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.
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.
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.
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.
Fighter jets in training probably do?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.