First – Other nations operate in conditions similar to Canada also operate single engine aircraft, including Sweden, Norway, Japan and the USA. All these nations continue to pursue single engine aircraft. The USN, who has operated single engine aircraft off carriers, clearly a more hazardous environment for single engine ops than land based, has no concerns operating the F-35C from a single engine perspective. Australia will operate the F-35A in an environment as remote and dangerous as Canada

USN surely has operated plenty of single engine aircraft. But the cause for most losses in naval aviation is probably related to landing and taking-off on a carrier. Number of engines is probably not that significant in related accidents.

Same engine across both aircraft. Less flight hours in the F-16 but zero incidents for F-16 compared to F-15.

Without knowing details about those 7 class A mishaps, statistics don’t tell a lot. All those seven a/c could have landed safely, while the F-16-52 only needs one mishap for a total loss. I.e. a class A engine related mishap in flight is usually a loss in a single engine jet, not in a twin.
Also, note the note:

1. “Engine-related” excludes mishaps caused by FOD, birdstrike, or failure of support systems external to the engine (ex. fuel starvation)

I would argue not losing a jet after a bird strike to an engine, or after Joe Mechanic left a screwdriver in an engine is an advantage twins have.

Twin engine safety is not the same in an airliner compared to a fighter.

In many fighters, engines are mounted in close proximity. An engine ejecting compressor blades has a good chance of taking out the other engine. Plus, on military jets, engine can fail for a reason seldom found in airliner: combat damage. Same consequences, a SAM hit f.e. has a good chance of taking out both engines. But twin engined fighters still have a better safety record. Even if the chances of an engine malfunction are increased by 100%, loss rate is lower. Because not every engine failure results in a loss of both engines.

In an airliner, an engine failure almost never takes out the other engine. So even if chances of engine failures increase with numbers of engine, chances of hull losses go down.
If future airliners rely on one engine, they are probably required to have some sort of backup to enable them to glide to the neareast runway in case of engine failure. I think I read something about that.

Do I have to play the role of F-18 Hamburger here? Obviously these are just fantasy numbers.

Saab would open a factory in the US to manufacture its part of the airframe (center fuselage I believe): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NGOoIZsWlo
90 percent plus made in the US.

The SNC/TAI T-X is a “flying prototype” as confirmed by Aviation Week.

1. They could be wrong.
2. “first flying prototype has been taking shape” does not necessarily refer to the aircraft/mock-up pictured. The real jet could still be in the process of taking shape.

The Sierra Nevada Corporation and Turkish Aerospace Industries Joint-Venture, Freedom Aircraft introduces its first flying T-X prototype.
http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/…raft-prototype

I was going to say it’s a mock-up for the lack of rivets etc. but was unsure.
But people at secretprojects agree that it’s only a mock-up.

Do we even know if they intend on entering the T-X contest? Their chances of winning are somewhere between zero and none.

The Legion pod looks very promising.

I don’t like it.
A 500 pound pod for a simple IRST. That’s a quite a massive weight and drag increase. For comparison, Gripen’s Skyward IRST system is around 50 kg but that’s internal of course. Sensor and processor as used in the Hornet tank i.e. also external are 115+42 lbs and that’s the same system as used in Legion pods. So where’s the 350 additional pounds coming from. TigerEye isn’t that big either.
If you’re going to add IRST, do it right: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mIU8l8LGJL4/U3wCqUifCtI/AAAAAAAADOo/ER6E6GotjPU/s1600/F-15J-ASDF-FLIR-1.jpg

They need it just for air policing something for which also a M-346 FA would be enough.

This again? For the n-th time, it has been well established that a subsonic aircraft is unable to perform the air policing role.
Hell, in 2017, even the Austrian socialist party realised a supersonic fighter is required. The requirement is for a supersonic jet, all weather capable, with self defence equipment and BVR armament. Not a jet trainer, however advanced it may be.

I’m waiting to read first reports in Swiss media asking why Textron’s Scorpion at 20 Mio. a piece is not considered for the new fighter competition, or even better, why the Swiss made PC-21 is not a candidate. Happened before.