Another cutting-edge F-35 fighter jet fell out of the sky. Here's what to know.
The crash of an F-35 stealth fighter jet in California this week joins a list of accidents in recent years that have highlighted controversy surrounding the aircraft.
The U.S. Navy said on July 30 that the jet crashed near Naval Air Station Lemoore in central California, and its pilot safely ejected from the aircraft. The cause of the crash was still under investigation and no further details were provided.
The crash is one of a dozen such F-35 accidents since 2018, most of which involved U.S.-operated jets, and comes at a time of heightened scrutiny of the entire aviation industry following a series of commercial, military and small aircraft disasters in 2025, said Blake Stringer, director of the Center for Aviation Studies, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at The Ohio State University.
"That should be an unacceptable number of crashes," Stringer said. "It's an opportunity for experts to analyze data, look for the trends and statistical patterns and determine what recommended course of actions (is) needed to increase the safety."
F-35s, stealth fighter jets known for being the military's most expensive weapon system and credited with revolutionizing modern American warfare, are still a relatively new program for the U.S. military, Stringer said. They were created with affordability in mind, so that different branches of the military could all use a standardized airframe with the ability to satisfy the varying requirements of the branches, Stringer said.
The affordability piece hasn't exactly panned out. Since 2015 when the jets were deemed mission-ready, growing governmental and civilian concerns about the costs of the F-35 program have clouded their reputation as among the most technically advanced aircraft in the U.S. arsenal. Before becoming president, Donald Trump tweeted in 2016 that the F-35 program's 'cost is out of control."
Each F-35 costs tens of millions of dollars to build, and the Defense Department had about 620 of them in 2024, according to a Congressional Budget Office report released in June 2025.
"F-35s' operating and support costs exceeded $5 billion in 2023," the report found.
Why do the fighter jets keep crashing?
The crash this week was not the first in the U.S. in 2025: In January, an F-35plummeted to the ground in Alaska, causing a fiery explosion at an Air Force base that was captured in dramatic video footage. In that crash, officials said the pilot, who safely ejected, experienced an "in-flight malfunction."
In May 2024, a pilot in New Mexico was seriously injured after he ejected from an F-35 before the fighter jet crashed near an airfield in Albuquerque. In September 2023, a pilot ejected from an F-35 and parachuted into a backyard in Charleston, South Carolina. The jet flew unmanned for several minutes before it crashed into a field about 60 miles away.
Reports of downed F-35s draw national headlines and fresh waves of concern over the aircraft's safety and reliability. While it's still too early to say what caused this week's crash or whether it's part of a pattern, it should prompt a closer look at the data, Stringer said. Safety failures, workplace shortages, infrastructure decay and other factors are impacting military aviation and the commercial industry, he said.
Government reports: F-35s are costly, underused
The F-35 program cost is estimated to top at least $2 trillion over the coming decades with plans to buy about 1,800 more by the mid-2040s, the U.S. Government Accountability Office said in a report last year.
The fleet suffers from shortfalls in availability, the rate at which jets are mission-ready at any given time, government reports including the GAO and the Congressional Budget Office have found. In the last few years, availability has ranged from 50% to 60% of the U.S. fleet, which is under the program's target of 65%, the CBO said.
Crashes and any other malfunctions of the costly jets can add to that issue, Stringer said.
"It's important to acknowledge, yes, these are costly, but the cost comes with the capabilities that these systems bring," he said.
In May 2023, the Government Accountability Office said the jet program was more than a decade behind schedule and $183 billion over original estimates. Costs to maintain the fleet have increased 44%, from $1.1 trillion in 2018 to $1.58 trillion in 2023, the agency said.
