlying problem forced the Air Force to tape up the aircraft during climate testing, the two sources told Breaking Defense. “I was dumbfounded,” the government source said. “I thought, ‘What the hell are we doing here?’” The T-7A Red Hawk endures a cockpit icing test in the McKinley Climatic Lab May 30 at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. (U.S. Air Force photo by Samuel King Jr.) Despite the design issue, Air Force officials defended the decision to accept the aircraft and fly it with weather restrictions. Avoiding the rain is “an operational limit that we are willing to accept in the short-term to begin training,” Leard said. He reasoned that waiting for a fix, which is expected to be evaluated this summer, would set back the program’s schedule and delay pilot certification for Type 1 training. “Would I trade two to four pilots being certified in the airplane for making sure we could fly through rain today? No, I think this was the right decision to make,” he said. Outside the aircraft itself, the jet’s ground-based training system, or GBTS, has had struggles of its own. The simulator helps new pilots get a feel for the aircraft and learn how to fly it before stepping into an actual cockpit, and helps maintain their currency in between flights. According to a report from the Air Force’s Operational Test and Evaluation Center dated November 2025 and reviewed by Breaking Defense, the GBTS was deployed even though it only mustered pass rates of under 30 percent for key benchmarks. “Despite these low pass rates,” officials “decided to ship the devices at the insistence of AETC to onboard the APT [Advanced Pilot Training] system as quickly as possible,” the report says. A separate Air Force presentation dated March 2026 and viewed by Breaking Defense rates the performance of the GBTS as “moderate confidence/moderate risk.” If the simulator isn’t ready, subsequent training could be delayed, sources noted. Leard, however, defended the ground system’s performance, and was not concerned it would be a schedule risk. “GBTS is integral in training our initial cadre and I’m confident it not only provides incredible training today, but it will only continue to get better,” he said. This is part one of a three-part series looking at the T-7 Red Hawk. Part two and three will be published in the coming days. Boeing to bolster P-8A Poseidon’s anti-submarine warfare readiness, gets $880M contract The US Navy has awarded Boeing an $880 million contract to enhance readiness across its P-8A Poseidon fleet. By Bojan Stojkovski Military Jun 21, 2026 06:20 PM EST P-8A Poseidon key to tracking Russian activity in Arctic and Atlantic. Boeing Boeing’s contract covers the procurement, modernization, and sustainment of training systems for P-8A Poseidon aircrews and maintenance personnel. The work includes the development, integration, testing, delivery, and installation of new training devices, along with upgrades to existing simulators to reflect evolving mission systems and aircraft configurations. It also encompasses associated hardware and software updates, spare parts, and continued technical support. The program is intended to keep training infrastructure aligned with the operational evolution of the fleet, ensuring that crews and technicians can train on systems that mirror real-world conditions. The investment supports sustained readiness for the P-8A Poseidon’s anti-submarine warfare and maritime surveillance missions as threat environments continue to develop. P-8A Poseidon remains central to US anti-submarine warfare strategy With the Pentagon sharpening its focus on high-end maritime competition, the capacity to rapidly train qualified crews and maintain consistent operational proficiency is increasingly treated as a core component of deterrence and warfighting effectiveness. In that sense, the Boeing P-8A Poseidon serves as the US Navy’s primary maritime patrol and anti-submarine warfare aircraft. Developed from the Boeing 737-800ERX airframe, it is built for long-range surveillance, submarine tracking, surface vessel monitoring, intelligence collection, and maritime strike support, Army Recognition reports. Equipped with advanced sensor suites, sonobuoy processing systems, and secure communications networks, the aircraft provides commanders with a comprehensive operational picture across expansive maritime domains. A total of more than 130 Boeing P-8A Poseidon aircraft are currently in service with the US Navy, supporting operations across multiple global theatres. The fleet is regularly deployed from key strategic hubs such as Japan, Guam, Hawaii, Iceland, Italy, Australia, and the UK, ensuring continuous maritime surveillance in regions deemed critical to US and allied security interests. US Navy strengthens undersea surveillance amid Chinese naval modernization The deal aligns with a period of rapid expansion in China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLA), which continues to grow both its surface combatants and submarine fleet. Beijing is also advancing its undersea warfare capabilities