The US military plans to lose about 25 airframes per year due to various mishaps. They operate well over 10,000 airframes and produce far more new airframes each year than they lose. The optimal loss rate is not zero.
Historically there were a few F models pre wired for G systems but the F models in USN inventory don't have this feature and the harnessing work required for the conversation is prohibitive.
Fine, but surely if the achieved loss rate is projected to fall below the optimal one, then the optimal way to compensate is something else than crashing planes at airshows? Like, I don't know, dismantling for spares. Or scrapping. Or even target practice.
Flight hours are one the key differentiating factors in air force quality and a major US advantage is that their pilots have a lot of them.
major?
The maneuvers performed by these types of aircraft at air shows (such as a "rejoin" or close-formation flying) are not circus stunts; they are standard tactical maneuvers that pilots practice daily. More importantly, military pilots are required to fly a certain number of hours each month to maintain their proficiency and flight status. Flying to, from, and during an air show counts toward these mandatory, already-budgeted flight hours.
So aside from the slightly elevated risk to the civilian observers, and the occasional risk due to maneuvers (I think they doing something particularly showy in this case?), the extra cost to the taxpayer do this is ~nil.
Otherwise there's always a near constant ever present risk of uncontrolled unintended landings with expensive repair and replacement costs.
Airplanes normally don’t fly so close.