The F-35 Joint Program Office confirmed that the Defense Department is aware of what it described as a “shipment issue” involving unserviceable F-35 Lightning II components.

The office said it is working with U.S. authorities and industry partners to recover the components, investigate what happened and introduce safeguards against a repeat incident.

The circumstances surrounding the diversion remain unclear.

Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles confirmed that F-35 components had ended up in Hong Kong but said his understanding was that the missing items were not sensitive equipment or sensitive parts. Australia is participating in the investigation with the United States and Lockheed Martin.

Other reporting has described the shipment as including an F-35 cockpit canopy and a weapons-bay door. The reported presence of a canopy has increased concern because components associated with the aircraft’s low-observable characteristics could potentially provide information about its design or manufacturing. The Pentagon has not publicly characterized the individual components as classified or disclosed their technical sensitivity.

How the shipment was diverted

The parts were being transported from Australia to the United States for repair or disposal when the shipment was unexpectedly routed to Hong Kong, according to reporting based on people familiar with the matter.

The shipment was being handled by an intermediary working on behalf of Lockheed Martin, the F-35’s prime contractor. It remains unclear why the routing changed, who authorized the diversion or who currently possesses the components.

The uncertainty is central to the Pentagon investigation.

The Defense Department has confirmed that there was a shipment problem and that it is seeking to recover the components. It has not publicly provided a complete reconstruction of the shipment’s movements.

Lockheed Martin said it could not discuss the status of individual shipments for security reasons but said its teams follow U.S. regulations governing the movement of F-35 components and use safeguards intended to protect the program and allied partners.

Why Hong Kong matters

Hong Kong is a special administrative region of China, and the territory does not maintain an independent military or foreign-policy system.

That has heightened concern in Washington over the possibility that Chinese authorities could obtain access to the components.

Congress has opened an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the shipment, according to reporting that first brought the incident to public attention. Pentagon and State Department officials had already briefed congressional staff on the matter before the incident became public.

The existence of a shipment in Hong Kong does not by itself establish that China’s military or intelligence services obtained or examined the components.

The current public evidence establishes that the parts were diverted to Hong Kong and that U.S. authorities are attempting to recover them. Questions about who currently controls the components and whether they were accessed by Chinese authorities remain under investigation.

The F-35 supply chain is unusually global

The incident exposes a difficult feature of the F-35 program: its sustainment system is international by design.

The aircraft is operated by the United States and numerous allied countries. Spare parts are maintained through a global pool rather than being held exclusively by each individual operator.

A 2023 Government Accountability Office investigation found that the F-35 program’s spare-parts system involved more than 50 domestic and international facilities operated by contractors other than Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney. The Department of Defense owned the global pool, while contractors managed many of the parts.

That arrangement allows parts to be moved between countries as aircraft require maintenance.

It also creates a complicated chain of custody.

A component can move through military organizations, contractors, logistics companies and international facilities before reaching its final destination. Each additional handoff creates a requirement for accurate records, authorization and physical security.

GAO had already identified accountability problems

The Hong Kong incident comes against the backdrop of documented problems with F-35 spare-parts accountability.

In a 2023 report, the Government Accountability Office found that one F-35 prime contractor had recorded losses of more than 1 million spare parts worth over $85 million since May 2018.

The F-35 Joint Program Office had reviewed less than 2% of those losses. More than 900,000 parts valued at more than $66 million had not been reported to the program office for review as of October 2022.

The GAO said the Defense Department did not have a complete system for tracking the location, quantity and value of all government-owned F-35 spare parts held at contractor facilities.

It recommended that the Pentagon establish clearer requirements for contractors to report losses and dispose of excess, obsolete or unserviceable components.

The Pentagon agreed with the recommendations.

The problem has not disappeared

A more recent GAO assessment, released in June 2026, found that F-35 sustainment continues to face significant challenges.

The watchdog reported that the aircraft’s mission-capable rate declined from 67% in fiscal 2021 to 44% in fiscal 2025, while the full-mission-capable rate declined from 38% to 25%.

GAO said the F-35 Joint Program Office’s new sustainment strategy requires an estimated additional $13.7 billion through fiscal 2031 and depends heavily on private-sector suppliers to provide more than $7 billion in additional parts and other material. Capacity constraints remain for some key components.

