F-35 parts diversion: how did stealth components reach Chinese government custody?
UPDATE — September 25, 2026: The F-35 parts diversion has entered a more serious phase. Bloomberg, citing two people briefed on the incident, says the Chinese government took possession of the diverted components. The parts had not been returned as of September 24.
United Parcel Service (UPS) was shipping a cockpit canopy and weapons-bay door from an Australian military F-35 in late May 2026. The components were travelling to the United States (U.S.) for inspection and possible repair or disposal. Both were supplied by Lockheed Martin and coated with radar-absorbing material associated with the aircraft’s stealth capabilities.
The aircraft carrying the shipment stopped in South Korea while travelling towards the U.S. From there, the cargo was routed to Hong Kong. The cause remains unexplained, and no public account identifies who changed the destination.
POLITICO first exposed the diversion on September 18. CBS News later confirmed through a defence official that the Pentagon was investigating and trying to retrieve the components. The Pentagon declined to confirm Chinese custody publicly. Nevertheless, Bloomberg’s reporting places Washington in the extraordinary position of trying to recover stealth-related F-35 components held by the Chinese government.
F-35 parts diversion: UPS and the broken chain of custody
The Department of Defense (DOD) acknowledged the problem through its F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO). Its public description was “a shipment issue of unserviceable F-35 Lightning II components.” — F-35 Joint Program Office, quoted by FreightWaves, September 18, 2026.
The carrier is no longer unknown. Bloomberg identifies UPS as the company shipping the cockpit canopy and weapons-bay door. UPS also disclosed the incident to the State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls out of an abundance of caution. Company spokesman Malcolm Berkley declined to comment.
The custody chain now runs from an Australian military F-35 through UPS, South Korea, Hong Kong and into Chinese government custody. Yet the person, company or automated system that changed the destination remains unnamed.
Responsibility cannot end at a tracking scan. Each handover should identify the sender, carrier, routing authority, receiving custodian and final consignee. Even a stealth program needs a delivery receipt.
Late May, South Korea and a June recovery effort
UPS was moving the shipment from Australia in late May 2026. The aircraft carrying the canopy and weapons-bay door stopped in South Korea while travelling towards the U.S. The cargo then went to Hong Kong instead of its intended American destination.
By June 23, the recovery effort had reached a closed Senate Armed Services Committee F-35 hearing. DOD officials expressed hope that the components would be returned. The unresolved recovery effort was therefore before Congress approximately three months before Chinese custody became public.
The House Foreign Affairs Committee and House Armed Services Committee are examining the diversion. A House Armed Services spokesperson said the committee had received multiple briefings. The Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Airland is also looking into the matter.
Important records remain outside public view. Officials have not identified the originating Australian installation, intended American facility, aircraft or waybill, Hong Kong consignee, routing authority or exact point where Chinese authorities took possession.
Australia has now confirmed its own examination. Defence Minister Richard Marles said Canberra was reviewing everything that occurred at the Australian end. However, he also played down the technical risk: “My understanding is that there is a sense of comfort, that we’re not talking about sensitive equipment here, or sensitive parts.” — Richard Marles, Australian Defence Minister, quoted by ABC News, September 22, 2026.
That assessment now requires an explanation. If both components were coated with radar-absorbing material, as Bloomberg’s sources say, what definition of non-sensitive was Australia’s defence minister applying?
F-35 parts diversion puts Pentagon, Lockheed and UPS safeguards to the test
Lockheed said DOD selected the available transportation options and that “we select the carrier that aligns with those government-mandated parameters.” — Lockheed Martin, quoted by Bloomberg via The Straits Times, September 24, 2026.
Lockheed also said it was working with the carrier on preventive measures intended to strengthen oversight and stop another occurrence. However, neither Lockheed nor UPS has publicly explained who entered, transmitted, accepted or acted upon the instructions that sent the cargo to Hong Kong.
The responsibility chain now has names. DOD selected the available transportation options. Lockheed selected the carrier. UPS moved the components. Their records should identify who authorised each destination, who received each alert and where the controls failed to stop the diversion.