through new nuclear-powered attack submarines and ballistic missile submarines intended to extend operational reach across the Western Pacific. Tracking these increasingly sophisticated platforms has become a core mission for the P-8A Poseidon, particularly in strategically sensitive waters such as the South China Sea, East China Sea, and the wider Indo-Pacific. At the same time, Russia also continues to expand its submarine capabilities and Arctic military infrastructure, with nuclear-powered submarines operating regularly in the North Atlantic and Arctic – areas of strategic importance to NATO. Thus, the US Navy’s investment in training reflects the rising complexity of anti-submarine warfare. Crews must process large volumes of sensor and intelligence data and coordinate in real time with multiple domains, while advanced simulators help replicate realistic threat scenarios, improving readiness while preserving operational fleet availability. United’s Brand-New 787 With Polaris Studio Suites Sent Back To Boeing After Operational Woes Matthew Klint Posted onJune 20, 2026 15 Comments United’s first new “Elevated” Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner with Polaris Studio suites is heading back to Boeing after a rough start in commercial service. Whatever the precise technical issue, it appears serious enough to hobble service and now pull United’s most exciting new aircraft out of the schedule. United Airlines’ Brand-New 787 With Polaris Studio Suites Is Going Back To Boeing United Airlines’ newest and most premium Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner is going back to Boeing after weeks of operational issues. This Dreamliner is the first United 787-9 with the carrier’s new “Elevated” interior, including the new Polaris Studio suites, updated Polaris business class seats with doors, Premium Plus, and a refreshed economy cabin. This aircraft was supposed to represent the future of United’s longhaul premium experience. Instead, it is taking a detour back to Boeing. As first flagged by JonNYC, United’s new 787-9 has been grounded in San Francisco and is expected to ferry to Moses Lake, Washington, a Boeing maintenance facility. United has not publicly disclosed the precise technical issue, and I am not going to speculate beyond what can be said from the aircraft’s operational history: this has not been a smooth introduction. A brand-new widebody aircraft does not get pulled from service and sent back to Boeing because a seat door sticks, a galley latch is loose, or the mood lighting is off. Whatever is going on, it appears to be something more fundamental to the aircraft’s reliability than a minor cabin defect. That does not mean the aircraft is unsafe. Quite the opposite. If an aircraft is repeatedly causing operational headaches, taking it out of service and sending it back to the manufacturer is the responsible move. But it is still an embarrassing start. > Read More: Inside United Airlines’ New 787-9 Elevated With Polaris Studio And 99 Premium Seats Not The Debut United Wanted… This aircraft has had a bumpy introduction. United has heavily promoted its new Elevated 787-9s, and for good reason. The aircraft includes eight Polaris Studio suites, 56 standard Polaris suites, 35 Premium Plus seats, and an economy cabin with upgraded screens and features. The Polaris Studio suites are meant to be United’s most premium business class product yet, with larger seats, privacy doors, ottoman seating in select suites, upgraded bedding, pajamas, and even caviar service on select routes. That is all very nice. But none of it matters if the aircraft cannot reliably operate. United planned for these new premium-heavy 787s to help anchor its most important longhaul routes, including San Francisco to London and Singapore. Instead, it has had a disastrous operational performance in its initial weeks of service, with multiple flight cancellations and intercontinental ferry flights without passengers. A premium-heavy longhaul aircraft is expensive to have sitting on the ground. It is even more expensive when passengers are re-accommodated, crews are disrupted, and the aircraft becomes unpredictable in the schedule. And when that aircraft is the public debut of a heavily marketed new onboard product, the optics are even worse. More Quality Control Questions For Boeing? Boeing also does not need another headline about a newly delivered aircraft going back for technical attention. The 787 has matured into a very important aircraft for global airlines, and United is one of Boeing’s most important customers. But after years of quality-control concerns, delivery delays, and broader scrutiny over Boeing’s production system, a brand-new United Dreamliner going back to Boeing because it keeps having technical problems is not the sort of launch story either company wanted. To be clear, new aircraft can and do have “teething” issues. Airlines expect some issues when a new jet enters service (we saw the same thing when American Airlines introduced its 787-9). But there is a difference between a few early