The US Navy’s $136 Million Loss in an Idaho Air Show: Is the Risk Worth It?
The US Navy lost 136 million – During the recent Gunfighter Skies Air Show at Mountain Home Air Force Base, a tragic incident occurred when two US Navy EA-18 Growlers collided mid-air. This accident, which resulted in the ejection of four crew members—only one of whom required medical attention—has ignited debates about the military’s decision to deploy costly warplanes and their skilled pilots for public entertainment. The loss of the jets, valued at approximately $136 million combined, underscores the financial stakes involved in such displays.
Although the EA-18 Growlers are based on the F/A-18 fighter jet platform, their specialized role as electronic warfare aircraft makes them particularly valuable to the Navy. According to a 2021 Navy fact sheet, each Growler costs around $68 million to manufacture. However, the true expense lies in replacement, as production of these jets has ceased, and Boeing continues to build F/A-18s for other purposes. The operational cost alone is staggering—around $20,000 per hour, as noted in a 2022 Boeing press release. These figures highlight the significant investment the military makes in maintaining air show teams, even as accidents like the one in Idaho raise concerns about the value of such expenditures.
Why Do the Pentagon Risk Millions on Air Shows?
John Venable, a senior resident fellow at the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies and a former US Air Force fighter pilot, remarked that the controversy over such incidents is often part of the broader discourse following any accident. “Those calls are almost always part of the noise surrounding an accident,” he said. While the immediate question is whether the risk is justified, the underlying issue concerns the long-term impact of these events on military budgets and public perception.
The Growler Airshow Team, part of Electronic Attack Squadron 129 from Whidbey Island, Washington, is a relatively modest unit within the US military’s extensive demonstration program. This team, like others, is tasked with showcasing military aviation to communities that might otherwise have limited access to such displays. However, the question remains: can the benefits of these performances outweigh the costs?
The Pentagon’s recent push for a cost-benefit analysis in 2024 adds another layer to the discussion. While the military has not yet released figures, a 2012 study by Navy officers from the service’s post-graduate school in California provided a stark assessment. The Blue Angels, the Navy’s most renowned demonstration squadron, were found to generate less than $1 million in recruitment benefits annually despite spending nearly $98.6 million. This translates to a negative return on investment of 99%, according to the analysis. Even when factoring in the broader economic impact of air show attendance—such as local spending by spectators—the return was still a negative 41%.
“The costs outweigh the benefits,” the 2012 study concluded, emphasizing the financial strain of maintaining these high-profile teams.
Despite these findings, the military continues to invest in air shows as a strategic tool. These events serve not only to entertain but also to strengthen public support for defense spending and to inspire interest in military careers. For instance, the Blue Angels and the Air Force’s Thunderbirds are iconic in their own right, having performed at dozens of air shows annually for decades. Their distinctive appearances and high-octane maneuvers have become symbols of American military prowess, drawing large crowds and media attention.
Yet, even these well-established teams cannot cover all air shows across North America. The 2012 study noted that the combined efforts of the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds account for only about 70 of the 325 to 350 air shows held yearly in the region. This gap is where smaller demonstration units, like the Growler Airshow Team, play a crucial role. According to Venable, these teams are often deployed to serve communities that lack the infrastructure or demand for larger, more elaborate displays.
While the Thunderbirds were scheduled for the Mountain Home event, the decision to include the Growlers demonstrates the military’s flexibility in adapting to local needs. “The services have created small demonstration teams that, when requested, can serve those communities otherwise left out of the spotlight,” Venable explained. These teams provide a more accessible way to engage with the public, even if the cost-benefit ratio is less favorable than that of their larger counterparts.
The risk inherent in air show flying is undeniable. Aircraft often perform at low altitudes, weaving through tight formations and executing high-speed maneuvers that test both machine and pilot. The 1982 “Diamond Crash” in Arizona remains a grim reminder of this danger, when four Thunderbirds pilots were killed during a practice flight. Similarly, a B-52 bomber crashed in Washington state in 1994 due to unsafe maneuvers, and a Blue Angels pilot lost their life in a 2016 incident before a show in Tennessee. Even more recently, an Air Force major was killed in a 2018 practice session, further illustrating the potential for tragedy.
These incidents prompt the question: how often does the cost of a single crash justify the benefits of the entire program? While air shows generate goodwill and foster a connection between the military and civilians, the financial burden of maintaining these teams—especially in the face of potential losses—cannot be ignored. The Growler Airshow Team’s recent crash serves as a case study in this ongoing debate.
As the Pentagon prepares to release its updated cost-benefit analysis, the broader question of military spending remains relevant. Air shows are a visible part of the military’s community outreach efforts, but their value depends on how effectively they contribute to public engagement and recruitment. The challenge lies in balancing the need for these displays with the financial and human risks they entail. Whether the cost is worth the benefit may ultimately rest on the military’s ability to demonstrate that these events serve a greater purpose beyond mere spectacle.
