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.

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.

...or perhaps the last piece of it.

Every landing you can walk away from is a good landing.

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 don't need to do some rigorous searching to find that military jet planes do not need an airshow to crash. Just search f-35 crash

Yeah it's lame but it's a rounding error compared to the amount wasted on foreign military adventures.

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 male 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.

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.

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.