A-10C Thunderbolt II makes a comeback

[Speaker to Animals]

And the F-16 crash rate is closer to 4.0..

[Speaker to Animals]

Case in point is that the jet is only flying because of the FBW flight controls, has nothing to do with two engines.

The lack of redundancy in the F-16 is cost based design choice, because the F-15 was too expensive to buy 4500 of them, but the loss rate difference between the two jets is negligible.

BZZTT!

Wrong!

It survived because of mechanical flight controls. The PRCA picked up the slack. The electronic flight control system was likely fucking toast after that collision.

[Smitty-48]

Per 100,000 hours flown, the non combat loss rate of the twin engine F/A-18; is 4.9

For the comparable F-16; it's 4.1

Twin engines do not make any difference to the loss rate.

[Speaker to Animals]

Actual SOP for when an F-35 engine fails over the Arctic:

[Smitty-48]

BUMP

Per 100,000 hours flown, the non combat loss rate of the twin engine F/A-18; is 4.9

For the comparable F-16; it's 4.1

Twin engines do not make any difference to the loss rate.

[Speaker to Animals]

you are changing the stats to hours instead of annual!?

Dude, now you have to go look at the same metric for F-16. It's even worse!

LOLOLOLOL

[Smitty-48]

BUMP

Per 100,000 hours flown, the non combat loss rate of the twin engine F/A-18; is 4.9

For the comparable F-16; it's 4.1

Twin engines do not make any difference to the loss rate.

[Speaker to Animals]

Also, I don't know much about the F/A-18. That's a squid airframe. I am talking about shit I actually know: i.e. that for which I was trained to do.

In general, you do NOT want single-engine aircraft for military roles. It's cost-cutting measures that result in more accidents and lower survivability. Bad idea.

It's also fucking stupid when you might have to use thee aircraft over the oceans, the arctic, etc. There's no way to survive engine failure over the arctic if all you have is a single engine.

[Smitty-48]

BUMP

Per 100,000 hours flown, the non combat loss rate of the twin engine F/A-18; is 4.9

For the comparable F-16; it's 4.1

Twin engines do not make any difference to the loss rate.

[Speaker to Animals]

I already explained to you why you would want more than one engine: redundancy. It's one of the critical principles in military aviation. An F-16 has none. They sacrificed redundancy for cash savings, and now we have so many Americans lying in graves as a result.

Two engines. Thanks. If you want single-engine lawn darts, then take that up with your cucked government. I am tired of American lives getting tossed aside for greed and defense contracting boondoggles.

And you really don't understand the problem here. You are just spouting typical shamwow marketing from Lockmart. I can get that on a Yahoo stock message board. People like that have no idea what they are talking about. Go serve four years in a fighter squadron and then get back to me.