> a goose is going to get sucked up into the s duck of any current aircraft and blow out compressor blades i've seen engine tests done literally using frozen geese and the engines survived. that's how they are designed now. that wasn't the case in the 1970's when the f-18 was designed. also, i'd love to know how you are encountering geese during open ocean flight ops.  > the f35 is a gas hog but it has stealth and actual avionics better than a 1970s britmobile with a lucas wiring harness.  yeah, and that's going to make a fuckall's difference when you are bombing haji weddings in yemen. that shit matters in peer-to-peer conflicts, but not how the marines use their svtol aircraft. > think less about the plane and more about the battlespace. exactly. the fuel inefficiency the f-35b brings to the table will ensure it get's ass-raped by land-based chinese fighters in the taiwan strait. meanwhile, when killing yemeni women and children, the avoinics and profile won't matter.  > the f16 is around because it's cheap. and maneuverable. and durable. and a great design. and fast. and you say cheap as if it's a bad thing. that's what you want from military equipment. bang for your buck.  > the only reason to go single engine is to save money  why is this a bad thing? but there are numerous other reasons i mentioned. payload. range. strength of airframe. durability. in most air combat scenarios, single-engine makes more sense. especially for carriers, where aircraft performance matters less than range, efficiency, and payload.
United States