I don’t know anything about anything but it feels kind of amazing that all four ejected with good looking parachutes given the orientation of the conglomerated plane.
Thanks to the great engineering at martin baker, if you check out the instagram page they have a running count of how many pilots have been saved by the seats. Was interesting to see a +4 today for a rolling total of 7820
Yeah it's pretty incredible, the way they came together the plane on top came pretty close to blocking the canopy of the bottom one, if it had gone a bit differently those pilots could have had nowhere to go but into the bottom of the other aircraft!
Something that seems interesting to me is that they all ejected at nearly the identical time. I'm curious if those systems are automated in case of scenarios like an unconscious pilot. If so, there may be automated clearance/angle systems, but that's speculation on top of speculation.
It stuck me as well.
My uninformed guess is that it took both pilots roughly the same amount of time to run through their OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) loop and conclude their plane was not recoverable and eject.
And for both crew members of the same plane ejecting at the same time, I think the ejection of the second personnel is automated should the first one eject. (Not familiar with the F-18 fighter at all but I know it's like that in other fighters with two crew members).
Off topic but ...
"What is the Boyd Theory? To many it is simply the OODA loop depicting the human behavioral cycle of decision-making. To others it is a description of command and control. To true believers, it is a profound theory of warfare."
-- Some other Military Dude
Apart from the command ejection in two seaters like this one, where depending on the configuration when one person ejects it triggers the other seat, I can only think of one automatic ejection and that is on the F35B as used by the Royal Navy.
If it looses either the lift or main engine the resulting pitch change would be too rapid for a human to react to so the system triggers ejection.
100% guessing, but odds are the timing was exactly how long it took 1 of each crew to decide ejection was the only way out (1 of each, because the seats are frequently coupled to ensure there's a small time gap between pilot and weapons officer).
It looks like there is a switch with "both"/solo"/"forward" option and the "both" option automates that tiny delay between both ejections. On the other hand ejections from both planes at same time is just pilots reaction speed.
That makes me wonder what happen if only the back seat eject, turns out there's a nice picture about that https://theaviationgeekclub.com/story-f-14-pilot-able-land-t...
Reminds me of this story that happened few years ago in France: https://www.laprovence.com/article/papier/5956505/le-passage...
This is how you get a callsign like “Jumper” or “Rocket”.
The initiation of the ejection wasn't automated, but it was very clear to both pilots that it was unrecoverable. It was less than 4 seconds after ejection that the jets struck the ground, so there wasn't a lot of time.
By the timing seen in the video, the front seater -- the pilot -- ejected in both jets at close to the same time. That automatically ejects the electronics officer first then the pilot momentarily after, as otherwise the front-seat ejection would wash the rear-seater with the launch exhaust from the front seat ejection.
And I counted about 5 seconds between impact and the ejectors seeming to go off so there wasn't much scope to do it differently.
I'm guessing they coordinated by voice so that they didn't hit each other (again). If one ejects, then the plane rolls, the next person to eject could launch into someone else.
I think these ejection seats work in more or less any orientation.
I am more surprised that they didn't immediately blow up or lose control after colliding. Or even that the crew took that long to eject.
The ejection seat is going to do its thing regardless of orientation, but if that orientation is pointed at the ground you better hope you have enough altitude. There was one plane where the ejection seats ejected down and away from the plane that was known for low altitude missions. These seats were affectionately known as lawn darts.
I think that plane is the Lockheed Starfighter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter#Eje...). Fortunately they were eventually replaced with upward-firing ejection seats. And the "lawn dart" moniker refers to the airplane itself - probably because of the absurdly short wings, which are also placed pretty far back.
"We need a plane for bombing, straffing, assault and battery, interception, ground support and reconnaissance. Not just a *fair weather fighter*!"
RIP Bob Calvert.
Putting on my Internet Guy hat: isn’t that the A-10?
Yes, but that wouldn't come along for another 19 years.
G for... G for *Germany*, Herr Minister.
The Starfighter was designed as a light and fast high speed high altitude interceptor, but eventually used as a relatively heavy low level fighter-bomber. It's part of the reason why they killed so many pilots.
The aircraft appear to have become "stuck" to each other perhaps due to aerodynamic forces similar to how a piece of paper gets stuck to a car windshield (probably something to do with one of the Bernoullis). There wasn't much of an impact to cause a destructive event such as compressor stall. Perhaps the pilots were waiting to see if the aircraft would become un-stuck, or to get clear airspace into which they could eject?
I actually looks like the vertical stabilizer of the lower plane got lodged into the fuselage of the other.
That’s my read as well, but I’m looking forward for an official analysis as things often aren’t as they appear.
75% of out-of-envelope ejections are fatal. A spinning aircraft that just started making out with another plane is definitely OOE. Those 4 pilots are incredibly lucky, assuming they all survived (looks like it?)
I had the same thought, but those cockpit modules are really designed to maximize the odds of safe ejection, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they consider the possibility of failure and escape as part of the stunt design. Still, it’s amazing everything worked out, especially at that low of an altitude.
Do we know if the pilots are OK? Yes, ejection can save your life, but even in a best-case scenario the forces on the human body are incredibly ugly. I know a former combat-rated RAF pilot that had to eject from a Harrier because of a low-altitude bird strike. After 6 months in the infirmary, he emerged 2cm shorter, combat rating gone forever.
Arms and legs can take a serious beating too. Airplane cockpits are pretty tight spaces, and to be explosively shot out of one with little notice is.. yikes.
Ejection is often a career-ending event, unfortunately. Better than dying though.
You're generally limited to two ejections barring any disqualifying health issues. The military doesn't like to throw away its personnel investments when they've gained some hard won experience.
Needless to say, crashing jets at an air show is not going to help anyone’s career.
To my eye, only the pilot of the rearmost plane is in trouble. The one in front was (more or less) flying straight ahead.
It’ll be interesting to see the official findings.
How so, because of the damage to the body?
They impart significant g forces (~15g) in line with the spine. Compression fractures are common, and most people permanently lose height as a result of the event. The goal is to provide a result better than death.
The pilots themselves initiated their ejections.
