Just intresting for the take-off run, MTOW or at subsonic speeds. Only here the installed trust is comparable to some degree before the propulsion system takes over. Today you will not find F-15C or new built F-15E coming close to that former weights still to find on dated websites. The old Cs are around 14 tons the F-15 MISIP I/II in mind and the new built E/S are around 18 tons in the meanwhile depending on capabilities added.

Do you have a source for the weight figures? The MSIP I Eagle is around 13 tons. What would increase the weight by 1 ton?
Those 31700 pounds as stated on the af.mil factsheet seem to be correct – for the original F-15E without CFTs.

Btw, mission time of 1 hour without ext. fuel is realistic for an air/air mission including combat.

Here is LM’s range for a Hi-LO-LO-HI profile with various tank configs (all have a centerline tank).

460 nmi with 370 gallon wing tanks.
570 nmi with 600 gallon wing tanks.
630 nmi with 600 gallon wing tanks and conformal fuel tanks.

Loadout is 2x2k bombs and the tanks are dropped when empty.

That can get expensive real fast.

Doesn’t seem right for a number of reasons:
That is a hi-lo-hi profile. It’s only 100 miles, but still, reduces range.
It says ALQ-184 doesn’t it. So no centerline tank. Latest F-16 52+ with full internal ECM gear can trade ECM pod for more fuel.
On the other hand, 600gal tanks are not jettisonable iirc and are used mainly for ferry flights or if there is no threat (Israeli F-16Is over Gaza).

Re expensive fuel tanks and limited availability: Please, if you’re going to war and drop PGMs, the cost of a drop tank is negligible. If you start running out of tanks, build some more. Any nation that can operate supersonic fighters has the industrial capability and strenght to mass produce streamlined barrels.

Why has the king of the supercruisers, F-22, got turbofans and not turbojets?Why did the Soviets replace the turbojet MiG-25 with the airliner-engined turbofanned MiG-31 (which flies just as fast as the Foxbat but at much greater range)?

The F119 has a very low bypass ratio. It’s closer to a turbojet than most fighter engines let alone airliner engines.
I’m not sure if I remember correctly, but I think the bypass is used to cool the engine itself and the exhaust.

As for the MiG-31, it’s probably because the Soviets realised the MiG-25 was spending most of its life flying subsonic. The D30 is more efficient at subsonic cruising yet thanks to its huge afterburners, allows speeds of M2.83, plus supersonic speed at low altitude (B-1 😉 )
Besides, the D30 is a low bypass turbofan aswell and not really suited for airliners. No modern airliner would use such an engine.
Oh, and as you noted, at much greater range, take a look at a map, range might be useful over Siberia.

Some planes, like alpha jet and Tejas and many with them have a brake in the rear pushing air up.
This airbrake seems to me, pushes air up and no air down, the netforce exept direct brake pushes the plane down behind the main landinggear. This should also lift the nose gear up if on the ground? Make a less effective brake on the frontgear? This netforce should also make braking in the air pitch the nose up. The nose up will also make the angle of attack be a effective airbrake.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/IAF_Tejas_Landing_at_Aero_India_2013.JPG

Less weight on the front gear doesn’t affect braking. Gripen is the only jet that comes to mind to use front wheel brakes. Actually, pushing the nose up during landing does increase drag and so helps to shorten the landing distance without wheel braking. Like this F-15 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PivK29tlazE

Then there some, like Gripen and F-16 that pushes air in two directions and therefore counterbalance the netforce. This generates no groundpressure in landings, but should be the most effective in the air?
http://www.warped-photography.com/Other/Miscellaneous/Saabs-70th-Birthday-Air-show/i-WFw76Pf/0/L/Twin%20seat%20Gripen%20landing-L.jpg

Not sure if it’s the most effective configuration in the air, but it’s a neutral configuration meaning there’s no pitch force.

Its about as real as Donald Ducks 313 😀
I thought only Baghdad Bob can pull off a stunt like this with a straight face. But then again, I don’t understand Farsi so mabye they are selling this thing for what it is, a mock-up for a cheap Iranian war movie.
Judging from this pic, they weren’t quite sure where to put the intakes… 😀

Seems they’ve lowered the performance again. http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pentagon-lowers-f-35-performance-bar-381031/

I would have expected more comments on this one, as the figures are absolutely appalling.
43 more seconds to accelerate from M0.8 to 1.2? That’s not 43 seconds, but 43 on top of already not particularly good numbers.
Does anyone have comparable numbers for other jets, i.e. Mach 0.8 to 1.2 times?

As it stands, both M-346 and Hawk cannot meet the USAF’s 6.5 G sustained g requirement and an extensive structural reinforcement is necessary, which increases weight and cost.

The requirement isn’t really 6.5G sustained. The requirement is 6.5G “for no less than 15 seconds using no more than 15 degrees nose low attitude at 80% fuel weight between an altitude of 10,000 and 20,000 feet”.
see here http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-releases-draft-t-x-kpps-377693/
Maybe the current 5.6G sustained is already enough to cover those 6.5Gs in a dive. If not, more thrust is all thats needed. The M-346 is rated for 8Gs. Meaning structural reinforcing isn’t needed.
Btw, nose down, top speed is around M1.2.