[rightbyte]

I mean "good reasons" as in storms, collisions with birds or trees etc. No I didn't mean software issues or the F-35 in specific, but fighters in general compared to passenger airplanes.

I didn't find any specific statistics, but I remember reading it in a book about the Swedish airforce some years ago that fighters just crash alot. They seem to just be way more prone to crashing due to their combat agility need.

E.g.: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/13-fighter...

[liability]

Fighter jets will crash a lot if for no other reason than because they're doing fancy dangerous maneuvering a lot more than any other sort of plane. But I don't think that can be taken as damning the premise of using software to control relaxed-stability aircraft.

Supermaneuverability is the primary reason fighter jets are designed to use such systems, but these systems also see use in other sorts of aircraft for other reasons. The F-117 was stabilized by a computer controlled fly-by-wire system because its aerodynamics were fucked up due to its unusual shape (which was motivated by stealth considerations.) A few F-117s crashed but as far as I know none of those crashes were attributed to software fucking up.

Similarly, the B-2 is inherently unstable (being a flying wing without vertical stabilizer.) Only one B-2 has ever crashed. That one crashed because condensation in air data sensors caused an inaccurate airspeed to be computed. However it's not clear to me that human pilots would have faired any better given the inaccurate data. Even if that crash is blamed on software, the B-2 still has a great track record and the all the public information about the in-development B-21 suggests it too will be a software-stabilized flying wing.

This all said, the 737 MAX isn't even a relaxed-stability airplane.