The US Navy lost $136 million worth of jets in an air show crash. Why risk it?

The US Navy’s $136 Million Loss in Idaho Air Show Crash

The US Navy lost 136 million – Last weekend’s crash of two U.S. Navy EA-18 Growlers at an Idaho air show has ignited discussions about the military’s willingness to expose high-value aircraft to potential damage for public display. The incident, which occurred during the Gunfighter Skies Air Show at Mountain Home Air Force Base, involved a mid-air collision between two electronic warfare jets assigned to Electronic Attack Squadron 129. Crew members of the Growler Airshow Team were reported to have ejected safely, though one individual required hospitalization for minor injuries. The Navy’s statement highlighted the successful evacuation, but the financial impact of the crash remains a focal point for critics questioning the cost of such performances.

The EA-18 Growlers, derived from the F/A-18 fighter jet platform, are valued at approximately $68 million each. Replacement costs, however, would exceed this figure due to the limited production of the aircraft and the complexity of their maintenance. Boeing, while no longer manufacturing new EA-18s, continues to build F/A-18s, which are similar in design but not identical in function. The hourly operating cost for these jets is around $20,000, a figure that underscores the financial commitment required for even a single air show appearance.

Despite these figures, the Pentagon persists in staging such events. John Venable, a senior resident fellow at the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies and a former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot, noted that the calls for accountability after accidents are often “part of the noise” surrounding the event. “It’s a calculated risk,” he said, emphasizing that the military views these displays as essential for public engagement and national pride. Yet, the recent crash has amplified concerns about whether the benefits of these performances justify the substantial financial and human toll.

Cost-Benefit Analysis Under Scrutiny

Historical cost-benefit studies have long been used to evaluate the value of military demonstration teams. A 2012 analysis by Navy officers attending the service’s post-graduate school in California revealed a stark imbalance in the returns from the Blue Angels program. According to the study, the team’s annual budget of roughly $98.6 million generated less than $1 million in recruiting benefits, resulting in a negative 99% return on investment. This finding suggests that the economic impact of the Blue Angels’ visibility may not offset the expenses, particularly when factoring in the cost of maintaining specialized aircraft and personnel.

While the 2012 report highlighted the financial strain, it also acknowledged the intangible benefits of such demonstrations. “Goodwill” from air show attendance, including the economic ripple effects on local communities and the broader public perception of the military, was noted as a critical factor. Even with these considerations, the study found a negative 41% return on investment, indicating that the costs still far outpace the tangible advantages. In 2024, Congress mandated a new cost-benefit review, but the Pentagon has yet to release public figures, leaving the current assessment of these programs in question.

The Growler Airshow Team represents a smaller segment of the military’s demonstration efforts. Unlike the Blue Angels or the Air Force’s Thunderbirds, which headline major events with their iconic formations, the Growlers focus on showcasing the capabilities of electronic warfare aircraft in less high-profile settings. Venable argued that these teams play a vital role in reaching communities that might otherwise have limited access to military aviation. “Smaller venues can’t afford to host the Blue Angels, so teams like the Growler Airshow Team step in,” he explained. “They bridge the gap between large-scale displays and local engagement, ensuring that military aviation remains visible to a wider audience.”

The Role of Demonstration Teams in Military Outreach

While the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds dominate headlines, demonstration teams like the Growlers are essential for maintaining a consistent presence across diverse locations. Venable noted that these smaller units are often deployed to less populated areas, where the cost of a full-scale show would be prohibitive. “The Air Force and Navy recognize the importance of connecting with communities that might not see a major jet team,” he said, adding that such efforts are part of a broader strategy to inspire public interest in military service.

However, the inclusion of these teams in air shows is not guaranteed. At the Mountain Home event, the Thunderbirds were scheduled to perform, but the military also considered adding the Growler team as a backup. “It’s a matter of logistics and timing,” Venable explained. “When the schedule allows, smaller demonstration units can fill in, ensuring that the public still sees military aircraft even if the main teams are unavailable.” This flexibility highlights the strategic value of having multiple teams, yet it also raises questions about the prioritization of risk and reward in such decisions.

Historical Accidents Highlight the Risks

The recent crash is not the first time air show flying has resulted in tragic outcomes. In 1982, a mid-air collision during a practice flight for the Thunderbirds in Arizona led to the deaths of four pilots, an event remembered as the “Diamond Crash.” The incident sparked a reevaluation of formation flying protocols and underscored the dangers inherent in high-speed, low-altitude maneuvers. Similarly, in 1994, a B-52 bomber crashed in Washington state during a pre-show rehearsal, with investigators citing unsafe pilot actions as a contributing factor.

More recently, in 2016, a Blue Angels pilot was killed in a crash near a Tennessee air show, and in 2018, an Air Force major lost their life during a practice session. These incidents, though rare, demonstrate the ongoing risks of air show operations. The combination of high-speed flight, tight formations, and the need to perform complex maneuvers in front of crowds creates a high-stakes environment. For the military, these risks are seen as a necessary trade-off for the visibility and morale benefits they provide.

Despite the dangers, the Pentagon continues to justify the use of warplanes in air shows. Venable acknowledged that these events are “not without risk,” but emphasized their role in fostering public appreciation for military capabilities. “Even with the potential for accidents, the visibility these shows offer is unparalleled,” he said. “They serve as a reminder of the skills and sacrifices of service members, which can be as valuable as any measurable economic gain.” This perspective aligns with the military’s broader mission to maintain public support and showcase technological advancements to a civilian audience.

Legacy of Risk in Air Show History

The debate over the cost-effectiveness of air shows extends beyond immediate expenses. Critics argue that the long-term financial implications of repeated incidents could strain defense budgets, particularly as the military faces growing demands for modernization. The 2012 study’s findings, combined with the recent crash, have reignited calls for a more rigorous evaluation of these programs. While the Pentagon maintains that the benefits of public engagement and recruitment outweigh the risks, the lack of transparency in budget allocations has fueled skepticism.

Nevertheless, the tradition of military air shows persists. With over 325 to 350 events held annually across North America, these displays remain a cornerstone of community outreach and national pride. The Growler Airshow Team, though smaller in scale, contributes to this network by providing specialized performances that highlight the versatility of electronic warfare aircraft. As Venable pointed out, “These teams are the backbone of military outreach, ensuring that even the most remote communities can experience the thrill of flight.” Whether through high-profile demonstrations or local appearances, the U.S. military continues to invest in air shows, balancing the risks of accidents against the enduring appeal of aviation spectacle.