Admittedly I have nowhere near the flight hours, training, or expertise of these pilots, but having flown airplanes myself I can totally imagine in an off-nominal situation (which I have been in before) conscious focus is fully on flying the airplane even if your rote lizard brain is procedurally going through the motions of pulling the ejection handles or otherwise responding to the emergency. My instructor's words--he was a helicopter pilot (Hueys and Chinooks) in the Vietnam war with some 20k hrs logged in complex aircraft, jets, etc. since so I know for certain he knew wtf he was talking about--going through my head "do not ever stop flying the airplane". In this case, my conscious focus would be to stomp one of those rudder pedals as hard as I could to try to recover from the spin, even if I was also simultaneously yelling "eject" or whatever you're told to into the intercom and pulling the handles. But I haven't ever been trained to eject from an aircraft, or maybe my instinctive predilections would select me out of the training regimen these pilots go through.. who knows
Also, these are aircraft with two crew. Either can initiate the ejection sequence, at which point both crew will be ejected regardless of who initiated if I’m not mistaken.
I’ve never trained to eject, but I have trained in situations with parachutes, and the advice is to deploy early. If the thought crosses your mind, the answer is yes.
Yes, that too
Sufficient training overrides your lizard brain.
But yes, pilots still trying to fix stuff when they should have ejected is a common problem.
I would think that when the two planes struck each other both of the pilots would have realized that something had gone seriously wrong and things were not going to be recoverable with a checklist. But yea, in other situations where it isn’t as clear cut, I can definitely imagine a pilot trying to work the problem all the way into the ground.
I mean, there’s “OK”, and then there’s “not in that flaming heap of exploding shrapnel” OK, so I guess it’s on a spectrum. But I guess they’re “OK-ish”, based on the fact that the seats seemingly cleared the wreck and the parachutes deployed. But yeah, I guess someone definitely could have gotten injured or worse in the tangle. I would imagine that would probably have also resulted in visible damage to the ejection module, though.
These are pretty expensive and specialized electronic warfare planes that are identical to a regular F18 in aerodynamic performance. Sucks to lose two of them for an airshow display. Isn’t that what the Blue Angels are for?
This actually begs the question...why the fuck would they use THESE for an airshow? They're aesthetically identical to F18 from a ground silhouette perspective. They blew through some really expensive planes from a much smaller fleet for a pony show that any regular F18 could've been part of.
They do training all day every day in these planes. Air shows are probably less exciting than the stuff they practice to do. Also, while they a generically '18's' they are EA-18g's and possibly have enough differences to require maintaining a separate NATOPs check from the other variants. (never flown one so I don't actually know though :). Either way, other than the blue angles who can't be everywhere and don't represent the diversity of platforms out in the fleet, there really aren't dedicated airshow aircraft out there.
> blue angles
Top-performing trig team with tangent flight that (hopefully) never intersects.
:)
The Air Force has their own demonstration team named The Thunderbirds.
> Air shows are probably less exciting than the stuff they practice to do.
Well, except for this time.
These were locally stationed, just over the border in Washington. The Blue Angels are in Florida today.
Yah.. but between the Iran war and this, we've taken some EW losses. And it's not like this is one of the capabilities that we have massively overprovisioned.
The Blue Angels are the Navy's demonstration team. This accident happened at an airshow on an Air Force base. The Air Force's demonstration team is named The Thunderbirds.
I know. The question was about F18s, which the thunderbirds do not fly.
Yea, that was my thought too. I can’t think of any reason you would reach for those two planes to assign to an airshow. And even if you did, why would you have two? And why would you have them flying anywhere near each other?
> This actually begs the question
I beleive that raises the question. I don't think it begs the question at all.
What is the real purpose of airshows anyway? It always seems like very elevated risk for very little reward but I might just be missing what the reward is.
Too many comments are trying to overanalyze, or just show off their insightful cynicism.
We do airshows because they are cool. Lots of us love airplanes. Humans do all kinds of activities for entertainment that are not strictly justifiable returns on investment. I hope we never get that boring, though every year we do seem to go that direction.
> Humans do all kinds of activities for entertainment that are not strictly justifiable returns on investment.
Military propaganda absolutely is about strictly justifiable returns on investments.
No. They are for recruitment and showing other nations what is on hand in case they want to mess with them.
>insightful cynicism.
So in response you select the most naive take?
There are a LOT of air shows where military airplanes are a small or zero component.
I'm totally in agreement that armed forces are there for reasons you described. But an "air show" is a massive and sometimes separate Venn diagram. There are air shows where main thing is thousands of private airplanes coming from across the country to be together and meet up and have fun.
Put it other way, if armed forces decided it's not worth the recruitment investment and pulled out, air shows would still happen :). For most sizes air shows, the biplane aerobatic stunt done by a crazy local 50 year old real estate agent, is way more fun than the c5 galaxy transporter showing "short takeoff" :-)
Yah.. the roaring sound and precision of military aerial display teams can't be denied, and are an awesome experience. But it's something you see someone doing in a Pitts or Extra or maybe even a Citabria or 150 that makes you question your understanding of the laws of physics :D
I love it when there is a little Cessna 150/152 with aerobatic designation even though it's engine cuts off when you go inverted (carburated design). The sheer pluck of those pilots! I was once given a Cessna 150 aerobatic experience as a birthday gift and the pilot was just cheerfully mad lol. He gave me the parachute, told me we are legally obliged to wear them, but not to worry about it too much - at heights and speeds and Gs we're at, they're absolutely useless. Gulp!
It is not the same. Having a jet do a low pass is something that you will remember for a long time. Or having it go vertical with full after burners, especially close to sunset where you can see it better.
The other factor is showing how good you are: sure, you can do formation flying in an Extra 300 or a C150, but doing it in a fighter jet show precission and skill, because it will not forgive you as easy as a slower moving plane.
Let's recognize this is subjective :)
I've been to a few air shows and even f22 with its vector thrusting, is not (to me) as impressive as the little prop aerobatics doing things that make me (even with a bit of flight training) wonder how is that even possible :). They are typically closer & slower (so you can appreciate the action better), and just pack so much more stuff and maneuvers right there where you can see them - the density / bang for the buck is far greater. By necessity, military jets are fly bys - they zoom in, pull up and wheee go up fast, then they go away. Then 2 minutes later they zoom in, cross each other impressively closely, then they fly away for a bit. It's exciting and fun don't get me wrong, but when I plan my air show day, I plan it around cool little aerobatic planes, not the military jets.