GAO also found that the program was still working to improve its property-accountability systems.

As of fiscal 2025, the program office had conducted inventories of F-35 parts and equipment valued above $1 million, but had not verified the accuracy and completeness of all property records. GAO said information-technology systems needed for complete accountability were not yet fully in place.

The latest investigation therefore comes at a time when the Pentagon is already attempting to strengthen oversight of the F-35 sustainment network.

The security question remains unresolved

The F-35 is a fifth-generation fighter whose capabilities include low-observable technology, advanced sensors and networking systems.

That makes the physical security of its components different from the handling of ordinary commercial aircraft parts.

But not every F-35 component necessarily contains sensitive technology.

Marles emphasized that distinction when he said Australia’s understanding was that the missing equipment was not sensitive. Other defense specialists have similarly noted that the F-35 contains thousands of individual components with varying degrees of sensitivity.

The significance of the incident therefore depends partly on exactly which components were diverted, whether they were accessible to unauthorized parties and whether any technical information could be extracted from them.

Those questions have not been publicly resolved.

China already has extensive interest in the F-35

The incident has attracted additional scrutiny because China has long sought information about advanced U.S. military technology.

A Defense Science Board report released in 2013 said Chinese cyberattacks had obtained information from numerous U.S. defense programs, including the Joint Strike Fighter program.

That history has contributed to concern that physical components could provide another potential source of technical information.

But previous cyber-espionage allegations do not establish that the components now in question were accessed by China.

The Pentagon’s investigation will need to establish the chain of custody and determine what happened after the shipment was diverted.

The investigation now has several questions to answer

The immediate questions are logistical but have broader security implications.

Who changed the shipment’s destination?

Why was Hong Kong selected?

Who handled the components after they arrived?

Where are they now?

Were they ever inspected or opened?

What technical information, if any, could be obtained from the specific components?

And were existing F-35 supply-chain safeguards followed at each stage?

The answers will determine whether the episode was primarily a logistics failure, a contractor-control failure, an unauthorized diversion or something more serious.

For now, the Pentagon has confirmed the shipment problem and the investigation, but has not publicly answered those questions.

The incident also provides a new test of reforms that the Defense Department has been pursuing for years.

The F-35 program depends on a global network because aircraft operated by multiple countries require a common supply system. That makes international logistics unavoidable.

It also means that accountability cannot stop at the edge of a U.S. military facility.

The parts have to remain traceable wherever the F-35 program sends them.

Reporting Credit: U.S. Department of Defense / F-35 Joint Program Office — confirmation of the shipment issue and recovery investigation; U.S. Government Accountability Office — findings on F-35 global spare-parts accountability and sustainment; Australian Department of Defence — statements concerning the diverted components and Australia’s participation in the investigation; U.S. Congress — congressional inquiry into the reported diversion.

The post Pentagon Investigates How F-35 Parts Ended Up in Hong Kong appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

The United States has approved the sale of its most advanced fighter jet, the F-35, to Saudi Arabia. The decision has sparked debate over potential risks to regional stability and the security of sensitive technology. It coincides with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s visit to Washington and reflects a complex mix of strategic considerations.

Strategic Context and U.S. Decision

The Trump administration confirmed the F-35 stealth fighter sale to Saudi Arabia to strengthen military cooperation with the Gulf kingdom. However, officials have raised concerns about China potentially gaining access to sensitive technology. China remains one of Saudi Arabia’s top trading partners.

The sale also touches on Israel’s qualitative military edge. Israel, a key U.S. ally, deployed its F-35s during a 12-day conflict with Iran in June, demonstrating the jet’s critical role in regional operations. U.S. policymakers have considered how this sale may affect Israel’s strategic advantage.

Overview of the F-35 Program

The F-35 Lightning II, developed by Lockheed Martin, first rolled off the assembly line nearly 20 years ago in Fort Worth, Texas. It is a fifth-generation fighter combining stealth, advanced radar, and versatile mission systems for the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps.

