In a dramatic incident earlier this year, a U.S. Air Force F-35 fighter jet was lost after its pilot was forced to eject following an extended mid-air troubleshooting session with engineers. The crash occurred in Alaska and has since prompted investigations into both technical and procedural vulnerabilities within the F-35 program.

According to an accident report obtained by CNN, the pilot encountered hydraulic system malfunctions immediately after take-off. Attempts to retract the landing gear had failed, and subsequent efforts to extend it led to the nose gear locking at a left angle, rendering the jet unstable.

As the situation unfolded, the onboard systems incorrectly registered that the aircraft was on the ground, further complicating flight control. Recognising the severity of the malfunction, the pilot remained airborne in a holding pattern and initiated a 50-minute phone conference with five Lockheed Martin engineers, trying to diagnose the problem in real time.

During these efforts, the pilot attempted two “touch and go” landings in an effort to realign the jammed nose gear manually, but both maneuvers were unsuccessful and ultimately caused the landing gear mechanisms to freeze completely.

This left the aircraft effectively uncontrollable, forcing the pilot into a last-resort ejection just moments before the jet spiralled downwards and exploded upon impact with the runway.

Investigators later determined that ice formation in the hydraulic lines of both the nose and main landing gears had caused the severe malfunction, with temperatures at the time recorded at -18°C. Analysis revealed that nearly one-third of the hydraulic fluid in the affected areas was contaminated with water, which had frozen and prevented proper pressure flow.

Alarmingly, a similar case of hydraulic icing occurred at the same base only nine days later, underscoring systemic vulnerabilities. The official Air Force investigation cited multiple contributing factors: not only the hydraulic contamination but also lapses in hazmat oversight programs and flawed decision-making during the in-flight crisis, including the reliance on an extended remote troubleshooting session with engineers instead of moving to emergency procedures sooner.

The incident adds to mounting scrutiny of the F-35 program. While the fighter has been heralded as the world’s most advanced stealth aircraft, its development history has been plagued by technical setbacks, production challenges, and spiralling costs.

Though the per-unit price of the F-35 has declined from approximately $135.8 million in 2021 to around $81 million under the 2024 procurement deal with the U.S. Department of Defence, the program remains the most expensive weapons system in history.

Total projected lifetime costs are expected to exceed $2 trillion, with service expected to continue until 2088. Critics argue that recurring system failures, such as the hydraulic icing incident in Alaska, highlight vulnerabilities that could compromise mission readiness and pilot safety if not addressed with more rigorous oversight and engineering resilience.

The crash underscores the risks of operating cutting-edge but complex aircraft in extreme environmental conditions and raises pressing questions about the adequacy of maintenance practices, contamination prevention, and in-flight decision chains for next-generation fighter platforms.

International Agencies