it would simpler to simply upgrade those BF-5s to the standard that Thailand recently upgraded its F-5s to, with Elta 2032 radar, Derby BVRAAM and DASH helmets. Will more than suffice for the threats that Botswana faces. And will be cheap to operate so money can be spent on everything else that the BDF lacks.

Botswanas BF-5s are ex Canadian CF-5. Based on F-5A/B airframe, whereas Thailands jets are F-5E/Fs, a different beast. Notably, the A model doesn’t have a radar.
All of the originally delivered 13 jets have received the full Canadian Avionics Upgrade Program, a pretty extensive upgrade, but without radar. Similar upgrades for Spanish and Turkish Freedom Fighters also didn’t include radars.

F-2 has bigger wing so it can generate more lift.
Even normal F-16 sometimes tested with very strange load

Are you sure the fuel tank is 2000 kg ?

That is just for show. F-16 is not cleared for MERs on stations 3/7. Station limit is 2500 lbs I think.

600 gal is about 1800 kg of fuel. Tank weighs about 400 lbs, pylon 300 lbs, more than 2100 kg total.
ASM-3, if it’s actually 900 kg, plus pylon is just about 1000 kg each. So with a couple of AAMs, you’re looking at about 4200 kg under one wing.
Wiki says maximum load is 8085 kg for what it’s worth.

The B-58 predates the B-70.
The F-111 succeded because it’s tactics were completely different: as low as possible instead of as high as possible like the B-70.

Egypt: F-4E with AIM-7 from summer 1979 and F-16C with AIM-7 since 1986

Again, the article only says when AIM-7 capable F-16s where delivered, not if AIM-7 was actually delivered and used by the Egyptians.

Eagle, in that load out, can the F-CK-1 carry loads only on 2 wing stations (1 on each wing) and 1 wing tip station? Lack of a targeting pod or lasing pod would mean that another platform would need to lase the target. Has the F-CK-1 been seen with LGBs or just dumb bombs?

I see no reason not to use all wing stations… except MTOW limitations. 2 additional AAMs or 2 bombs might work. Outer wing stations seem to be rated for single stores only anyway.
There are pics with cluster bombs, GP bombs and the Wan Chien missile. I’ve never seen LGBs.

Both fighters in Egypt.
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f16_18.html

F-16s were delivered with Sparrow capability but it doesn’t say if they were actually in use during the 80s.

Egypt:
http://www.f-16.net/g3/f-16-photos/album07/album34/9811
http://www.f-16.net/g3/f-16-photos/album07/album34/9735

Those pics are not from the 80s.
First one shows a Block 40 with LANTIRN pods, not available in the 80s.
And of course its a Peace Vector III jet, delivered 1991-1995.
Second pic is a Peace Vector VI jet, 2001-2002.

Well its not because they are worried about non combat loses

It is because they cant make single engine airplane in this weight class…

That’s probably the reason why most twin engined jets are twins… because a smaller engine was available, or easily developed. Unless you’re Germany which insisted on having two engines after the F-104 (F-4, Tornado, Typhoon…).
Everyone else probably would go for a single engined design, if a suitable engine is available. We’re talking fighter aircraft afterall, losses are to be expected (unlike airliners).

The issue with larger engines is not only if you can produce one, but there’s also performance issues to be considered. Spool time goes up as diameter goes up. See F-16 vs F-17 for the US Navy, faster engine response was a factor. So even if you could say produce an 70k lbs engine for an F-22, you’d probably still want two 35k lbs engines in a fighter.
But if you could have a 70k lbs engine with the same performance, the F-22 would be single engined.