Contributing: Christopher Cann, USA TODAY; Reuters
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
We Must Protect American Courtrooms From Foreign Interference
In most American courtrooms today, a party in court could be financed by foreign interests (and other unrelated third parties) without the other party ever knowing it. This alternate funder may be an investor hoping for uncorrelated returns, a wealthy donor with personal or business interests in the case, or an affiliate of an adversarial nation seeking to undermine U.S. competitiveness. The third-party litigation funding industry operates in the Wild West. Any outside group can pay the bills for a party in a legal dispute. They do this often in exchange for a percentage of an eventual settlement. Absent a handful of states that have passed disclosure laws affecting their own state court systems, the vast majority of state and federal courts do not require parties to disclose who's paying their legal costs—not to other parties and not even to the presiding judge. A stone sign for the United States Court House in downtown Los Angeles, Calif. is pictured. A stone sign for the United States Court House in downtown Los Angeles, Calif. is pictured. Getty Images But disclosure is critical and not just for transparency's sake. Incentives matter in the courtroom. The American civil litigation system is premised on fairness, impartiality, and the pursuit of justice. If a party's funders have hidden motives that stray from the desire to fairly resolve a dispute, trust in the system is put at risk. Foreign sources of litigation funding introduce a whole new set of perverse incentives. A foreign funder may finance a case in order to gain access to sensitive intellectual property or even to evade sanctions that prohibit transactions or investments in U.S. capital markets. Also, since litigation funders have their own monetary and non-monetary goals, the funder may push its client to demand steeper settlement terms than the client would otherwise consider. These are not hypothetical situations. In 2024, Bloomberg Law reported that a group of sanctioned Russian billionaires created an investment fund to back bankruptcy lawsuits in New York and London thus allowing the oligarchs to steer (launder) tens of millions into western financial institutions. In another instance, China-based technology firm PurpleVine financed several intellectual property lawsuits against Samsung. This was discovered by a lone overseeing judge in Delaware who luckily requires litigation financing disclosure in his courtroom. Had the case not crossed his desk, the defendants may never have known that their case was hardly a mere legal challenge but, in actuality, a case with national security importance. Foreign donors may also fund lawsuits that advance their personal agendas. Last year, Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) filings revealed that an Australian mining billionaire was paying the legal bills for a coalition of environmental nonprofits in their lawsuit against ExxonMobil. The billionaire, Andrew Forrest, runs a mining empire that he aims to convert into a clean-energy provider—demonstrating both ideological and anticompetitive reasons to target an American oil major that he would not otherwise have standing to sue. This backdoor litigation is getting foreign companies and even foreign governments into American courtrooms they otherwise wouldn't be able to access. Since the third-party litigation funding industry is entirely unregulated, each of these examples only came to light by accident: strong investigative reporting; a lone judge's standing transparency order; and a buried FARA filing. But in each instance, the discovery of foreign funding changed both public perception and legal strategy. Routine civil suits became vehicles for money laundering, corporate espionage, and personal grievance. Unregulated third-party litigation financing is a crucial vulnerability for American competitiveness and national security. In order to secure a just and fair civil justice system, it's only common sense that parties should know who they're up against. We must act quickly as this "hidden party" industry is growing at a pace stressing the non-existent regulatory regime. One estimate values the global market at $17.5 billion in 2025, and it is forecasted to grow to $67.2 billion by 2037. Naturally, it's also becoming more complex. Opportunistic actors are developing secondary markets—a "stock exchange for lawsuits"—which, if left unregulated as well, will only create new avenues for foreign actors to distort the civil justice system and surreptitiously move capital. Regulators can be certain that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and other adversarial nations have taken notice of this influx of cash into the industry. The CCP may be responsible for a significant part of this cash flow, but we cannot be sure. Under the current system, neither national security officials nor legal professionals have any way to discern the source of billions of dollars propping up civil suits from behind the curtain. A number of bills in state legislatures and in Congress have been introduced to require disclosure of any third-party litigation financing—of foreign funding in particular. This is a welcome development. Lawmakers in Washington and in statehouses across the country should move with alacrity and act on this issue before American companies, our justice system, and our capital markets are subjected to further foreign meddling. Former Representative Michael Patrick Flanagan (R-Ill.) previously represented the 5th District of Illinois in the U.S. House of Representatives and sat on the Committee on the Judiciary. An attorney, he previously served in the U.S. Army and retired at the rank of captain. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

Epoch Times
13 hours ago
- Epoch Times
FBI Expands Global Operations to Counter CCP With Australia, New Zealand Partnerships
FBI Director Kash Patel praised Australia as a critical ally as the bureau expands its fight against the influence of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) there and in New Zealand. 'We're expanding global operations to confront some of the most serious threats to the American homeland: foreign influence, cyber attacks, CCP espionage, and counter narcotics,' he said in an Aug. 3 post on X. 'Australia is a critical ally in that fight.'


