You forgot the Sopwith Camel! Seriously, I think that we are having two separate discussions here. No one is suggesting that military aircraft should be as "safe" (for want of a better word) as civilian ones. They are designed to be militarily effective, as you so rightly say. That is why the Military Airworthiness Regulations are just that, separate and different from civil ones. All that I ask is that the Military Aviation Authority, or whatever it calls itself this week, abides by them and enforces them. The regulations should ensure, not hinder, that effectiveness. A functional FADEC has no operational disadvantage over a dysfunctional one, quite the reverse. The volume penalty of filling a fuel tank with ESF is, I think, 3%. OK. it's a penalty, but surely worth it to ensure that the enemy will have to put far more than one bullet into it to bring the aircraft down? You may be right that HISLs did not account for the loss of the two Mk7 Sea Kings, as ever we will never really know, but from your own account it would seem that they were a retrograde step in comparison to the ACLs they replaced. So why do it, and if you are going to do it why not do it right?
In truth Tourist, it seems to me that your objection is not for an independent MAA, as I am calling for, but for any MAA at all! With resistance to their purpose, of keeping you and your aircraft around until you both are called upon for war, it seems all the more reason why they should pursue that independent of it from both below and above!