China’s aerospace espionage record is documented
China’s possession of the components moves the issue beyond speculation about a destination. Two completed American prosecutions document efforts involving Chinese military personnel or intelligence officers to acquire aerospace information. Their methods explain why investigators must examine what occurred during Chinese custody as closely as how the cargo got there.
Su Bin helped select the information to steal
On July 13, 2016, a federal court sentenced aviation businessman Su Bin to 46 months in prison. The U.S. Department of Justice’s account of Su Bin’s guilty plea and sentencing describes a conspiracy spanning October 2008 to March 2014.
Su admitted helping conspirators in China obtain sensitive military information through unauthorised access to American computer networks. The department identified his collaborators as Chinese military officers. The case concerned technical data involving the C-17 transport and military fighter aircraft.
Moreover, Su guided the targeting. He identified useful companies and technologies, selected files for theft and translated material into Chinese. According to his admissions and sentencing documents, the conspirators prepared reports for the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s General Staff Headquarters.
That record shows a directed acquisition process, not indiscriminate copying. For the F-35 parts diversion investigation, the corresponding question is whether anyone identified the cargo’s value and acted on it.
Yanjun Xu targeted manufacturing knowledge
Meanwhile, a second case exposed a different approach. On November 5, 2021, a federal jury convicted Chinese intelligence officer Yanjun Xu of espionage and trade-secret offences. A court sentenced him to 20 years in November 2022.
The Justice Department’s account of Xu’s trial and sentencing identifies him as a Chinese Ministry of State Security deputy division director. His targets included proprietary composite aircraft-engine fan technology at General Electric’s aviation business.
Specifically, trial evidence described aliases, front companies and university invitations used to approach aerospace employees. Xu’s organisation also copied or hacked computers in hotel rooms while employees attended dinners. In that operation, dinner was not the only thing on the menu.
Together, these cases establish an important investigative premise: commercially presented interactions can conceal organised technology acquisition. With F-35 hardware now in Chinese government hands, the immediate question is not only who moved it. Investigators must determine whether specialists recognised its value, examined it, sampled it or transferred it elsewhere.
F-35 parts diversion: why both components matter
The diverted shipment contained two substantial airframe components: a cockpit canopy and a weapons-bay door. Bloomberg’s sources said both were coated with radar-absorbing material. The security question therefore extends beyond one transparency to two manufactured airframe components whose materials and construction may carry intelligence value.
For context, Lockheed Martin’s explanation of F-35 stealth describes a combination of aircraft shaping, signature-reducing materials and internal equipment carriage. Together, these features make detection and targeting harder.
An adversary does not need the entire aircraft to gain useful knowledge. The F-35 parts diversion raises a narrower, technically consequential possibility: physical examination could clarify how one sensitive design element actually works in manufactured form.
A canopy is a window for the pilot. In the wrong laboratory, it could become a window into the engineering.
What diverted F-35 components could disclose
Former Congressional Research Service aviation analyst J.J. Gertler had already identified the value of comparing physical hardware with previously acquired information. In comments to POLITICO reproduced by The Times of India, he said an actual component could verify or refine existing knowledge. Bloomberg’s update sharpened that warning: “You never want to hand them evidence.” — J.J. Gertler, quoted by Bloomberg via The Straits Times, September 24, 2026.
Similarly, a physical sample could help analysts examine material characteristics, construction and manufacturing tolerances. The useful tests would depend on the particular component and its condition. Officials have not publicly supplied that technical assessment.
In particular, the distinction between design information and manufactured hardware matters. A drawing describes an intended result. A finished component may help an analyst determine how closely production matches that description, or whether an earlier interpretation was wrong.
Consequently, investigators should assess the value of incremental knowledge, not just whether somebody could reproduce the entire aircraft. Confirming one uncertain detail could still have value to an organisation already studying the technology.
