You might not believe this but books aren’t infalible. In this case your book is wrong.

But I have many of them.

Well of course it’s high, it’s incorrect. One source gave 0.9, everybody else says 0.70-0.73.

http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-engine.htm

See books.

The top speed of various F-16 Blocks actually differ a little.
But i think speed is generally limited by airframe design, even F-16/79 had better supersonic capability but didn’t go faster.

It was much faster.
2,1 against 1,75 Mach.

Intake design plays a large part in an aircraft’s top speed. Getting rid of the variable ramps on the Su-24M, for example, cut it’s VMax down from over Mach 2 to around Mach 1.35.

That is true, but its influence is not so large.
Look at F-104 or BAC Lightning. They both have 2,1 Mach max speed with fixed intakes.

Supposedly the French M53 is has more power at high speed than the original F100 and the TF-30 is better at high speed than the F110 according to a Tomcat pilot.

For the M-53 it it true because of its low by-pass ratio.
As for TF-30 against F-110, both of these have unacceptably high by-pass ratio for a fighter engine, but as the F-110 has far higher static thrust, it has for that percentage higher high-speed thrust, also.

Anyway, both are misserable for a fighter engines.
That is because both are conceived as a bomber engines, and higher by-pass ratio has been retained.

A bad decision.

F100-220 0.6
F100-229 0.35
F100-232 0.34
F110-100 0.85
F110-129 0.77

You forgot to mention figure for original F-100-PW-100 and 200, which have been used in most F-15 and F-16.

It is 0,72.
Also a bad figure. From 1987 it had to be replaced with 0,6 by-pass F-100-PW-220, but many of F-15 and F-16 still have old PW-100 and 200.

Thats because the F-16 intake is designed to work ok up to Mach 1.5 (optimised for subsonic cruise) whereas the F-15 has movable intakes. The F-22 on the other hand has its intakes optimised for 1.5 i.e. supersonic. So you can bet the F-22 has pretty good supersonic acceleration, better than F-15.

It is a big mistake to fix intake to be optimised to 1,5 Mach.
That means that it is not optimised subsonicaly.
One fighter can not fly at only one speed !!

Sure these have influence. But increased thrust and less drag from other areas have influence too.

Wing sweep and span have the greatest influence on drag.

While the F101 has a higher bypass ratio than an F110 it is not a “high bypass” engine and it is good for Mach 2.2+ with the right intakes.

For a fighter class engines it is very high by-pass engine.

Subsonic flight:
Inlet produces -9 % and + 21% = + 12%
engine = + 82 %
outlet = + 6 %

Supersonic flight (Mach 2.2)
Inlet produces – 12 % and + 75 % = + 63 %
engine = + 8 %
outlet = + 29 %

What type of inlet are you reffer to.
You are probably aware that every type has its own figures.

That explains why a Su-24 with fixed inlets stays below Mach 1,5 despite the same TJs,

It is Mach 2,2 aircraft. What do you think the swing wings are for ?
Also, it has turbojets, which means high thrust at supersonic speeds.

The same thing with B-1B and TFs and the B-1A, just to show some examples for better understanding.

For the understanding, its engines are high by-pass turbofans. These engines are not suitable for supersonic speeds.

Compare F-16/79 with F-16A.
In spite of much less static thrust and more that a ton higher empty weight, the F-16/79 had far better supersonic performance.

How far you push an aircraft behind Mach 2 depends on the material for the plane used. because from Mach 2 the heat took its toll from life-time.
For fighters it did not matter through low fuel-load-ratios, when speeds above Mach 2 were reached at heights above 40000 feet briefly.

Not entirely correct. Generally, engines have more limitations than airframes.
Did you know that, for example F-4 K, has airframe limited to 2,3 Mach, but its high by-pass SPEYs engines are limited to 1,8 Mach.