growing pains and an aircraft repeatedly failing to perform reliably enough to stay in service. CONCLUSION United’s first 787-9 with its new Elevated interior and Polaris Studio suites is heading back to Boeing after weeks of operational problems. United has not publicly disclosed the precise technical issue, and I am not going to identify one here (I’ve heard rumors). But the pattern is clear: this aircraft has not had the smooth debut United wanted, and the decision to send it back to Boeing suggests the issue is more serious than a routine cabin defect. The new Polaris Studio suites may be beautiful, but a flagship aircraft has to be reliable first and foremost. Hopefully Boeing can get this sorted quickly and United can put its most premium Dreamliner back into regular service. FAA Advises on Lower-altitude Speed Limits Max below 10,000 ft msl is 250 kias unless aircraft design dictates otherwise Saudia Technic will become Honeywell's first authorized service center in the Middle East for the 777's APU. (Photo: David McIntosh) By Kerry Lynch Editor, AIN monthly magazine June 18, 2026 The FAA is reminding operators of Part 25 transport-category aircraft that speeds greater than 250 knots indicated airspeed (kias) below 10,000 feet msl are prohibited unless the aircraft design dictates a higher minimum safe airspeed. In a newly released Information for Operators (InFO 26010), the agency noted that Part 91.117(a) restricts the higher speed at altitudes lower than 10,000 feet except in cases that qualify under 91.117(d). If the minimum safe airspeed is more than 250 kias, then the aircraft can be operated at the minimum safe airspeed, the FAA explained. The InFO comes with the introduction of some transport-category airplanes that require speeds in excess of 250 kias below 10,000 feet when operating with a “clean wing” configuration (when external equipment—landing gear, flaps, slats, and spoilers—is retracted to minimize drag). The introduction of these aircraft has caused confusion about how to comply with the speed limit regulations. Aircraft in that configuration must still comply with the federal regulations unless they have higher minimum safe airspeeds. In those cases, the FAA said, operators should file “H” (heavy) on the flight plan to inform controllers that higher speeds may be necessary on departure. The FAA also provided an example of how such operators should notify air traffic control: “SoCal Departure, Call Sign 136 Heavy, minimum safe (climb) speed is 270 knots.” Controllers will acknowledge this. However, the FAA warned that speed restrictions must be followed in cases of an obstacle departure procedure or standard instrument departure. “Since these restrictions may be published to meet procedure design criteria, terrain and obstacle clearance, or airspace containment, flight on these procedures at a higher airspeed may not be possible,” the FAA advised. “If an airspeed in excess of the published airspeed is required due to aircraft performance…the pilot should advise ATC and request a different departure procedure or alternative radar vectors for departure.” Boeing “Encouraged” By C-17 Production Restart Discussions Congress recently asked the USAF for a briefing on the feasibility of buying new C-17s and allies have interest too. Joseph Trevithick Published Jun 11, 2026 1:55 PM EDT USAF Operators of the C-17 Globemaster III have been reaching out to Boeing about possibly restarting the product line, and the company has been “encouraged” by these engagements. Separately, Congress recently directed the U.S. Air Force to prepare a formal briefing on the feasibility of acquiring new Globemaster IIIs. The Air Force’s C-17 fleet is critical for U.S. power projection globally. At the same time, a succession of crises in recent years has put serious strain on these aircraft, and questions have already been raised about the viability of the current plan to keep them flying through 2075. The House Committee on Armed Services added the requirement for the C-17 production restart briefing to a report accompanying the latest draft of the annual defense policy bill, or National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), last week. The Air Force took delivery of its last Globemaster III in 2013, and has some 222 of these airlifters in service today. The air arms of Australia, Canada, India, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom also have smaller fleets of these airlifters. Three more of these aircraft are operated under the Strategic Airlift Capability (SAC) initiative, a multi-national arrangement with several European members, as well as the United States. Boeing shuttered the C-17 line entirely in 2015. Boeing Pieces Together the Last C-17 on the Line “The committee recognizes that the existing C-17 fleet continues to bear significant operational demands supporting combatant commander requirements, humanitarian assistance missions, and global mobility operations,” the provision in the House Committee on Armed Services’ report notes. “The committee is concerned that future