YMMV :). But my point in this thread is:
1. Yes, absolutely, military is there for recruitment
2. Military recruitment flying is empathically not all there is to an air show to all the people, and there exist air shows with minimal to no armed force presence.
> It is not the same.
I have seen so many military display teams. Yes, I like the roar. But they blur together.
> sure, you can do formation flying in an Extra 300 or a C150,
But that's not what we watch Extra 330s do. We watch them do other things that are nuts that are also not so easily forgiven. I have fond memories of seeing Patty Wagstaff, Sean Tucker, and Rob Holland (rip). (And before that, Amelia Reid in her 150...)
As an aerobatic pilot that owns an Extra and has flown with several fighter pilots, I can tell you flying an Extra requires a lot more talent than a fighter jet.
Never got to do aerobatics, just “normal” flying.
I saw a RedBull race and was impressed about the agility of the pilots.
But I like jets more because they go faster. And they have afterburners. And they go vertical faster than any propeller plane will ever be able to. And the margin of error is smaller. Espcially closer to the ground.
Jets are faster and louder for sure.
The margins, that completely depends on the pilot and act design. You can make margins arbitrarily small at any speed :).
(As an imperfect example - a world rally car going through a 80kph blind corner over a crest on snow between the trees is not necessarily more of a margin / less of skill or spectacle than F1 taking a tarmac open corner at 200kph:)
> (As an imperfect example - a world rally car going through a 80kph blind corner over a crest on snow between the trees is not necessarily more of a margin / less of skill or spectacle than F1 taking a tarmac open corner at 200kph:)
I think it's interesting how as humans we tend to sort into valuing one of these much more than the other, though.
I like the rally car and the aerobatic piston plane a lot.
I want to like F1 and the fast jets more... but after being initially blown away I get bored pretty quick. I think what they're doing is incredibly cool and I can appreciate it but...
But the dude upthread is the exact opposite.
[I do think you need to be more of a "car guy" to like rally and more of a "plane guy" to like what the little planes do. The stuff that is big and loud and fast is easier to appreciate. But I know plenty of people who really know their stuff that still prefer the big and loud and fast].
I used to like F1, in the Ayrton Senna days. Nowadays with all the rules, they took all the fun out of F1.
Can't say I've seen a jet get under tree cover and muster cattle .. there's an exciting bit of air work.
I'm surprised to see people say this. There are prop plane maneuvers that make the jet maneuvers look like chopped liver: https://youtu.be/Fue96WsySn0
Even the airshows that the military flies at are often primarily civilian shows. The military clearly has recruiting and power demonstration goals but airshows in general exist outside of those goals. The majority of the aviators at these shows are civilian hobbyists.
Sure, but the Air Force bills all this kinda stuff to Recruiting (having worked in an adjacent area. I support a voluntary military.)
I like air shows and there's no chance I'm enlisting. Maybe citizens like to see the cool toys they pay for actually do cool things other than seeing them parked in museums.
Why do people go see rocket launches?
They work for recruitment because... they're cool.
Sure, but the purpose is recruitment. They wouldn't do them if they didn't get anything out of them, and what they get out of them is PR and boosts to recruitment efforts.
Why do small regional non military equivalents exist then?
People fly air shows with crop dusters.
I mean, also statistically, it is bound to inspire young people who potentially might be interested in picking an aviation related future. Maybe they will invent something they otherwise wouldn't have.
Sure that's why the bean counters wrote the checks for them, but that's not the reason people attend. People attend because they are a spectacle.
>> We do airshows because they are cool.
> No. They are for recruitment and showing other nations what is on hand in case they want to mess with them.
That's what he said.
I don't understand this comment. If you want to be the minimally charitable + maximally accurate commenter your tone suggests, then you're also wrong.
It's a superset of the reasons you poorly articulated, and those reasons would include the fact it's cool. Cool things can help both recruitment and morale, and the US military seems to recognize that: https://armedforcessports.defense.gov/Sports/Esports/
If this is just meant to be another comment on the situation which comes with an implicit grain of salt, then the browbeating doesn't make sense.
Don't make things up or project based on your perception of tone.
It's not (just) my perception, most socially aware people would interpret the sign off:
> So in response you select the most naive take?
As well as your reply to me now, as having an unduly negative tone... at least, given the lack of substance or importance.
(Ironically, I have less of hang up on meaningful arguments delivered with edge than most people.)
They're being rude, but right. Burying your head in the sand is not an intellectually gratifying response to barbazoo's comment, and the actual meat of their answer ("because they're cool") is obviously incorrect.
Both are unprofessional comments, but only the original was dishonest. The "too many comments" shtick is a thought terminating cliche that shouldn't be encouraged on HN.
People demand airshows because they're cool.
The military participates in airshows because it's good for morale, because it helps showcase capabilities, because it's good PR for military expenditures, and because it's good for recruitment. All of these effects are mostly because it's cool.
The other people flying in airshows are flying there because they love aviation and because it's cool (not so much the money :)
Again, they're not even right if we're going maximum correctness here...
Maximally correct answer is "there are many reasons with complex interplay", and those reasons do include the fact it's cool! Being cool has interplay with morale, recruitment, and even their ham-fisted attempt at referencing geopolitics.
They'd be "more right" if they said in addition, but they just straight up said "No."
(Also where did you read a too many comments shtick?)
Seeing and hearing the last remaining Avro Vulcan pull up over the chalk cliffs at Eastbourne a few years back is something I won't forget for a long time.
It's worth questioning what the costs are, though. I love military aviation more than the average Joe, and seeing these jets pushed to their limits is pretty gratifying. But this isn't a football/soccer pasttime, the E/A-18 is an expensive F/A-18 block and the aviators are an asset of national security that take decades of experience and millions of taxpayer dollars to train. The losses sustained by the Blue Angels alone is stomach-churning, and they're widely known as one of the most professional groups around: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Angels#Team_accidents_and...
The net benefit is marketing, and little else. As much as I enjoy watching airshow jet maneuvers, I have to acknowledge that the USSR only sent their Sukhoi pilots on-tour as a publicity stunt to increase their exports. Same goes for the US, France and China.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Angels#Team_accidents_and...