Miami Herald
16 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Miami judge becomes first confirmed U.S. attorney during Trump's second term
President Donald Trump's first confirmed nominee for U.S. Attorney is a Miami-Dade judge whose professional background includes poor job evaluations in the office he will now lead. On Saturday, Judge Jason A. Reding Quiñones secured a 49-44 cloture vote in the U.S. Senate. He will now head the U.S. Attorney's Office in South Florida, replacing interim U.S. Attorney Hayden O'Byrne. READ MORE: Trump picks U.S. attorney in Miami. As criminal prosecutor, he received poor evaluations Trump posted on his social media platform, Truth Social, 'Very proud of our great Republican Senators for fighting, over the Weekend and far beyond, if necessary, in order to get my great Appointments approved, and on their way to helping us MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!' The Miami Herald could not reach Reding Quiñones for comment. Reding Quiñones, formerly a federal prosecutor in the Miami office, was appointed as a Miami-Dade County judge a year ago by Gov. Ron DeSantis and is a lieutenant colonel in the Air Force Reserve. After graduating from Florida International University's law school in 2008, he began his career practicing corporate law before transitioning to a military lawyer for the U.S. Air Force and then joining the Justice Department. Soon after, he joined the U.S. Attorney's Office in Miami as a prosecutor in the major crimes section, where he would receive poor evaluations from supervisors relating to incompetence; however, Reding Quiñones filed a discrimination complaint claiming he was being targeted because of his race. He would later drop that complaint and continue on in the Miami office's civil division, where he recieved satisfactory job evaluations. Despite this history, University of Richmond Law Professor Carl Tobias said it likely wouldn't have a big impact on his confirmation by the Senate. The Senate Judiciary Committe process for evaluating U.S Attorney nominees is 'not very rigorous,' Tobias said. That's because, he said, the panel doesn't have the resources to conduct hearings and instead relies on staff analysis and recommendations. 'Practically all nominees receive no discussion and voice votes, unless staff detects red flags,' he said. Tobias believes confirmations have grown increasingly politicized, but in a rare occurrence, Reding Quiñones received a 12-9 committee party line vote before the process continued to the Senate where he would be confirmed. The confirmation is not only a victory for the president, but also a much-needed move for the Miami office, which has remained one of the busiest in the country despite growing struggles. Since the resignation of former U.S. Attorney Markenzy Lapointe, the first Black lawyer to hold the position in South Florida, earlier this year, the office has lost a half a dozen senior career prosecutors. READ MORE: Miami U.S. Attorney, first Haitian-American in post, to resign before Trump takes office 'The [South Florida office] does critical law enforcement work and its several hundred attorneys function more smoothly when the office has a permanent, Senate-confirmed leader, who cooperates effectively with the Justice Department and other US Attorneys,' Tobias said. While the U.S. Attorney position may now be filled, other seats in South Florida and the rest of the state have not made it through Senate confirmation hearings yet. The Senate failed to confirm one Trump federal judge nominee who would preside in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and three nominees for the Middle District. Tobias noted that these are emergency vacancies, as both districts have substantial caseloads that are reaching or already surpassing protracted lengths without resolution. The Senate is now in recess, which means any appointments will have to wait until September when it resumes session. 'The diligent, overloaded Southern and Middle District judges and the people of Florida must wait for relief,' Tobias said.