The Russians and the Chinese have cornered such 3rd world markets.

Not every non-F-35 market is a so called 3rd world market.
Every NATO country that isn’t into F-35s, Latin America, some African and Asian countries. The F-16 is used by 25 countries other than the US, I don’t think they all go Flanker, J-10 or F-35.

From what understood from eagle’s post he wasn’t referring to the F-16 but to something else based on Boeing’s proposal. Besides, LM might not mind but the DoD would mind as the F-35 costs would keep going up.

Cheers,

Not necessarily. The countries I have in mind for such a lightweight fighter are those who cannot afford F-35 or don’t want to spend too much. Those markets will be gone for the US soon and handed over to Gripen, non western jets or those countries get out of the fast jet business alltogether.
Not everyone needs a 100 million $ stealth fighter bomber.

Source pls.
Is that with or without any ordinance.. How long can the F-15 endure such speed in the first place?
This is not the ‘Streak Eagle’.. we are talking about an operational F-15 with the ability to stay on station for a given time with weapons.

F-15C Standard Aircraft Characteristics, http://www.avialogs.com/list/item/4580-f-15c-eagle-standard-aircraft-characteristics-february-1992
See also the attached graph. With 4 Sparrows, speed is limited not by thrust-drag, but structural limits.
How long? Well, until you run out of fuel I would imagine. 5-10 minutes maybe. Although the airframe probably doesn’t like it very much.
The Streak Eagle isn’t any faster in top speed.

Are you sure? I recall reading that the F-15 never went over mach 2 with weapons. Was that a service imposed restriction?
The Sparrow carriage is low drag so I guess that makes sense.

Mach 2.5 I’m not so sure anymore after checking a few sources. But 2.35.
Maybe the Eagle never went over M2 in USAF operations i.e. Desert Storm? I bet the Israeli pushed the F-15 to its limits.
I think there was or still is a (peace time) restriction for USAF Eagles.

Better to adjust an F-35 into an F-22 lite mission. The X-35 used an F119-derived powerplant. There is always the choice to fit F119 and thrust vectoring to the F-35 body and optimize it for air superiority. Much less effort and sustains the program most in need.

Not a good idea. The F119 is rated at 35 to 39k lbs depending on source, which is considerably less than the 43k lbs F135. Add to that TVC weight and you end up with an underpowered dog.
It might result in better supersonic performance, but not necessarily due to things like wing sweep and intakes.

The F-15 & MiG-23 almost looks-like a CGI image. The MiG-23’s ventral fin is not extended, for example.

It looks like CGI because it is CGI.

I like the pic with the Tomcat chasing the Bear. Interesting load of 1 Phoenix, 1 Sparrow and I assume 1 Sidewinder, but no tanks.

I cross-checked-off weight and suspension settings.

Flight range F-15E (DT – hanging tank, CFT – conformal tanks):

Without DT (5952 kg) – 1500 km
1 DT (5952 kg + 1800 kg = 7752 kg) – 1950 km
2 DT (5952 kg + 3600 kg = 9552 kg) – 2400 km
3 DT (5952 kg + 5400 kg = 11,352 kg) – 2800 km

CFT (5952 kg + 4265 kg = 10,217 kg) – 2600 km
CFT + 2 DT (5952 kg + 4265 kg + 3600 kg = 13,817 kg) – 3500 km
CFT + 3 DT (5952 kg + 4265 kg + 5396 kg = 15,613 kg) – 3900 km

Do you have a source? Those numbers seem a bit off.
Fuel increases from clean to max. by a factor of 2.6
Range increases also by a factor of 2.6
That would suggest the CFTs and drop tanks have no drag/weight penalty at all.