engineer(retard)-
I will more carefully read the beginning posts, thanks! Weapons failure (self shootdown?) is not a prime design requirement in the US, we try our best to make the weapon more dangerous for the enemy, thank you very much! Generally, weapons blast considerations (not warhead but rocket/missile motor) are considered, as well as burn considerations. One could argue the rigor of US vs British standards, but it is far too sweeping to simply say that US standards are less safe. I would offer that the average US military aircraft has a 10 to 15 year technology/safety/operational capability advantage against the average such aircraft in any other military service in the world, with few exceptions, and I have the tax bills to prove it!
The EH-101 that the USMC has bought will be substantially redesigned prior to delivery (I am told every cabin frame will be strengthened) because it was designed to 8 g's forward and 15 g's downward, vice the US Mil need for 20 and 20, respectively. This 250% shortfall for the front-line British helo hardly allows one to say that US standards are lower! The cost of those mods will be bourne by the US taxpayer, of course.
Regarding my employment, I was a Sikorsky PM (and a test pilot prior to that) but have just left Sikorsky for Gulfstream Aircraft, to try my hand at airplane building!