> birds are a thing. you're wrong. straight up wrong.  negative. we are at the point where bird strikes do more damage to the airframe than the engine. the damage to a fuselage made of composites is far more critical than the damage a bird can do to the modern turbofan. again, this is just old shit pilots repeat to themselves and no one questions it. for the f-18, the engines are smaller, but that's also why birdstrikes do more damage to them, which is another reason a larger single-engine would be better. > the risk of one engine is worth the force projection capability with the f35 for vtol on lha's i mean, not really. the f-35b's svtol is such a gas hog you may as well have just stuck with the harrier (also a gas hog). if you have to refuel a svtol aircraft just to accomplish a mission, what is the fucking point of svtol? > and it's (single engine) worth it for cheapness with the f16.  and performance. fuselage design is simpler and less complex with a single engine, which means your bulkheads, stringers, and longerons can be simpler, more direct and stronger. this comes into play when you are talking about speed, performance, and long-term durability. there is a reason the f-16 is still around after 50 years.  > for air superiority fighters and patrol you want two engines and that's data not pilots fee fees.  if you are talking about aircraft like the f-22, i'd buy that argument. from a profile standpoint and max thrust standpoint, two engines is an advantage at higher speeds. for a maritime aircraft (basically a manned, reusable cruise missile), that's outdated thinking.  > wouldn't be surprised to see surplus f35s offloaded on the allies. that's because the f35 is shit. but the single-engine design is not the reason these will be off-loaded.
United States