the Walnut Diary

I asked Google AI how the F35 in its complexity could hope to operate in the vast Canadian north, given the lack of sophisticated hangers and short runways. It mentioned a F35 crash in Alaska in January, 2025. Details of that crash have not made it into Canadian media, so I clipped the entire essay and offer it here:

How can the F35 function effectively in the Canadian North with very limited runways and support systems? The Gripen seems to be much easier to keep in operation in adverse circumstances. I have read online that F35’s don’t work well in the rain.

The F-35 faces significant logistical and infrastructure challenges for operation in the remote Canadian North, largely due to its need for long runways and extensive, specialized support systems and maintenance infrastructure. The claim that it “doesn’t work well in the rain” is largely a misconception, as it has undergone extensive all-weather testing in controlled environments. 

Operational Realities in the Canadian North

Feature	F-35 Lightning II (F-35A Variant)	Saab JAS 39 Gripen E
Runway Length	Requires a minimum of 8,000 feet (approx. 2.4 km) for safe operation.	Designed to operate from dispersed, austere locations with minimal runway requirements (including short, icy fields).
Support/Maintenance	Needs a complex, specialized, climate-controlled support system and maintenance bays to protect sensitive stealth coatings and systems.	Requires significantly less ground crew and equipment for rearming and preparing for new sorties, ideal for operating away from main supply chains.
Logistics	Highly dependent on a complex, and sometimes delayed, global supply chain for parts and software updates controlled by the U.S..	Features lower maintenance requirements and a potentially sovereign upgrade path if assembled in Canada, as offered by Saab.
Range	Shorter range on internal fuel (approx. 2,200 km).	Longer range (approx. 3,250 km) on internal fuel, making it better suited for vast Arctic patrols.

F-35 and Weather Conditions

The notion that F-35s are ineffective in the rain is inaccurate. The aircraft has undergone rigorous climatic testing in controlled laboratory settings that simulate a wide range of weather conditions, from extreme heat to freezing rain, heavy snow, and hurricane-force winds. The F-35 is certified for operation in all weather, and countries like Norway have found it performs well in winter conditions. An F-35 crash in Alaska in January 2025 was linked to a hydraulic system issue, not an inability to function in the cold or rain. 

Why not both? The question of Canada’s next fighter aircraft

Jul 21, 2025 — Written by C. L. * Written by C. L. * The Royal Canadian Air Force’s (RCAF) multi-role fighter fleet of McDonnell Doug…

The Mackenzie Institute

F-35 nears completion of all-weather testing – AF.mil

Feb 3, 2015 — “We’ve designed an environment here at the chamber where we can simulate virtually any weather condition — all while f…

AF.mil

The F-35’s primary operational challenges in the North relate to the logistical footprint and infrastructure limitations, which the Gripen was specifically designed to overcome in Sweden’s own dispersed operational strategy. 

15 sites

• F-35 nears completion of all-weather testing – AF.milFeb 2, 2015 — “We’ve designed an environment here at the chamber where we can simulate virtually any weather condition — all while f…AF.mil
• Canada and the F-35 – Wings MagazineMay 14, 2025 — If Canada curtailed the F-35 purchase and picked the Saab Gripen as a second fighter, that pivot would be a stunningly…Wings Magazine
• Canada’s F-35 programme under review – LinkedInMar 18, 2025 — Tactical advantages Gripen’s dispersed operations. The war in Ukraine has compelled air forces to re-learn some import…LinkedIn

Show all

Tell me about the January crash in Alaska.

The F-35 crash at Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska on January 28, 2025, was 

caused by water-contaminated hydraulic fluid freezing in the landing gear systems, which led to a chain of automated failures that made the aircraft uncontrollable. 

