76 pointsby ChrisArchitect3 hours ago9 comments
  • Waterluvian2 hours ago
    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.
    • stephen_gan hour ago
      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!
    • binary132an hour ago
      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.
      • dbcurtisan hour ago
        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.
  • avalys2 hours ago
    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?
    • jterrysan hour ago
      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.
    • barbazoo2 hours ago
      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.
      • rootusrootusan hour ago
        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.

        • operatingthetan44 minutes ago
          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?

          • justin6618 minutes ago
            They work for recruitment because... they're cool.
            • nearlyepica few seconds ago
              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.
          • BoorishBears13 minutes ago
            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.

            • operatingthetan11 minutes ago
              Bizarre response. Don't make things up or project based on your perception of tone. Your style of criticism and declaring the 'truth' is intensely off-putting.
          • lelandbatey18 minutes ago
            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.
        • bigyabai31 minutes ago
          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.

      • chilmers2 hours ago
        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.
        • zabzonkan hour ago
          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.
      • tonypapousek2 hours ago
        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.
        • ericmay2 hours ago
          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.
          • tonypapousekan hour ago
            Agreed, it's amazing they don't crash more often, given the complexity of it all.
      • ericmay2 hours ago
        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.
        • Forgeties79an hour ago
          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.

          • rootusrootusan hour ago
            > 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.

          • Schiendelmanan hour ago
            Also I think most of the fatalities in aerial shows are civilian pilots. Control out every nonmilitary flight when considering the risk.
          • bigfishrunningan hour ago
            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.

            • Forgeties7943 minutes ago
              That was my mistake with quick mental math tbh
      • vkou4 minutes ago
        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.

      • mpynean hour ago
        Recruiting for those considering careers, and marketing more broadly for those who pay taxes.
      • npunt2 hours ago
        Public relations for mil spending
        • petcatan hour ago
          Also, air shows and flybys are awesome.
      • nsxwolfan hour ago
        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.
      • dudul2 hours ago
        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?

      • DonHopkins2 hours ago
        The first rule of Flight Club is: you do not talk about Flight Club.
      • ElProlactinan hour ago
        You need to remind the plebs why they're citizens of the wealthiest country the world has ever known but still struggle to afford healthcare.
        • rootusrootus44 minutes ago
          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.
          • smcin11 minutes ago
            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.

        • mc3301an hour ago
          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.
      • streetfighter642 hours ago
        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.

        • Schiendelmanan hour ago
          I think the word you're looking for is "rout."
        • userbinator44 minutes ago
          military capabilities towards the enemy

          ...and unfortunately sometimes also military mistakes, but fortunately this doesn't happen often.

    • 2 hours ago
      undefined
  • yubblegum2 hours ago
    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

  • arwhatever2 hours ago
    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.
    • bigyabai2 hours ago
      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.

  • Groxx2 hours ago
    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.

    • rootusrootusan hour ago
      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.
  • gausswho2 hours ago
    What an odd collision. The way they remain in tandem after contact is uncanny, almost as though they were not under direct control.
    • chalupa-supreme2 hours ago
      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.

  • amelius2 hours ago
    I wonder how you can make the decision to eject in such a short timespan.
    • ridgeguy9 minutes ago
      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.
    • MrMember2 hours ago
      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.
    • dudul2 hours ago
      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.
  • 2 hours ago
    undefined
  • Thaxll2 hours ago
    Once again, thanks Martin-Baker, 4 lives saved.