4 ms·

We've long pushed for 2 engines - which has made sense in the past. Even a successful ejection over the vast arctic would basically be a death sentence. Though

We've long pushed for 2 engines - which has made sense in the past. Even a successful ejection over the vast arctic would basically be a death sentence. Though some of our allies don't seem to have the same reservations, and it seems modern engines are a lot more reliable - certainly the F-35 only has one, so it looks like we're ok with it now. The modern F-18's and the new F-15's would have also made sense, but agreed that modern F-16s would seem to be a nearly perfect fit if a single engine is now deemed acceptable. Given we like to keep equipment for as long as physically possible (and then some), the F-35 might have more runway (rimshot) in that regard though.

jleyank 5mo ago
If the F-15 line is still in production, it's a damn fine bird and has broad mission capability. And the remaining B-52's are probably older that most of the HN community. At least those not retired or cashed out.
- switchbak 4mo ago
  The F-15 EX looks to be pretty popular right now, export-oriented and will probably be around for a while. To be honest, which aircraft we choose isn't going to be the make or break part. All the other terrible decisions that politicians make will be. Like waffling on a decision for another 10-15 years, paying cancellation fees, etc.