Over 1,200 F-35s have been produced, supporting roughly 300,000 U.S. jobs, according to Lockheed Martin. The aircraft performs multiple roles, including aerial combat, bombing, intelligence, and reconnaissance. It is also integrated into 19 partner nations’ militaries, reflecting its global reach.

Operational History and Global Deployment

The F-35 has been deployed in combat by U.S. Marines in Afghanistan and by Italian forces during NATO missions monitoring Russian aircraft near Estonia. Its stealth design and twin-tail configuration make detection difficult, giving it a tactical advantage.

Bradley Bowman, senior director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, described the F-35 as “America’s best and most advanced fighter jet.” He highlighted its integrated sensors and networking capabilities, which allow it to communicate seamlessly with allied forces.

Cost and Program Challenges

The F-35 is the Pentagon’s most expensive weapons program. Each aircraft cost up to $77 million in 2023, according to the Congressional Research Service. The program has faced cost overruns, production delays, and maintenance issues.

A Government Accountability Office report estimates that maintaining, operating, and modernizing the planned fleet of 2,470 jets over a 77-year lifecycle could exceed $2 trillion. In 2023, the average delivery delay for new aircraft was 238 days. Mission readiness was approximately 55%, below program targets.

Dan Grazier, senior fellow at the Stimson Center, acknowledged the F-35’s versatility but said it has not always met operational expectations. He cited high-maintenance stealth coatings and sensor problems, emphasizing that “an aircraft must be reliable to be transformational.”

Security Considerations and Regional Implications

Some analysts worry that sensitive F-35 technology could be exposed. Historical intelligence reports indicate that Chinese cyber actors accessed data from Pentagon programs, including early F-35 information. Experts note, however, that the jet’s technology has evolved since then.

Bowman stressed that continuous updates to U.S. systems reduce risks from previous breaches. The fact that 19 partner nations continue to acquire the aircraft underscores its operational security.

Israel also remains a key factor. Maintaining its military advantage is central to U.S. policy in the Middle East. The sale intersects with broader Gulf security partnerships and ongoing peace initiatives in the Israel-Gaza region.

Lockheed Martin Perspective

Lockheed Martin defended the F-35 program against criticism. The company emphasized that the aircraft “enables peace through strength” and has accumulated more than one million flight hours across over 1,255 jets in service. Lockheed noted that the F-35 is crucial to allied air forces and global security frameworks.

Conclusion: Strategic Balance and Future Outlook

The F-35 sale to Saudi Arabia highlights the delicate balance between defense strategy, technology security, and regional geopolitics. While the aircraft strengthens allied military readiness, policymakers must weigh risks related to technology transfer, operational reliability, and Israel’s strategic edge.

As global demand for fifth-generation fighter jets rises, the United States faces the challenge of balancing arms exports, technological safeguards, and diplomatic objectives in an increasingly complex Middle East.

Source: AP News – What to know about the F-35 fighter jet that Trump is selling to Saudi Arabia

The post U.S. Confirms F-35 Fighter Jet Sale to Saudi Arabia Amid Security Concerns appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

In a stunning feat of engineering and resourcefulness, the U.S. Air Force has introduced a combat-ready F-35A fighter jet crafted from the wreckage of two severely damaged aircraft — earning it the nickname “Frankenjet.”

Now fully operational and assigned to the 388th Fighter Wing, the Frankenjet not only flies — it performs like new.

The story begins nearly a decade ago.

• 2014: An F-35A, known as AF-27, suffered catastrophic engine failure during takeoff at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida. The explosion tore through internal systems and sparked a fire that destroyed the rear two-thirds of the jet.
• 2020: Another F-35A, AF-211, experienced a landing gear failure at Hill Air Force Base in Utah, severely damaging the front section of the aircraft.

Instead of scrapping both $75 million jets, Air Force engineers and Lockheed Martin experts made a bold move in 2022: fuse the undamaged nose of AF-27 with the intact rear of AF-211.

Scott Taylor, lead mechanical engineer at Lockheed Martin, called it a historic achievement.

“All aircraft sections can be de-mated and re-mated theoretically, but it’s just never been done before. This is the first F-35 ‘Franken-bird.’”

To make it happen, engineers developed new tools, fixtures, and processes, working tirelessly for more than two years at Hill AFB.

