It’s easy to extrapolate that a twin suffers more engine incidents than a single (for a given engine - not all engines are created equal).I don’t dispute that.
Have been very cautious about replying to this thread as I haven't been able to find the supporting reference.
I am not saying you are more likely to lose a twin than a single, just that a twin will have a higher engine failure because there are more engines.(100 jets with 2 engines will experience more engine failures than 100 jets with a single engine assuming identical engines). The aircraft loss rate difference between them would be similar because even though the twins lose more engines, they may survive an engine failure whereas the single will not.
The other reason for twin engines is the inability to build a high thrust engine, something P&W and GE are very good at. Just as important these companies build very reliable engines with great shelf life. Russian and Chinese manufacturers can't do this and although China is pouring billions into development, their engine technology lags behind Russia.
Who says that the F-35 has been canned as a fighter? Sources please.
Which is why I didn’t respond to your post initially. I initially quoted Volkadov - who said it in black and white rhat statiatically you are more likely to lose a twin to a catastrophic engine failure.
I suspect he was being sarcastic. That article was full of errors, cherry picking and conflation that unfortunately detracted from the few occasional times a valid point was made.
Which plane is best is based on CONOPS and to a certan extent affordability. In order to get the desired range and ordinance load for long range missions , larger designs are likely required so a single engine won't have the necessary thrust. From what I have read, Iwould prefer to be in a F-35 over a Gripen N.
No references at hand but it is something that has been around for a long time in discussions of single verses twin combat aircraft and twin verses more in transport types. It is also a factor of reliability of systems improving in general
Like I said I can't lay my hands on the reference, which is why I deliberately stated catastrophic. With very few exceptions a catastrophic engine failure will take down the aircraft for the simple reason it destroys multiple systems, including adjacent engines. Having more than one engine increases the chance of one failing catastrophicly.
Sooooo I checked the USAF safety centre website here:
It would be interesting to compare air defence roled F-16s and F-15s to strike roled same. The mission type has an impact as well. Air safety side of things show the number of take off's and landings can have greater impact on condition and failures of components than total flight hours.
I think a bit ho-hum is ok if all is going smoothly which at this stage appears the case.