20 pilot deaths since 1946 (80 years ago), but only 2 pilot deaths since 2000 (25 years ago).
I wouldn't really call that "stomach-churning losses"?
I guess aviation always has an element of risk and the real debate has to be around safety standards and training. A loss of aircraft, crew or worse people on the ground is never acceptable and seems to happen more than it should.
I grew up in a time a whole lot more was spent on air shows.
They do it because it’s awesome and it is one of the few opportunities they get to show off their gear to the public!
[flagged]
Where I live, any lack of a functional social safety net is a failure of execution, not a failure of funding.
EA-18s are real, the things you speak of only exist in the imagination.
It's circuses. Bread and circuses, except we don't get the bread part.
But some people really like circuses.
[flagged]
bla bla bla you don't have to choose between doing interesting stuff and fixing all problems.
I would say it's part of the US culture. It's not a thing in Europe (one reason might be practical reasons. We have less space to do it safely).
Of course we have airshows and dedicated teams for that.
There are the patrouille Suisse, patrouille de France, Frecce Tricolori...
After the Ramstein Air Base disaster security was tightened a lot though.
I’ve seen PdF perform, they are pretty impressive in the maneouvers they execute.
It is worth mentuoning though they do all that in trainer jets, not actual fighter jets. Which is not that cool. I would loved it more of they would fly actual fighters.
> I would loved it more of they would fly actual fighters.
For that I'd say it's that France is saving its actual fighters for combat units because it doesn't has enough jets, unlike the US
There are many airshows in Europe, including the world’s largest military airshow (RIAT in the UK).
UK list, for example: https://www.air-shows.org.uk/2025/04/uk-airshow-calendar-202...
Rest of Europe: https://www.air-shows.org.uk/2025/04/european-airshow-calend...
It has absolutely been a thing in Europe and there have been numerous accidents involving Russian and European aircraft at events like the Paris Airshow.
I guess the half dozen airshows my dad took me to as a kid just happened in my head.
Peak European comment
It attracts talented people.
I remember going to an air show when I was 12 with a good friend. Walking through the C-5 and then seeing a thunderbirds display just captured my friends imagination in a way that’s hard to describe. He ended up becoming a Marine Aviator and basically started planning that path that day.
[dead]
Presumably recruitment and PR for the air force, and morale for the aviators, as they can show off their training and skills to friends, family and the general public.
Acting as a sales platform for aircraft manufacturers is also a thing. The RAF Red Arrows are probably responsible for a load of sales of the Hawk advanced trainer they use in their displays.
For whom?
For the audience - we love airplanes and love seeing them. I personally prefer the ground portion of air shows, where I can see and sometimes touch the airplanes up close, talk to the pilots and engineers, and generally have a nice day outside :). The aerial component is impressive too, depending on the show. Sometimes it's a bit drawn out.
For the organizers, typically it's a mix of profit and also organizer enthusiasm - a LOT of air show is basically hard-working volunteers.
For the participants, depends - the private entries are there for fun and visibility and showpersonship, cammarederie etc. The armed forces are there to promote and recruit and invoke patriotism and show off and impress.
Ultimately though, if airplanes aren't your kink, you probably won't emotionally / internally understand and that's ok. It's like world rally championship or formula 1 or anything redbull does, a risky entertaining spectacle.
If we view this through the lens of the “American civil religion“, these spectacles aren’t too unlike crowds of folks gathering to witness miracles.
It kind of is a miracle when you think about what goes in to creating those machines, maintaining them, and learning to fly them so well, of course crashes notwithstanding.
Agreed, it's amazing they don't crash more often, given the complexity of it all.
Crashes are rare. Exposure to the civilian for what their tax dollars are paying for, opportunities for pilots to become more skilled and train other pilots for advanced maneuvers. Things like that. Overall there’s not too much meat on the bone as far as criticisms are concerned.
Tell that to the people that died or got horribly burned at Ramstein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramstein_air_show_disaster
I am not sure what point you are trying to make... are you saying that if anyone is killed in at accident at something, we should never do that something again?
Even more people died at the Hillsborough disaster than died at the Ramstein air show, so I guess we should never have sports events at stadiums anymore.
More people died at the Station Nightclub fire, so I guess we can never have nightclubs anymore.
I could go on and on. Yes, we should take all precautions and be safe as possible for events, but everything has some risk.
That's almost forty years ago. You are basically playing Where's Waldo with military aviation history.
[flagged]
You can do advanced maneuvers without getting so close to another plane in some weird attempt at simulating a scenario that will never happen.
Did some cursory searches/math and it looks like about 1-2% of aerial shows in the US have a fatality (1-2 deaths annually with about 2000 shows on average over the last 20 years). If those numbers are correct (and they may very well not be as it’s a mix of LLM and Google quick searches) 1-2% doesn’t seem worth it.
Edit: I’m an idiot. .05-.1%. Seems a bit silly still but not as bad as I thought.
> You can do advanced maneuvers without getting so close to another plane in some weird attempt at simulating a scenario that will never happen.
That is likely true. However, it is a heck of a demonstration of pilot skill. The Blue Angels somewhat regularly post in-cockpit views of their airshow practice and it is wild how tight a formation they fly; I really recommend seeking out some of those videos, it is totally worth it. Well, for me at least :). It is not unheard of (but not common) for them to inadvertently make contact, since they fly like 18 inches apart, but given they have nearly identical vectors it does not often result in a crash.
You might want to double check that LLM... If theres 2000 shows and 1-2 deaths, that's 0.05%-0.1%. still too high, but given the simple math error I think the other numbers are probably suspect too
Don't trust LLMs. They are bullshit machines.
That was my mistake with quick mental math tbh
Also I think most of the fatalities in aerial shows are civilian pilots. Control out every nonmilitary flight when considering the risk.
Probably just because it's cool.
I'm sure there's some bean-counter calculus involving recruitment, PR, demonstration of capabilities, they were going to be doing training flights anyway so why not do a few in public, etc. but they're more rationalisations rather than reasons.
I hope it stays that way too. A world where we take everything away unless it fits into the 5 year ROI spreadsheet sounds dreadful. In any case there'll a long tail of nth-order outcomes that we can't simply reduce down to a risk-reward calculation.