operational demands may place additional strain on the existing C-17 fleet.” “Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than March 1, 2027, assessing the feasibility of restarting the production line for the C-17 aircraft,” it adds. The committee wants the Air Force’s briefing to at least include the following: • “An assessment of the technical and industrial feasibility of restarting the C-17 production line, including the status of tooling, supplier base viability, workforce availability, and potential reconstitution costs.” • “An estimate of the timeline required to reestablish production and deliver the first newly produced aircraft.” • “A cost estimate for restarting the production line and procuring additional aircraft, including options for limited procurement and multi-year procurement.” • “An evaluation of alternative approaches to increasing strategic airlift capacity, including service life extension programs, modernization of existing aircraft, procurement of commercial derivative cargo aircraft, and expansion of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet.” • “An assessment of potential international partner interest in participating in or contributing to a restarted production line.” A row of US Air Force C-17s. USAF TWZ subsequently reached out to Boeing to ask about the company’s current position on rebooting C-17 production. “Our goal is to help our customers be successful, and we work with them to develop innovative solutions to meet their mission needs, including development and production partnerships,” a Boeing spokesperson told us this week. “We are proud of our continued support for the unique, mission-proven capabilities that the C-17 Globemaster III delivers to the U.S. Air Force and eight allied nation partners.” At the Paris Air Show last year, Turbo Sjogren, Vice President and General Manager of Boeing Global Services-Government Services, had told Shephard Defense that talks with an unnamed country about a possible C-17 production restart were in their “early infancy.” “It is a very extraordinary effort to do” and is “reflective of the utility of the aircraft,” he also said at the time, according to Shephard. Boeing has also now said that it is always willing to work to better understand the requirements and needs of its customers. Any talk about the prospect of restarting C-17 production would also have to be viewed in the broader context of the Air Force’s still-evolving requirements for the Next Generation Air Lift (NGAL) program. The service’s current NGAL plans envision a single aircraft replacing the very different C-17 and C-5 Galaxy fleets, as you can read more about here. A C-5 Galaxy, at left, and a C-17, right. USAF TWZ also reached out to the U.S. Air Force about the recently requested briefing. It is unclear what it might cost to get the C-17 line restarted and what the unit price of these new-production aircraft would be in the end. There are various factors at play, including whether Boeing retains any relevant tooling, the knowledge base of its current workforce, the state of third-party supply chains, and the availability of physical space to build the airplanes. Back in 2019, the company sold off the facilities in Long Beach, California, where it built the original run of Globemaster IIIs. More than a decade ago, the RAND Corporation did conduct a detailed, independent analysis that explored options for resuming production of the baseline C-17A, a new C-17B, and a significantly revised “fuel efficient” C-17FE derivative. The C-17B was “a variant Boeing has proposed that adds centerline landing gear, a tire deflation/inflation system, higher-thrust engines, advanced flaps, and an advanced situational awareness and countermeasures system,” according to RAND’s report. The C-17FE derivative “would have a narrower fuselage, up-rated engines, a double-element flap system, winglets, a longer loading ramp, a shorter cargo door, and a modified horizontal tail.” A graphic offering a very general comparison between the C-17A and the proposed C-17FE. Boeing RAND said that it could cost between $2.1 and $2.7 billion in 2011 dollars to begin making C-17A models again after a pause, depending on how much tooling Boeing retained. The cost ranges would be $4.6 to $6.4 billion for new production of the improved C-17B version, and $6.2 billion to $7 billion to start building the C-17FE derivative. Billions more would be required to actually procure the aircraft, with unit prices being highly dependent on the total size of the production, as outlined in the table below. If nothing else has changed, these cost projections would still be significantly higher today just due to inflation. As an aside here, RAND published a similar assessment of the options for restarting production of the F-22 Raptor in 2011. That report factored heavily into a study the Air Force subsequently delivered to Congress on that topic back in 2017, which you can read more about here. Foreign participation in new production of C-17s could help defray costs, and is one of the points the House