| ▲ | Two EA-18 fighter jets collide at Mountain Home airshow, pilots ejected safely(idahonews.com) |
| 60 points by ChrisArchitect 2 hours ago | 37 comments |
| |
|
| ▲ | Waterluvian an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| 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_g 34 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | 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! | |
| ▲ | binary132 34 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. |
|
|
| ▲ | avalys an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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? |
| |
| ▲ | barbazoo an hour ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | rootusrootus a few seconds ago | parent | next [-] | | [delayed] | |
| ▲ | mpyne 2 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Recruiting for those considering careers, and marketing more broadly for those who pay taxes. | |
| ▲ | chilmers 42 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | zabzonk 25 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
| |
| ▲ | ericmay 37 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | Forgeties79 34 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 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. .1-.2%. Seems a bit silly still but not as bad as I thought. | | |
| ▲ | Schiendelman 9 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Also I think most of the fatalities in aerial shows are civilian pilots. Control out every nonmilitary flight when considering the risk. | |
| ▲ | bigfishrunning 13 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. |
|
| |
| ▲ | tonypapousek 43 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | ericmay 39 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| |
| ▲ | nsxwolf 2 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | npunt an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Public relations for mil spending | | | |
| ▲ | streetfighter64 38 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | | | |
| ▲ | dudul 44 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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? | |
| ▲ | DonHopkins an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The first rule of Flight Club is: you do not talk about Flight Club. | |
| ▲ | ElProlactin 23 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | mc3301 19 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | yubblegum an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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 |
|
| ▲ | Groxx an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
|
| ▲ | gausswho an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What an odd collision. The way they remain in tandem after contact is uncanny, almost as though they were not under direct control. |
| |
| ▲ | chalupa-supreme an hour ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
|
| ▲ | arwhatever an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | bigyabai 41 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
|
| ▲ | amelius an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I wonder how you can make the decision to eject in such a short timespan. |
| |
|
| ▲ | Thaxll an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Once again, thanks Martin-Baker, 4 lives saved. |