There's probably some deep reason why humans just have a drive to show off their awesome stuff.
Recruiting for those considering careers, and marketing more broadly for those who pay taxes.
This is a question that comes up internally as well. It gets into questions like "Why do we fund the Thunderbirds etc". I will hold off on my 2c because the arguments are already covered!
Immediately after a show like this, yes, it looks foolish to lose 2 combat planes and almost 4 aircrew for a performative event. Looking at it more generally, it's a tradeoff.
For recruitment, awareness, to boost civilian confidence/engagement/support in the military as a whole. The blue angels and thunderbirds are the best of the best when it comes to air shows because the best pilots are used and they train extensively.
Public relations for mil spending
Also, air shows and flybys are awesome.
Flybys are awesome depending where you are. F-18s in Idaho? Pretty cool. F-18s in Pakistan? Probably stressful.
If combat zone flybys are anything like they are in the movie “warfare”, (excellent war movie, btw) stressful seems like an understatement.
Awe inspiring and absolutely terrifying
It's a planned event at a specific time that requires training, planning, and coordination between multiple organizations.
All I know is I’m glad I don’t live in the world where this kind of reasoning dominates. All the greatest things I’ve seen in my life have been arguably pointless in this way.
Entertainment, education about avionic/technology/engineering, military PR and recruiting, boost local economy, etc.
What's the purpose of motor sports? What's the purpose of a firework? What's the purpose of extreme sports exhibitions? mountain climbing expeditions?
Posturing, showing of your military capabilities towards the enemy. Raising morale (aka war propaganda) towards your own population.
Contrary to popular belief, war is mostly about public opinion, not raw strength. Even since (before) roman times, you almost never fight to the last man, you fight until you route the enemy.
I think the word you're looking for is "rout."
Thanks for your valuable contribution.
military capabilities towards the enemy
...and unfortunately sometimes also military mistakes, but fortunately this doesn't happen often.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes
The first rule of Flight Club is: you do not talk about Flight Club.
"Because it's there"
[flagged]
Healthcare is expensive because we buy fancy airplanes? It seems at least as likely to do with the incredibly high salaries we pay doctors. And the fact that we use like 50% more healthcare services than a typical single-payer society.
> Healthcare is expensive because we buy fancy airplanes?
This is a bad faith rebuttal that intentionally tries to distort the comparison.
Here's the salient point you're trying to ignore: many other countries have lower healthcare costs and better health outcomes because they've prioritized investing in healthcare systems that work better for their citizens.
Government budgets are not unlimited and when your country spends nearly $1 trillion/year on the military (more than double the second-biggest spender) on top of a debt pile rapidly approaching $40 trillion, it's reasonable to question whether the people running the show have their priorities straight.
As Martin Luther King Jr. recognized a long time ago, "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."
To which I'd add a point about socioeconomic death. Of course, that doesn't resonate with people who measure the country's economic situation by stock prices.
> It seems at least as likely to do with the incredibly high salaries we pay doctors.
Doctor wages account for about 8% of healthcare spend in the US, so even if doctors worked for free, you wouldn't even come close to parity with other countries in terms of healthcare costs.
Don't you think something is wrong when the cost of an emergency room visit in much of the country exceeds individuals' median liquid savings?
> And the fact that we use like 50% more healthcare services than a typical single-payer society.
This simply isn't true. Per Kaiser Family Foundation: "The U.S.’s higher spending on providers is driven more by higher prices than higher utilization of care. Patients in the U.S. have shorter average hospital stays and fewer physician visits per capita, while many hospital procedures have been shown to have higher prices in the U.S. "
Saying we should trim fat to spend more on healthcare is like saying we should just keep adding pumps rather than fixing the hole in the ship.
I think it beyond anything that could be construed as honesty to call such advocacy "good faith".
Let the people have their stupid circuses. The actual cost of airshows is fairly low on an annual basis. The DOD is gonna make a bunch of C5s pack random crap around, make a bunch of pilots do training hours, make a bunch of NG units practice crowd control, might as well use all that expense to put on a show. Better for PR and for morale and for training that way (turns out everyone gives more of a crap about doing a good job when the public is there).
What's your source for claiming "[the US] uses like 50% more healthcare services than a typical single-payer society"?
Personal take-home pay for physicians is 8-10% of total US healthcare spending ($5tr). (or 20%/$1.11t for "physician and clinical services" overall which includes doctors, clinical staff, admin, and overhead costs.)
US total spending on pharmaceuticals is $1 tr; net spending on outpatient prescription drugs is $600b.
The DoD's total spending is $961.6b for FY 2026.
There's little argument against reforming both military spending and healthcare spending in the US, but (as Scott Galloway says) it's awfully hard to find a prominent politician who vocally supports reforming both these (not one at the expense of the other). So, the out-of-control spending/borrowing will continue.
Anyway, as to this crash, all other considerations apart, E/A-18Gs (electronic warfare planes) cost 60% more than F-18s. Who authorized flying them in an airshow?
Healthcare is expensive because we buy fancy trade groups and licensing bodies and fractional monopolies, etc, etc.
I'm reminded of a short video clip I saw a while back with a dollar-counter on-screen. Different kinds of weapons were fired, each one bigger and more expensive than the last, the counter spinning upwards all-the-while. And here's me thinking: man, just don't shoot two or three of those anti-aircraft missiles, give the cash to me, and I could buy a house and live comfortably with my family.
If it weren't for the military, you might not have a country left to live in.
This is a strawman argument.
One can acknowledge the necessity of having a military while at the same time questioning the magnitude of defense spending.
The purpose of airshows is to boost recruitment of cannon fodder for imperial conquests and to remind us that we are strong and the enemy is weak.
Same reason as for military parades.
If the plan was to demo the Growlers team then calling the Blue Angels makes no sense, that’s a completely different team on completely different aircraft. You can still demo them with reduced risk like avoiding flying close profile.
If the Internet is to be believed they're not actually more expensive than an F/A-18, and as far as military aircraft go.. not the most expensive. But a ~$150M accident is nothing to sneeze at.
Perhaps the internet price excludes the EW payload? Seems like a plane with a load of electronics gear and transmitters/antennas would cost more than the same plane sans that stuff?