F-35 parts diversion: Chinese custody changes the risk
The JPO’s description of the equipment as unserviceable concerns its maintenance status. It does not establish that the canopy or weapons-bay door had lost every sensitive material, construction or manufacturing characteristic. A repair classification and an intelligence assessment answer different questions.
China had not returned the components as of September 24. Retrieving them would establish the end of Chinese custody. It would not establish that the parts remained unopened, unexamined or otherwise protected beforehand.
The F-35 parts diversion therefore presents two separate objectives: retrieve the property and determine whether technical exploitation occurred and, if so, what it revealed. Completing the first would not complete the second. Hardware can return to its owner; knowledge already extracted cannot return in the same shipment.
Hong Kong cargo diversion: the restrictions were already there
Hong Kong is a Chinese special administrative region, and American export policy already recognised the technology-transfer risk. On June 29, 2020, the U.S. State Department announced an end to controlled defence exports to Hong Kong.
Additionally, Washington announced comparable restrictions on sensitive defence and dual-use technologies to those applying to mainland China. The stated concern included potential access by Chinese security and military institutions. That policy predates this shipment by six years.
A stopover is not an export-control holiday
The F-35 parts diversion thus raises a concrete control question: how did a journey intended for an American repair destination reach that jurisdiction? A freight-routing decision cannot make an export-control restriction disappear. A stopover is not an export-control holiday.
Which controls applied to the Hong Kong cargo diversion?
Section 126.1 of the State Department’s International Traffic in Arms Regulations maintains a policy of denial for exports, reexports, retransfers and temporary imports of defence articles and services destined for or originating in China. It also bars an authorised defence article from shipment on a vessel, aircraft or other means of conveyance owned by, operated by, leased to or leased from a proscribed country, area or person. Applying those rules requires the actual component controls, authorisations, carrier identities and movement records.
Accordingly, investigators need to establish whether Hong Kong appeared as a transit point, delivery destination or location of subsequent transfer. Those distinctions determine which instructions and authorisations require examination. They should also identify when responsible parties notified export-control authorities.
On September 20, the South China Morning Post said Hong Kong’s government would not comment on individual cases. Four days later, Bloomberg disclosed that the Chinese government had taken possession of the components. A Chinese embassy spokesman declined immediate comment on September 24.
The Pentagon said it was working to retrieve the parts. However, it has not published a custody timeline, explained where Chinese authorities obtained them or identified which organisation last controlled them inside the commercial transport chain.
The central counterintelligence question is no longer whether the cargo merely reached Hong Kong. It is what occurred after the canopy and weapons-bay door entered Chinese government hands.
F-35 parts diversion: warnings still unresolved
Long before this shipment became public, government auditors had identified weaknesses in the program’s property controls. The relevant history begins with a Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigation published on May 23, 2023.
GAO found that one prime contractor had incurred losses involving more than one million spare parts since May 2018. Their value exceeded $85 million, and the JPO had reviewed fewer than two per cent of those losses. All financial amounts here use U.S. dollars.
Importantly, the loss category included damaged and destroyed property, not just missing items. The finding concerned deficient accountability across a government-owned, contractor-managed pool. Its seriousness lies in the government’s limited ability to reconcile what happened to its property.
For the F-35 parts diversion, that distinction sharpens the problem. Without reliable records, how quickly can officials separate an administrative discrepancy from equipment genuinely outside authorised custody? A spreadsheet cannot guard a warehouse, but it should at least agree with one.
A rejected contract change appears in the audit trail
Notably, GAO’s follow-up record contains a revealing contractual episode. On March 10, 2023, the government sent a supplier a modification identifying government-furnished spare parts. The supplier, identified only as Vendor 1, rejected it on March 23.
Moreover, DOD acknowledged that existing property clauses had suffered inconsistent implementation: “adherence and enforcement has been inconsistent.” — Department of Defense response recorded by GAO.
That is a specific weakness to investigate, rather than a general complaint about complexity. What practical control covered the property while contractual disagreements continued? Who verified that the interim arrangements actually worked?
