News Headlines, English News, Today Headlines, Top Stories | Arth Parkash
Alaska F-35 pilot spoke with Lockheed Martin before ejecting Alaska F-35 crash: Pilot consulted Lockheed Martin for nearly an hour before ejecting
Friday, 29 Aug 2025 00:00 am
News Headlines, English News, Today Headlines, Top Stories | Arth Parkash

News Headlines, English News, Today Headlines, Top Stories | Arth Parkash

An F-35 fighter jet of the US Air Force crashed in Alaska after the pilot spent almost an hour on a mid-air troubleshooting call with engineers from Lockheed Martin. The pilot eventually had to eject and survived safely by parachute, but the jet was destroyed after hitting the ground and catching fire.

The crash, which took place in January, occurred because of a malfunction in the landing gear. Ice in the hydraulic lines of both the nose and main landing gear caused the system to jam. Shortly after takeoff, the pilot tried to retract the landing gear, but it would not move. When attempting to lower it again, the nose wheel locked at an angle, making the aircraft hard to control.

Footage shared online shows the F-35 spiraling before it crashed, highlighting the severity of the incident.

50-minute call and failed landings

After noticing the landing gear issue, the pilot joined a conference call with five engineers from Lockheed Martin. He circled the airbase for almost 50 minutes, trying to follow instructions from the engineers to fix the problem. During this time, the aircraft’s systems incorrectly showed that it was already on the ground, which caused further control difficulties.

The pilot attempted two “touch-and-go” landings to try to free the jammed nose gear. Both attempts failed, leaving the landing system completely locked. With no other options, the pilot had no choice but to eject from the aircraft, escaping safely while the jet crashed on the runway.

An Air Force investigation later revealed that about one-third of the hydraulic fluid in the nose and right main landing gear contained water, which caused the ice build-up. Just over a week after the crash, another F-35 at the same base had a similar icing problem, but it managed to land safely. The crash occurred during extremely cold conditions, with temperatures around -18 degrees Celsius.

The investigation concluded that the crash was caused not only by the icing issue but also by in-flight decision-making and poor oversight of the hazardous material program.

Lockheed Martin’s F-35 program under scrutiny

The F-35 program has faced long-standing criticism for its high costs and production challenges. The price of a single jet has fallen from around USD 135.8 million in 2021 to about USD 81 million in 2024 under a new defense deal. Despite the lower per-unit cost, the total lifetime cost of the program is expected to exceed USD 2 trillion, and the program is projected to continue until 2088.

Lockheed Martin has also faced questions over safety issues, especially after incidents like this crash. The mishap in Alaska has renewed scrutiny on how the company handles maintenance, hazardous materials, and pilot training for emergency situations.

ALSO READ: Trump’s tariffs on India take effect: Sectors impacted and exemptions explained

ALSO READ: INS Himgiri and INS Udaygiri: India commissions indigenous stealth frigates to Navy

This crash highlights the challenges of operating advanced fighter jets in extreme conditions. The combination of mechanical issues, low temperatures, and complex in-flight troubleshooting created a dangerous scenario, ultimately leading to the pilot’s ejection.

Despite these issues, the F-35 remains a key part of the US Air Force’s fleet. The program continues to expand, with plans for new production and upgrades. However, incidents like the Alaska crash show that even state-of-the-art aircraft can face serious problems under certain conditions.

The pilot’s quick thinking and training helped save his life, demonstrating the importance of emergency protocols for military pilots. At the same time, the incident serves as a reminder that technology alone is not enough to prevent accidents — proper oversight, maintenance, and real-time decision-making are equally crucial.