Two EA-18 fighter jets collide at Mountain Home airshow, pilots ejected safely
Ejection, Survival, and Injuries
- Many commenters are amazed all four crew ejected successfully given the low altitude and unusual “stacked” orientation of the jets.
- Repeated praise for Martin‑Baker seats; people note their track record and mention the company’s “tie club” for saved pilots.
- Ejection is described as life‑saving but brutal: ~15g along the spine, frequent compression fractures, permanent loss of height, damaged limbs; often career‑ending and usually limited to 1–2 ejections.
- Training is said to make the ejection decision almost automatic; without it, pilots tend to delay too long. Several mention the OODA loop and USAF training films about “ejection decision.”
Collision Dynamics and Recoverability
- The video looks more like a slow repositioning maneuver gone wrong than a deliberate stunt; one jet appears to drift into the other.
- Explanations offered: loss of situational awareness, possible stall after contact, aerodynamic “sticking,” or the lower jet’s tail lodged in the upper fuselage.
- Some argue modern fighters are aerodynamically unstable and post‑collision damage likely put them outside controllable parameters; ejection was the only realistic option.
- Timing analysis from the video: ~5 seconds between impact and ejection, ~4 seconds more until ground impact—very little margin.
Why Use EA‑18G Growlers at an Airshow?
- Confusion and criticism over risking specialized electronic‑warfare aircraft at an airshow when they look like ordinary F/A‑18s from the ground.
- Counterpoints: Growlers are what that squadron flies; pilots need flight hours anyway; airshows use combat‑ready aircraft, not special “show” airframes. Some note EW pods were likely not mounted.
- Disagreement on cost/rarity: some say Growlers/gear are expensive and limited; others say base airframe cost is similar to standard Super Hornets and the type is not truly rare.
Purpose and Value of Airshows
- Motives cited: recruitment, PR for military spending, morale, showcasing capabilities, manufacturer marketing, local economic boost, and simple entertainment.
- Some argue “they exist because they’re cool”; others insist the real driver is recruitment and propaganda.
- Debate over risk: fatal accidents at shows are rare but not negligible; some view this crash as needless risk, others note similar risks exist in routine training.
Broader Policy and Spending Debates
- A few use the crash to criticize military spending versus underfunded healthcare; others counter that US healthcare already overspends and waste is the core issue.
- Some frame aircraft losses as an expected, even “optimal,” non‑zero attrition rate in a large fleet, though others find that logic morally or rhetorically jarring.