The audit page does not identify Vendor 1 by company name. The consequential point is the documented disagreement over accountability for government-owned equipment. Resolving such disagreements should be part of securing the support system, not an optional administrative improvement.
Missing F-35 parts and unfinished corrective work
DOD had projected completion of the contractual corrective action by June 2024. Yet in September 2026, GAO still listed all four recommendations as open. Its latest follow-up recorded officials seeking updated information.
The F-35 parts diversion became public against that unfinished record. The recommendations addressed contractual accountability, property-policy clarity, loss reporting and disposal. These are basic controls for identifying what exists, where it belongs and what should happen when it disappears.
The investigation should test whether any previously identified weakness contributed to this shipment’s problems. The chronology makes that a necessary line of inquiry. Establishing the connection requires evidence from the actual shipment, not merely matching two troubling headlines.
A repair network cannot outsource visibility
The more recent audit brings the concern into 2026. On June 11, GAO published its investigation into persistent F-35 sustainment challenges. According to JPO officials cited in the report, the inventory effort through fiscal 2025 covered F-35 parts and equipment. However, the equipment included in that effort was limited to items valued above $1 million.
Furthermore, GAO found that the JPO was not verifying the accuracy and completeness of all data in property records. Information systems remained unfinished, while some fiscal-2026 inventory work relied on contractor information gathered during site visits. These limitations affected the government’s ability to maintain a complete, timely inventory.
That financial threshold invites a security question. How did the wider control system account for items whose intelligence value might exceed their replacement cost? Financial materiality and technology sensitivity measure different risks.
The F-35 parts diversion should force investigators to examine both. Buying a sophisticated aircraft does not remove the need for ordinary custody discipline. The barcode deserves a place beside the brochure.
Readiness pressures make dependable control more important
Meanwhile, GAO reported declining American fleet readiness. Mission-capable performance fell from 67 per cent in fiscal 2021 to 44 per cent in fiscal 2025. Full-mission-capable performance dropped from 38 to 25 per cent.
The first measure tracks time available for at least one assigned mission; the second covers all assigned missions. The JPO’s global support reset targets 80 per cent mission-capable and 65 per cent full-mission-capable performance by 2030.
The JPO estimated a $13.7-billion American sustainment funding increase for fiscal 2026–2031 over previous plans. Only about $2.2 billion represented designated reset funding. The JPO planned to invest that amount primarily during fiscal 2026 and 2027. The larger requirement also addressed broader sustainment shortfalls.
However, additional stock and faster repairs will not themselves establish secure custody. Performance measures should test delivery accuracy and traceability alongside speed. Otherwise, a program can measure its repair backlog more precisely than its exposure to unauthorised access.
What the F-35 shipment diversion means for partners
For Canada, these questions reach beyond aircraft selection into the support arrangements examined in our Fliegerfaust analysis of Canada’s F-35 industrial and sustainment choices. Operators need to know which sensitive components must travel abroad and what visibility they retain during transit.
Similarly, our Fliegerfaust coverage of Mirabel’s proposed F-35 maintenance role examines the domestic-support dimension. The relevant question is not simply whether a country has a depot, but which repairs it can perform.
Ultimately, a partner’s maintenance agreement should make custody obligations explicit wherever the work occurs. Specifically, who can change the destination, who receives movement alerts, and who must prove receipt? Those answers matter before the next component leaves its home base.
The records behind China’s custody of F-35 components
The partial chain is now visible: an Australian military F-35, a late-May UPS shipment, a South Korean stop, Hong Kong and Chinese government custody. The missing link is the mechanism that connected those events.
Investigators need the original UPS waybill, authorised destination, consignee information, routing updates, tracking scans and every message that altered or confirmed the journey. They also need customs, bonded-storage and handover records from South Korea and Hong Kong.
The disclosed cargo included a cockpit canopy and weapons-bay door. However, no complete public manifest establishes whether the consignment contained additional equipment. A component-by-component reconciliation must show what left Australia, what reached Hong Kong and what Chinese authorities obtained.