Armed Services Committee specifically wants the Air Force to address in its briefing. As TWZ noted last year after Turbo Sjogren made comments at the Paris Air Show, Boeing’s discussions at that point might not have been with the U.S. government. Earlier in 2025, then-Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba had expressed interest in buying Globemaster IIIs, raising immediate questions about where those aircraft might come from. It should be noted here that the U.S. Air Force’s C-17s have received various upgrades over the years, and the service continues to move ahead with other plans to improve their performance and expand their capabilities. This includes the installation of 3D-printed microvanes on the fuselage, which offer a very minor reduction in drag (approximately one percent), but that translates into real reductions in fuel consumption. All Air Force C-17s are expected to have this feature by the end of next year. Communications and data-sharing upgrades have also been a major focus area across all of the Air Force’s airlift and tanker fleets. Boeing is now under contract for a more extensive upgrade of the flight decks on Air Force C-17s. The company says this will aid in “resolving avionics obsolescence” and integrate new open systems architectures to make it easier to add new and improved capabilities and functionality in the future. A look inside the cockpit of a U.S. Air Force C-17. USAF The prospect of a re-engining effort for the Globemaster III fleet has also been raised in the past, but the Air Force downplayed the value of doing so earlier this year. When it comes to discussions about restarting C-17 production, another key factor is the lack of immediate alternative options. There is really no other aircraft in this class in production now in the United States or anywhere else in the West. Airbus has long positioned its turboprop-powered A400M as sitting in a capability space between Lockheed Martin’s C-130 family and the C-17. Embraer’s KC-390 Millennium design, which is also offered as an aerial refueling tanker, has generally been pitched as a jet-powered competitor to the C-130. China’s Y-20 and Russia’s Il-76 are really the only in-production analogs on any level to the C-17 globally. The House Armed Services Committee has now also asked the Air Force to speak to the possibility of buying “commercial derivative cargo aircraft” and/or an “expansion of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet,” or CRAF, to help bolster airlift capacity. The CRAF is an arrangement by which the U.S. military can call upon commercial airlines and charter companies to help move cargo and personnel, which you can learn more about here. A key issue here is that the C-17 is specifically designed for tactical operations right at the tactical edge. This includes the ability to bring combat-ready forces to far-flung locations without the need for an established airfield. Additional commercial alternatives could still be utilized in rear areas to help free up C-17s for more demanding missions and otherwise relieve stress on the Globemaster III fleet. A C-17 at Delamar Dry Lake in Nevada during training. USAF Questions have been increasingly raised about the survivability of the C-17 itself, especially in the context of a future high-end fight, as the threat ecosystem continues to expand and evolve. The Air Force has made clear that it is working to find new ways to bolster the defensive capabilities of all of its existing airlifters, as well as its tanker fleets, and that this is a key consideration in the evolving NGAL requirements. TWZ has long been sounding the alarm on the need for more survivable cargo planes and tankers. The Air Force already has decades’ worth of experimental work and studies on concepts for stealthy cargo aircraft and tankers, as well as non-stealthy ones with blended-wing-body (BWB) planforms, under its belt. Over the years, several companies have publicly put forward prospective designs that could be relevant for NGAL, as well. A wind tunnel model of a design concept for an advanced tanker and/or cargo aircraft that the Air Force explored as part of a project called Speed Agile in the late 2000s and early 2010s. USAF A rendering of the blended-wing-body demonstrator aircraft now in development for the Air Force. USAF When any new platform developed under NGAL actually enters service remains to be seen. The stated plan the Air Force has put forward to date would see those new aircraft replacing its C-5s first, with C-17s flying through 2075. By that point, the Globemaster III, as a type, will have been in service for 80 years. “The C-17 is the most amazing airplane ever made. I have a lot of time in it, so I can say that. We have asked it to do a lot of things, and it’s done more than we ever planned for when we bought that airplane,” Air Force Lt. Gen. Rebecca Sonkiss told TWZ and other outlets at a roundtable on the sidelines of the Air & Space Forces Association’s (AFA) annual Warfare Symposium in February. “It has performed flawlessly, but it’s getting old