I do not know the specifics, but I think most of the EW gear sits on pods attached to the pilons, not inside the actual plane. The only difference that I know of compared to a regular F18 is that it requires two crew members to operate.
Most of the Growler "magic" is in pods carried on external hardpoints, but you couldn't just upload the EW pods onto a FA-18F Super Hornet and have a Growler.
The cannon in the nose of a regular Hornet is replaced with computer hardware in the Growler. There are also aerodynamic changes to make it a little more stable so it's a better EW platform. There's probably a million other small differences too, enough that you wouldn't try to convert a -19F Super Hornet into a Growler (although the RAAF did think they'd try at one point).
Yes, the EW gear is attached to the hardpoints. You can see in the video that it has not been installed for the airshow.
I'm not sure on the history of why there's a Growler display team, but they regularly perform at air shows, even air shows where the Blue Angels or Thunderbirds are also performing. Their display isn't formation aerobatics, more a sort of fancy fly-by.
Air force, Navy and Marines have many display teams in addition to the two everyone knows. E.g. there's an F-35 display team and an F-22 display team. Usually they fly single though.
[dead]
What are Growlers doing performing aerobatic maneuvers at air shows? They have tens of millions in specialized extra equipment on board. Seems like a poor use of taxpayer money. Send regular F-18s, not the rare expensive ones that look the same.
Much of that specialized equipment is mounted on the hard points where you would otherwise attach ordnance. It is easily removable. In the videos I don’t see much evidence of that equipment being installed. This is consistent with what you would do for an airshow.
The US military plans to lose about 25 airframes per year due to various mishaps. They operate well over 10,000 airframes and produce far more new airframes each year than they lose. The optimal loss rate is not zero.
The G model hornets are extensively modified with different electrical harnesses and electronics for their role, they're not interchangeable at all in practice. The 20mm cannon is fully removed as well as the wing tip rails to make room for permanently mounted antennas and additional internal equipment. They aren't modular systems, apart from the AN/ALQ-99 or AN/ALQ-249 jamming pods.
Historically there were a few F models pre wired for G systems but the F models in USN inventory don't have this feature and the harnessing work required for the conversation is prohibitive.
> The optimal loss rate is not zero.
Fine, but surely if the achieved loss rate is projected to fall below the optimal one, then the optimal way to compensate is something else than crashing planes at airshows? Like, I don't know, dismantling for spares. Or scrapping. Or even target practice.
Air shows are pilot flight hours training. This could've happened on any random training exercise just the same.
Flight hours are one the key differentiating factors in air force quality and a major US advantage is that their pilots have a lot of them.
*a male US advantage
major?
Either autocorrect is getting worse or I'm getting lazier...or just phone posting more.
Ah so instead of all those quotes being sad about the crash they should be happy they are helping the US military destroy equipment at optimal rates.
the pilots need to fly <N> hours to keep their pilot rating anyways.
So aside from the slightly elevated risk to the civilian observers, and the occasional risk due to maneuvers (I think they doing something particularly showy in this case?), the extra cost to the taxpayer do this is ~nil.
What sort of hours do you log for a crash? Does it end when the ejection starts, or feet-on/the/ground?
if the pilot doesn't have their hands on the stick flying the plane, i don't think those hours (... less than single digit minutes?) count.
When the plane comes to rest on the ground.
Every landing you can walk away from is a good landing.
...or perhaps the last piece of it.
There are two expensive holes in the ground that do not support your supposition.
Only if there's a significant difference in risk between training flight and air show flight.
Otherwise there's always a near constant ever present risk of uncontrolled unintended landings with expensive repair and replacement costs.
That’s a pretty big “only”.
Airplanes normally don’t fly so close.
There are many situations in real combat where pilots need to fly even closer than typical air show formations, like refueling or escorting other aircraft. So close formation flying is a fundamental skill for a pilot. Sure, we can minimize risk by not using certain aircraft and close formations during airshows, but pilots will still need to train and execute missions using high(er) risk maneuvers. Also air shows are probably not the largest portion of flight time for a pilot.
Formation flying usually involves getting close and then 'just' maintaining distance. This has nothing to do with formation flying, this is acrobatics, different ballgame
Fighter jets in training probably do?
Doubtful there is any acrobatic training like this for the regular fighter pilot.
You cannot simply tell an EA-18G crew to hop into a "regular F-18" for the weekend. The pilots involved belong to a specific Electronic Attack Squadron (in this case, VAQ-129 based out of NAS Whidbey Island). Military pilots belong to specific units, maintain specific platform qualifications (NATOPS), and fly the aircraft assigned to their squadron. If a VAQ squadron is invited to perform or do a flyover, they bring their Growlers.The EA-18G is neither rare nor drastically more expensive than a standard Super Hornet in its base configuration.
The maneuvers performed by these types of aircraft at air shows (such as a "rejoin" or close-formation flying) are not circus stunts; they are standard tactical maneuvers that pilots practice daily. More importantly, military pilots are required to fly a certain number of hours each month to maintain their proficiency and flight status. Flying to, from, and during an air show counts toward these mandatory, already-budgeted flight hours.
When you have exorbitant privilege you tend to use it.
A better term might be "abuse" rather than "use." Some people do, some people don't, and it says a lot about their character.
How much do tax payers pay for an F-18?
Australia paid $125 million USD for a single unit order to replace the Growler that caught fire at Nellis in 2018.
Air shows always carry the risk of killing pilots, like any training or combat mission. So we should not have air shows at all because losing a $30M or a $60M jet is secondary to losing highly trained pilots we need for combat readiness.
US military airshows make a point to use combat ready aircraft. F-22s flew over SF during fleet week.
Yeah it's lame but it's a rounding error compared to the amount wasted on foreign military adventures.
It's crazy to me that Americans feel like they can't afford socialized healthcare, but performing tricks in $70M jets is something that must proceed at all costs.
One of the things that honestly gets boring is this style of comment (typically European in origin but not always!). It does not constructively start any type discussion and just becomes a cheap shots style of argument.
Every country and culture has its own pros/cons. I always think of the classic examples, Europe lacks a lot of innovation in business and that’s partly attributed to lack of free movement of labor (high layoff cost). Now we could argue to the end of time if that is good or bad and it’s quite too simple minded to point fingers. Every entity has its pro/con.
