I wonder why those charts show the F-16C when the F-15E is the premier USAF jet the F-35 will replace. The F-35 will have about the same thrust as the original F-15, too, so it should whip the doo out of the F-16. And why the F-16C and F-18C in the first place? Wouldn’t it make more sense to show the F-16 Blk50/52 and F/A-18E if they are going to pick on those two families of aircraft?

btw – these charts are absolutely worthless for comparison sake. How do you know the variance in the bars has any relationship to the magnitude of the actual performance? I could make a .1% difference look like a 50% difference with the right graph.

Holiday didn’t steal your sense of humor I see. 🙂

The F-22 has a redesigned canopy first of all, and secondly it’s not limited to flying below Mach 2.

The only redesign was to reach its original requirement for a lifetime average of 800 hours.

Its been a pretty well known secret that the windshield keeps the F-22 from flying around regularly at Mach 2 or more.

What is a Kawasaki T-1?

I feel the T-38 was a fine example of a trainer and the next generation trainer should be something along those lines. A single engine trainer in the 10,000-12,000 on st thrust range would offer a nice trainer and lightweight fighter. It could be smaller than the T-50, slower, and less powerful and prove to be adequate. I feel the F404 and F414 may be a tad too expensive for a trainer whereas the F125 is both cheaper and adequate. The focus should be on a decent radar and cockpit experience over the idea that it has to be a hotrod. Sometimes less is more.

1. Been done, & offered for sale to India to get round the F-16 not having a probe & India having hose & drogue tankers. Note that it reduces CFT capability, & there’s no apparent need for any special load balancing: the standard features are thought adequate.

2. Mounting all that extra kit in the CFTs adds weight & reduces fuel capacity. Not exactly useful when one is discussing the feasibility of a raid at extreme long range, in which fuel use & capacity are crucial.

The CFT’s of the F-16I are 900 gallons and don’t obstruct the existing missile warning kit. Expanding the goal to 1200 gallons runs you into some obstacles. You’re essentially forced to take off with maximum payload minus most of your fuel, tip off the tanks en route, and return on what you carried in. I would gather that they will carry the maximum possible fuel in drop tanks where they can still carry a useful payload for the attack.

And I’m willing to gather the weapon of choice will be something that has a standoff range well outside their defensive network’s missile range. Not only that, but they’ll have to fight off any airborne threats that dynamically arrive in their flight path. This is where the over-sized CFT’s necessary for the range would impinge the ability for these fighters to defend themselves. Remember, in order to return home they are going to have to fight with their fuel in tow.

Getting maximum situational awareness is definitely going to be key to any success. Remember, they probably have to make these trips repeatedly over several days to get the job done right. If you enlarge the CFT’s then you have to give them more eyes to spot trouble. I bet they can manage to integrate a psuedo-EOTS system (using existing IRST technology they are familiar with) with a little hard work. They won’t have time to implement the smart technology into it, but they can at least expand the ability of their missile warning sensors and quickly develop rudimentary sweeps for aircraft threats.