In January 2025, the Frankenjet took to the skies for the first time — flying from Utah to Lockheed Martin’s F-35 facility in Fort Worth, Texas. It performed flawlessly, with engineers saying it handled “like it was fresh off the production line.”

Last month, the rebuilt fighter returned to Hill AFB and was assigned to active duty with the same unit AF-211 originally belonged to.

The total cost to rebuild the Frankenjet was $11.7 million, saving the Pentagon and U.S. taxpayers an estimated $63 million compared to the cost of building a brand-new F-35A.

The F-35A is one of three variants in the U.S. military’s stealth fighter fleet:

• F-35A: Used by the U.S. Air Force
• F-35B: Short take-off/vertical landing variant for the Marine Corps
• F-35C: Carrier-based version flown by the U.S. Navy

The aircraft is also a global force, with 17 allied nations flying or acquiring the jet, according to Lockheed Martin.

The Frankenjet is more than a clever nickname — it’s a symbol of innovation, resilience, and the power of rebuilding.

Source: CNN – ‘Frankenjet’ stealth fighter made from two wrecked warplanes joins US Air Force fleet

The post U.S. Air Force Builds ‘Frankenjet’ from Two Damaged F-35 Fighters appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Understanding the Aircraft Involved in the D.C. Crash

A tragic mid-air collision near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport has brought renewed attention to the UH-60 Black Hawk, the military helicopter involved in the crash that claimed 67 lives.

What Is the Black Hawk Helicopter?

The UH-60 Black Hawk is a “utility tactical transport“ helicopter, widely regarded as the workhorse of the U.S. Army. It has been a key part of military air operations for over four decades, serving in:

Air assault missions
Troop and cargo transport
Medical evacuations
Disaster relief efforts

Introduced in 1979, the Sikorsky-manufactured Black Hawk is known for its reliability, survivability, and versatility in both combat and peacetime operations. More than 5,000 Black Hawks have been built and used in 36 countries, and the Army expects them to remain in service for at least the next 30 years.

Details of the D.C. Black Hawk Crash

The Black Hawk involved in the Washington, D.C. collision belonged to Bravo Company, 12th Aviation Battalion, based at Davison Army Airfield, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. It was conducting a routine training mission when it collided with American Eagle Flight 5342, killing all onboard.

Experienced Crew on Board

Military officials confirmed that the Black Hawk’s crew was highly experienced, including an instructor pilot with over 1,000 flight hours. The flight was part of an annual night-time evaluation of the pilot’s capabilities.

According to retired Army Lt. Col. Darin Gaub, video footage suggests that the Black Hawk did not change course, speed, or altitude before the crash, possibly indicating that the crew was unaware of the jet in its path.

Gaub also noted a reduced number of crew chiefs on board for the mission—only one instead of the usual three—which may have impacted the crew’s ability to spot other aircraft at night.

Ongoing Investigation

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is leading the investigation into the cause of the collision. Officials have not yet determined whether pilot error, mechanical failure, or miscommunication played a role.

Previous Black Hawk Crashes and Safety Record

The Black Hawk is generally considered a safe and reliable aircraft, but it has been involved in past accidents.

March 2023: Two Black Hawks from Fort Campbell, Kentucky, collided during a training exercise, killing nine soldiers.
April 2023: Two AH-64 Apache helicopters crashed in Alaska, leading to another deadly incident.

Following these crashes, the U.S. Army temporarily grounded all aircraft (except for critical missions) to review safety procedures.

How Safe Are Black Hawk Helicopters?

A Military.com review of Black Hawk crashes found that 60 people had died in training incidents over the past decade. However, it also noted that:

Black Hawks have fewer fatal incidents compared to other helicopters, including the AH-64 Apache and CH-47 Chinook.
The aircraft has one of the lowest accident rates in the Army fleet relative to flight hours.

What’s Next?

The NTSB investigation will seek to determine what went wrong in the D.C. collision and whether additional safety measures are needed to prevent future tragedies. The Army will likely review training protocols, crew requirements, and air traffic coordination procedures following this fatal crash.

Source

The post Black Hawk Helicopter: The Military’s Trusted Workhorse Explained appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.