I admit the comment you’re responding to was low effort, but I don’t think the existence of cons in one’s own culture invalidates criticizing cons to some other culture. Problems don’t go away if everyone ignores them.
Also “every culture has pros/cons” may be true, but it’s absolutely not true that the ratio of pros/cons is the same for every culture.
I don’t think you should ignore them but two jets that collide at an air show has very little to do with the state of healthcare in America. As an American I completely dislike the state of the healthcare system but I also get tired of the cheap shot comments like this.
I think they absolutely are more connected than you think. So many problems in our current society are because everything is treated as being in its own vacuum.
As an American, I’m tired of comments like yours. I’m not sure you understand what a cheap shot is. America isn’t on the ground while others are standing over them, kicking them. If anything, America is acting as if its limbs are all completely different organisms. The arm shooting the leg is certainly the leg’s problem, not the arm’s. /s
if you can’t hear anything negative about America without making a fuss, maybe you should listen to the feedback and fix it?
[flagged]
It's not a cheap shot at all. OP is asking why the government is using tax payer money to finance air shows instead of healthcare, regardless of free markets and business regulations. In fact, there could be less air shows (and thus less aircraft losses) and lower taxes.
lol Americans did not invent kleptocracy, just having their turn in the barrel.
This is one of the pseudo-"arguments" I absolutely hate to read.
The problem with America's healthcare is not the military, foreign aid or wars. It simply is not.
The problem is the insane amount of waste in the US healthcare system. Y'all already spend much, much more per capita on healthcare than everyone else on earth by a wide margin [1], but get markedly lower returns in life expectancy [2].
Y'all need to cut the waste and middlemen out of your healthcare system, take that money and invest it into prevention (especially: fight against obesity - the US has a serious problem there costing a lot of money and causing a lot of suffering [3]), and you would get far better returns.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expe...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in_the_United_States
Americans will never be able to "solve" obesity at a national level in their free liberal "business first" world. After all obesity is a consequence of the biggest industry of all, the fast food industry. And a lot of profits are predicated on sick fat people from fitness to dieting to health care and pharmacy.
There are very little profits to these giants if the population was slim and healthy.
The counter argument is that the free market also allows lots of money to be made on anti-obesity drugs which incentivises them to be researched.
Maybe we wouldn’t have had GLP-1 (at all or as quickly) without the huge market that is the USA.
Not saying I fully buy this argument but it is at least plausible defence of libertarianism.
Who cares about those companies, whole industries can come and go as markets dance their daily dance.
The fact is, every single country on earth figured this out better than US. Which ain't so bad, but the stubbornness to even admit a failure due to some primitive patriotism or whatever and fix it is quite something. Well, you do you.
It's not stubbornness.
It's simply the outcome of a system that puts private profits before public good (in this case health, but you can see the same thing play out in other sectors too such as education).
Everything is working as designed.
The waste is a byproduct of a many-layered insurance system forced between patient and provider. Everyone in the chain wants their pound of flesh. That problem will exist until the government provides a managed alternative and takes corporate profit out of healthcare.
And that all comes down to the appetite for social spending. It's patriotic to funnel $tn to arms suppliers but only a Commie would want health, dental, mental and social care free for all.
It's not a pseudoargument, it's pointing out the madness in US public spending. This money was available to blow stuff up, kill kids in another country. Why not spending something similar to improve the US domestically.
> This money was available to blow stuff up, kill kids in another country. Why not spending something similar to improve the US domestically.
Because there is already more than enough money in the US healthcare system. Just shoving in more money will not help anybody at all.
I think we're possibly saying the same thing in different ways but the only way you take the money going to insurance companies and debt collectors is by providing a service that doesn't rely on them.
Getting there is the hurdle. Forcibly nationalise insurers and their hospital networks? Price capping all the things? Doesn't sound very American.
That leaves competition. To fund that, you need tax revenue. Eventually people will pay that tax instead of insurance but it's infrastructure, so it's front-loaded.
Come now, do you really think those are the same people?
People who think we can't afford socialized healthcare and people who love military airshows would stereotypically be the same people
Yes because over in the rest of the world (or "the country of Europe" to be exact), we all have "socialized healthcare" where we pillage the wealthy and just spend shitloads of tax money on it. That would go very great, and is not a flawed idea whatsoever. /s
yeah, it's pretty fucking great homey
My god that tv website is chockful of javascript from all over.
If you wish to avoid it: https://nitter.net/search?f=tweets&q=mountain+home+air
[dead]
Since the negative PR effects of exploding planes undermine the intended positive promotional aspects of conducting air shows, we should probably just halt and save money, right?
That's good that all pilots ejected safely. But what if it fails? Still, losing two specialized aircraft during an airshow feels like very expensive, I doubt if it's really worth it to risks these pilots life on it
The US has over 10,000 military aircraft in service and thousands of spares sitting in storage. The US is quite arguably the only military that can casually absorb losses like these.
This specific aircraft is being phased out over the next several years. Assuming these still had some miles left on the airframe, they likely would have been put in cold storage a few years from now.
Do you have a source for the Growler being phased out? I was under the impression that they still have a long operating life ahead.
The 5th generation platforms can do the same mission with a lower risk profile using their built-in systems. The US Navy doesn't have enough of those so the F-18 Growlers are sticking around to fill the capability gap until the 6th generation platforms drop in the early 2030s to replace the remaining 4th generation gear.
That has been reported in a number of places and makes a lot of sense. The current order backlog for F-35s runs to almost 2030 despite production capacity upgrades. It is the same reason there are still many normal F-18s flying in the Navy even though the F-35 has existed for years.
The 6th generation platforms appear to be an upgrade super-cycle, replacing all of the remaining 4th generation platforms. The 5th generation platforms were in some respects prototypes of what they really wanted to build. The US Air Force has been making many moves in a similar direction. For example, the procurement numbers for the B-21 (a 6th generation platform) is larger than the number of airframes for any existing bomber and there are serious discussions to scale the production beyond the number of all existing bombers.
There is a lot of signal suggesting that the US military is moving to a pure 6th generation spine for its air capability over the next 5-10 years.