Key Findings of the Investigation Report

An Air Force Accident Investigation Board report, released in August 2025, detailed the following sequence of events and contributing factors: 

• Contaminated Fluid: The root cause was water in the hydraulic fluid used for the landing gear, which froze in the extremely cold Alaskan temperatures (around -17°C or 1.4°F).
• Initial Malfunction: After takeoff, the pilot discovered the nose landing gear was not retracting properly. It was stuck, canted to the left.
• In-Air Troubleshooting: The pilot spent approximately 50 minutes on a conference call with Lockheed Martin engineers and base personnel to try and resolve the issue.
• Touch-and-Go Maneuvers: Based on the conference call, the pilot attempted two “touch-and-go” landings to try and force the nose wheel to center. This action was a critical error.
• Cascading Failure: The touch-and-gos caused ice to form in the main landing gear struts, preventing them from fully extending. This triggered the “Weight on Wheels” sensors to falsely indicate the jet was on the ground, even though it was airborne.
• Loss of Control: With the sensors indicating it was on the ground, the F-35’s flight control system automatically switched to “ground operation mode,” which drastically reduced the pilot’s control authority and rendered the aircraft uncontrollable.
• Ejection and Crash: The pilot, unable to control the aircraft, ejected safely and sustained only minor injuries. The F-35 then stalled, spiraled, and crashed within the base perimeter, resulting in a total loss valued at nearly $200 million. 

Contributing Factors

The investigation also cited maintenance and procedural lapses as contributing factors, including a lack of proper oversight of hazardous materials storage and failure to follow correct hydraulic servicing procedures, which allowed the water to contaminate the fluid in the first place. 

The report also noted that a Lockheed Martin maintenance bulletin from April 2024 had warned that the weight-on-wheels sensor issue could make the aircraft difficult to control in extreme cold weather, and if the conference call participants had consulted it, they likely would have advised a safer landing procedure or an immediate ejection. 

7 sites

• Contaminated Hydraulic Fluid Led to Fiery F-35 Crash in AlaskaAug 25, 2025 — Records for tracking which equipment was used and when were patchy. “These are significant lapses in following procedu…Air & Space Forces Magazine
• Aircraft Accident Investigation Report Released for Eielson F …Aug 24, 2025 — EIELSON AIR FORCE BASE, Alaska — … The investigation determined the aircraft’s nose landing gear did not retract pr…Pacific Air Forces (.mil)
• Aircraft Accident Investigation Report Released for Eielson F …Aug 25, 2025 — EIELSON AIR FORCE BASE, Alaska — … The incident involved an F-35A from the 355th Fighter Squadron, 354th Fighter Wi…eielson.af.mil

Show all

Rod: Sounds like a profile of an airplane not suited to flying in the north.

The January 2025 crash report highlights the F-35’s vulnerability to maintenance and logistical shortfalls that are particularly relevant to operating in the Canadian North, where remote bases lack extensive infrastructure. 

While the F-35 has passed rigorous cold-weather testing in controlled lab conditions, the crash report underscores the real-world operational challenges: 

• Logistical Fragility: The crash was ultimately caused by a maintenance error (contaminated fluid) in an extreme environment. The F-35’s complex systems, sensitive stealth coatings, and reliance on a centralized, “just-in-time” global supply chain make it a “hangar queen” in comparison to the Gripen, which was designed for robust field operations.
• Infrastructure Demands: The F-35 requires long, pristine runways and climate-controlled hangars for maintenance. Northern Canadian bases often have short, austere, and icy runways, which are better suited to the Gripen’s design philosophy of operating from dispersed road bases with minimal support.
• Turnaround Time: The Gripen can be refueled, rearmed, and relaunched in a fraction of the time it takes for an F-35 (minutes vs. hours), which is crucial for quick-reaction alerts over the vast Arctic. 

In short, the F-35’s operational challenges in austere, remote, and cold environments like the Canadian Arctic are a major point of contention in the procurement debate. Proponents argue its fifth-generation capabilities (stealth, sensor fusion) are essential for modern threats, while critics point to its high cost and logistical needs as a poor fit for Canada’s vast, northern geography.