too.” Sonkiss is Deputy Commander of Air Mobility Command (AMC). She has been serving as the interim head of the command since her predecessor, Gen. John Lamontagne, became Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force in January. “I cannot have a gap in my strategic airlift forces, and we’re working forward on the NGAL to combine the view of the C-5 and the C-17 fleet and figure out what the next strategic airlifter needs to be. That conversation, in my book, can’t happen enough, or can’t happen fast enough,” she added at the roundtable in February. “We have to get after what next looks like, and we can’t wait until we’re shoveling it into the boneyard before we get to that discussion.” Whether the Air Force’s future airlift plans also include buying new-production C-17s remains to be seen. For its part, Boeing does not appear to have ruled out the possibility just yet. Sustainable Aviation Fuel Plant Opens in Washington State Facility uses renewable electricity to produce sustainable fuel from air Twelve has inaugurated its commercial-scale eSAF production facility in Moses Lake, Washington. By Curt Epstein Business Aviation Services Editor June 16, 2026 Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) developer Twelve has officially inaugurated its AirPlant One commercial SAF production facility in Moses Lake, Washington. Developed over the past three years in partnership with major investors including Alaska Airlines and Microsoft, it is the first commercial refinery in the U.S. to produce second-generation “eSAF,” using a feedstock of atmospheric carbon and electricity via the power-to-liquid pathway. Twelve’s process captures CO2 from the air, combines it with water and renewable electricity, and converts that into hydrocarbon fuel molecules to produce SAF that meets ASTM International certification standards for jet fuel. Like all certified SAF, it requires no modifications to aircraft, engines, or existing airport infrastructure and can be freely mixed with conventional jet-A. According to the company, the opening of the Washington plant—with its capacity of 50,000 gallons of SAF a year—demonstrates that American manufacturing can produce fuel by using abundant, onshore feedstocks, with no upstream extraction required. Its cost is anchored to long-term power contracts rather than commodity markets or OPEC decisions. And with supply and infrastructure to uplift SAF at Pacific Northwest airports constrained, the facility directly addresses that gap, producing fuel domestically for flights and reducing dependence on foreign fuel sources and the supply-chain disruptions that come with them. “We broke ground on AirPlant One with a simple thesis: that the fuels powering the global economy could be made from renewable electricity and air, anywhere in the world,” said Nicholas Flanders, co-founder and CEO of Twelve. “Today, that thesis is operational, and Alaska Airlines will fly on fuel made right here in Washington State.” The company plans for its next facilities—including one in Europe—to increase its output exponentially, to tens of millions of gallons annually, once built. Swiss OEM Pilatus Studies Composite Scrap Recycling Novel approach could transform prepreg scraps into new aircraft components A 32-month research project will investigate whether Pilatus can recycle carbon fiber production waste directly back into the aircraft construction process. By Amy Wilder Writer May 22, 2026 Pilatus Aircraft launched a 32-month study with Swiss institutions to investigate whether carbon fiber production waste can be recycled directly back into the aircraft construction process. The Swiss aircraft manufacturer produces more than six tonnes of carbon fiber waste annually from cutting “prepreg” material—carbon fiber web pre-impregnated with synthetic resin—during component production. Recycling the material could significantly reduce production waste and potentially replace certain aluminum parts with carbon components, generating savings of up to 36 tonnes of aluminum per year, according to Pilatus. The study will investigate a novel approach that heats sticky prepreg scraps in a controlled manner, causing them to lose their adhesive qualities and allowing further processing by machine. Then the material is cut into small pieces and transformed into new components using a special pressing process before being hardened. No established industrial method currently exists in aviation for directly transforming unused prepreg waste into new components. Pilatus is partnering with researchers at the Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts and Inspire AG, a strategic partner of ETH Zurich, on the project. Swiss innovation agency Innosuisse is providing funding for the project. “The fact that Innosuisse chose to allocate a substantial financial contribution to the study is a reflection of its ecological, economic, and technological relevance,” said Urs Thomann, director of technologies, processes, and sustainability at Pilatus. 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 Curt Lewis