Is there much of a way to recover from that kind of glomping? Kinda seems like the aerodynamics might hold them together (as the noses are somewhat pointed together), or with enough speed rip them apart chaotically since they're a bit skewed (which could be worse than ejecting early).
It seems pretty obvious that ejecting is the right choice either way, but it makes me wonder if there's any alternative in this kind of scenario.
Basically all modern fighters since the 1980s are aerodynamically unstable and require a computer to fly. A collision like this is almost certainly going to do major damage to the airframe (screwing up its aerodynamics) and maybe flight controls as well. I suspect the plane will be well outside the parameters that the flight controls software can deal with, making stable flight impossible.
Depending on how much damage was incurred during contact, since they were already flying predominantly the same direction & speed, at a higher altitude they might have uncoupled and regained controlled flight. Examples of more grievously damaged airplanes have landed in the past. I don't think they had any real hope if they stayed joined, tho.
While there absolutely are examples of massively damaged aircraft landing safely, they make the news because it's ridiculously rare for that happen.
That maneuver they were attempting looks WILD. Would have been amazing to have pulled of. Or, perhaps to have regularly pulled off until today. I'm guessing that must be some sort of vectored thrust trickery.
They weren’t attempting anything, just repositioning for the next pass. They were flying away from the audience. They lost track of each other.
The video, apart from the apparent loss of situation awareness by the following pilot, seems to show the leader making an aggressive left turn basically into the path of the other aircraft. I'm four hundred miles or so from the location but we've had some weird weather here today, and I've heard it was even more weird in Idaho. Reports of high wind speeds and gusts. I wondered if the lead aircraft had been hit by some sort of atmospheric event that pushed it into the path of the other when it happened to be too close to correct.
https://x.com/Brick_Suit/status/2056183711549608239
It doesn't look like a fancy manoeuvrer, just slow repositioning and they drifted into each other.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QlJrUX1Ags is probably a better link to the clip.
I don't think anything after the second jet's merge was deliberate. NASA's HARV is the only F/A-18 with a thrust vectoring exhaust designed for it, and it's doubtful that similar kit would go on an EW jet.
What's shown in the video appears to be some form of slipstreaming by the chase craft that causes them both to lose pitch authority, pulling up into a stall state and then a yaw tailslide.
Cue the development of a limpet drone that would be enough to take down one of these birds in a non-destructive way… although perhaps these ones in particular would be uniquely positioned to deal with such adversaries.
What an odd collision. The way they remain in tandem after contact is uncanny, almost as though they were not under direct control.
They probably went into a stall (loss of lift) after collision. So they would have lost all control.
Their controls would probably feel all mushy and unresponsive at that point.
Four people ejected.
What is the purpose of the second person in such plane, at the air show?
They're 2-crew airplanes. If you're used to flying with a backseater, it's probably safer to continue doing that.
Flight time for the electronic warfare officer?
> What is the purpose of the second person in such plane, at the air show?
Pilot Flying, Pilot Monitoring (and dealing with radio and coordination).
It's hard to see single-pilot operations outside of General Aviation aka people flying for fun or for dusting crops - and enough incidents happen in GA, especially in cropdusting, that it might make sense to mandate two-pilot operations there, but good luck trying to get that passed, people are already complaining as it is that aviation is too expensive and in fact are moving towards getting commercial aviation to single-pilot operations.
As I understand it "dusting crops" is commercial aerial work and thus outside of
General aviation (GA) is defined by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) as all civil aviation aircraft operations except for commercial air transport or aerial work, which is defined as specialized aviation services for other purposes
Crop dusting, small frame fire suppression, and small frame geophysical surveying are often single pilot- and geophys surveys can drape entire countries at 80m ground clearance and 200m line spacing (plus transverse lines) so they can really rack up the hours and line kilometres.
Uh, that's not correct. The back-seat in the Growler is an Electronics Warfare Officer. He may be monitoring the radio, but he's not just a second pilot (as is the case with commercial passenger aviation); it's a completely distinct job with a distinct training program.
And of course, most modern fighter jets are actually single seat. And they operate just fine that way.
What does Electronics Warfare Officer in the plane do, at the air show?
Ballast.
Only half kidding. They fly with a pilot and an EWO, that's procedure. Not much more to it.
I wonder how you can make the decision to eject in such a short timespan.
They train for it. When people who have ejected talk about it they basically say it's automatic. Things go south they pull the handle on instinct.
One has to be trained to do it, the untrained tendency is to wait too long. There's a USAF film on Youtube titled "Ejection Decision" that discusses this and shows how little time there is to make that choice.
At this point you barely "make the decision". They train and train and train to the point where it's automatic as soon as they know there's no way to avoid the crash.
So fast they shit their pants as the chutes were deployed.
if(oh shit) { pull(); }
[dead]
kudos to the Martin-Baker seats and the pilots' training, ejecting at that low altitude after a collision is incredibly hazardous. Using high-value electronic warfare assets for aerobatics seems like an unnecessary risk when regular Hornets could do the exact same job for the crowd.
Always enjoy looking through the Martin-Baker site for their database of successful ejections. They've saved a lot of lives!
Once again, thanks Martin-Baker, 4 lives saved.
And 4 new members of the Tie Club: https://martin-baker.com/tie-club/
They’re up to date as of the 12th - https://martin-baker.com/ejection-notices/
“We know you’ve ejected before you land”
[dead]
That was a gnarly stunt. Glad the pilots survived.
Isn't making planes fly really close to each other an entirely optional activity?
I cant wait to pay for that with my tax dollars.
Tax dollars really don't pay for things in the US Federal Government.
Deficit spending leading to an ever rising debt is the source of continued spending. When Debt/GDP grows, we're spending ever more money that we don't have.
Total Debt:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEBTN
Total Debt/GDP
You're not wrong, but exorbitant deficit spending has its own dire consequences. (eventually) Not that I am telling you anything you don't already know.
What if we just inflate away the debt? Sure, ppl will hate dealing with very high inflation for a few years, and pensioners and whoever buys those trillions of debt will get screwed, but besides that we should be ok?
/s
Then why have tax at all?
Answer to that is indeed this is tax expenditure.
Although rounding error compared to the war.
[dead]
[dead]