A tracking number is useful. A tracking number that ends in an adversary government’s custody is evidence requiring an explanation.
Chinese possession requires an exposure assessment
Investigators must separate the cause of the diversion from the exploitation that could have followed it. Even an accidental routing failure could create an intelligence opportunity once the Chinese government obtained the components. Logistics error and subsequent exploitation are not mutually exclusive events.
Officials need to determine where Chinese authorities took custody, how long they held the parts and who could access them. They must examine whether packaging was opened, seals were disturbed, surfaces were scanned, materials were sampled or the components were transferred to another organisation.
A future recovery announcement would not answer those questions. Officials must distinguish physical retrieval from a technical finding about possible compromise. Which organisation conducted the assessment, what evidence did it examine and what uncertainty remains?
Finally, the public response should identify the failed control. Did the breakdown occur in DOD’s transportation framework, Lockheed’s carrier selection, UPS routing, export-control monitoring or several stages at once? Partners need evidence that the repair network has changed, not another general promise that it will.
Conclusion: F-35 parts diversion demands a compromise inquiry
China’s possession of the components transforms this incident from an international logistics failure into a potential physical-intelligence compromise. The documented espionage cases establish why access to real aerospace hardware matters. The audit record shows why institutional assurances require evidence.
In our assessment, the unacceptable outcome would be retrieving the components and declaring the problem solved without explaining their custody. Returning the canopy and weapons-bay door would not reveal who examined them, what tests occurred or whether useful information had already left with the evidence.
DOD selected the available transportation options. Lockheed selected the carrier. UPS moved the shipment. Each organisation must now account for its decisions, alerts and records. Stealth should obscure an aircraft from an adversary, not accountability from its customers.
If the Pentagon cannot explain who changed the route, when China obtained the parts and what occurred during Chinese custody, on what basis can any F-35 partner call the global logistics chain genuinely secure?
Leave your comments below and on our Fliegerfaust Facebook page.
Sources
- Bloomberg via The Straits Times — China is holding sensitive F-35 parts diverted to Hong Kong: Sources (September 24, 2026).
- CBS News — Pentagon probing how shipment of F-35 fighter jet parts was diverted (September 24, 2026).
- ABC News — Australia confirms F-35 jet parts went missing in Hong Kong, sparking China security fears (September 22, 2026).
- POLITICO — Hill investigates after F-35 parts diverted to Hong Kong (September 18, 2026).
- FreightWaves — Federal probe into diversion of F-35 parts to Hong Kong (September 18, 2026).
- The Times of India — F-35 parts diverted to Hong Kong: Has China gained access to US stealth tech? (September 19, 2026).
- U.S. Department of Justice — Chinese National Who Conspired to Hack into U.S. Defense Contractors’ Computer Systems Sentenced to 46 Months in Prison (July 13, 2016).
- U.S. Department of Justice — Chinese Government Intelligence Officer Sentenced to 20 Years in Prison for Espionage Crimes, Attempting to Steal Trade Secrets From Cincinnati Company (November 16, 2022).
- Lockheed Martin — Made to Evade: The F-35’s Unrivaled Stealth (February 12, 2024).
- U.S. State Department — U.S. Government Ending Controlled Defense Exports to Hong Kong (June 29, 2020).
- Electronic Code of Federal Regulations — Title 22, section 126.1: Prohibited exports, imports, and sales to or from certain countries (Current text consulted September 25, 2026).
- South China Morning Post — US Congress investigates diversion of sensitive F-35 parts to Hong Kong: report (September 20, 2026).
- Government Accountability Office — F-35 Program: DOD Needs Better Accountability for Global Spare Parts and Reporting of Losses Worth Millions (May 23, 2023; recommendation status checked September 25, 2026).
- Government Accountability Office — F-35 Sustainment: Actions Needed to Ensure Updated Strategy Improves Persistent Readiness Challenges (June 11, 2026).
For full details, please refer to our Disclaimer page.
