That you are not able to distinguish between Kopp and Sweetman says something about your credibility…..

As for the 55 nm figure…

What part of “external tanks” did you not understand?

As you have always claimed, external tanks adds drag. However, contrary to what you believe, external tanks on F-35 seems much less effective than any other fighter on this planet.

The implications are clear: F-35 is imposed with a huge drag penalty… unlike other fighters.

Why would the drop tank add less percentage of range if the aircraft has more drag? It wouldn’t, thus the implication of the 55nm figure would be: F-35 drop tank is imposed with a huge drag penalty.
Which is unlikely. It’s more likely the F-35 tanks add 55nm if not dropped whereas the Gripen tank add 1000km/540nm if dropped when empty.

As a matter of fact the F-22 performance clearly backs up that claim. It can maintain Super Cruise Speeds at over Mach 1.72 and a top speed nearly two and a half times the speed of sound! Doesn’t sound like Stealth is paying any penalty in Aerodynamics to me………….Regardless, you don’t have to take my word……….

F-22 top speed is not published.
Besides, Mach 2 is more likely as painting and other expensive stuff start to come off at higher speed…

That were the data, when introduced the first year, but no longer true with the examples in present service.

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=101

The F-15C is ~14,4 tons, the E from ~17 tons till ~19 tons like the last variants (F-15I) from that. The MTOW of the F-15I is ~42 tons.

Isn’t it strange how the F-15C is now 14.4 tons, which is exactly the original F-15E empty weight, and the F-15E is now ~17 tons, which is the original F-15E weight with CFTs.
Coincidence or what?
The linked factsheet is not an F-15C factsheet, but a general F-15 factsheet. Why else would they discuss F-15E features there. The weight is the F-15E empty weight.

… But of course there hasn’t been a word I’ve heard about the RAAF ordering either JDAMs or SDBs either, which means that until probably some time around 2020 both points are pretty much moot and the SHs will be doing the job of delivering Harpoons for the time being.

With the RAAF testing the JDAM-ER I think there’s a good chance they’re going to order some of those. Couldn’t find any confirmation though.

* only offer Pratt & Whitney F135/General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 versions without tvc

The F135 has an enlarged diameter to increase thrust/bpr so it doesn’t fit.

* use the AN/APG-81 AESA-radar rather than the AN/APG-77 AESA of the original F-22A

I would think the APG-81 radar is more advanced than the much older APG-77.

* add extra pair of under-wing pylon stations capable of holding fuel, bringing its maximum to six over the current four

The F-22 doesn’t carry 4 external tanks in operational use because the stress on the wing is too high with 4 tanks. So adding another pair would cost a lot on money to redesign the wing for questionable gains (who needs 6x 600gal external fuel?). It most likely would also exceed maximum take-off weight.

* push for an FB designation (i.e. FB-118) so that there is no confusion to its mission not being about air superiority

Remember the F/A-22 marketing gag. 😀

A ‘typical air-to-air’ load for the F-16 was initially envisioned was something like 4 Sidewinders. Once operational, it was realized that it was much more typical for them to carry a heavier load than that.

While the a/a load is heavier today (4 AMRAAMs, 2 Sidewinders) it’s really not much compared to the a/g load. Thats why they changed the stabs.

Empty weight for the Block 60 is ~20,500 lbs (~9300kg).

OK, that’s not too much but wing loading still grew almost twice as much as twr.

Sorry but the days of simple wing loading as an accurate measure of maneuverability are long gone…

What Sens said.
I could have used the term total lift, wouldn’t change the difference though.

The stabilizers got enlarged to compensate for less instability at greater loads. When you put stores on the F-16, the center of gravity moves forward, reducing its instability – so larger stabilizers are required to maintain agility/maneuverablity.

The larger stabs may improve performance at a/g loads i.e. with targeting pods, but I don’t think they add anything at typical air to air load. At least that’s what I know. If it were different, why wouldn’t GD design the F-16 with larger control surfaces from the start.

Remember your above comparing early F-16s vs Block 50….

Compared to the Block 50, the Block 60 is ~1,000 lbs heavier (empty) with ~1,250 lbs greater military (dry) & 3,000 lbs greater afterburn (wet) thrust.

Problem is, what’s the exact weight of the Block 60?
~7400kg A model (or 7100kg for early models)
~8700kg Block 50
For the Block 60, figures go up to 10000kg. The CFTs are about 900lbs or 410kg so that alone doesn’t make much difference. But your 9150kg seems a bit low.

Comparison:
F-16A: 10700kg take-off weight, 1.01 TWR, 382kg/m2 wing loading
F-16E: 12750-13600kg take-off weight, 1.16-1.08 TWR, 455-486kg/m2 wing loading
So TWR did improve by 7 to 15%, wing loading increased by 19 to 27%.
Even in the best case, the increase in TWR is less than the increase in wing loading. Is that enough to maintain agility? Don’t think so.
Everything is static of course, so real numbers may look completely different.
Anyway, sustained turn rates are the same anyway because both are 9g airplanes. 😉 Some flight envelope graphs would be interesting to see which can sustain 9gs over a larger flight envelope.

Something you appearantly are unable to grasp…

The F-16 Block 60 has 19,000 lbs of military (dry) & 32,500 lbs of afterburning (wet) thrust vs 14,600 & 23,800 respectively for early F100-PW-220 F-16s.

Without getting too techincal, the lighter weight of earlier F-16s provides some instantaneous ‘agility’ advantage over later F-16s BUT the greater thrust of later F-16s allow them to hold their own in sustained ‘agility’.

OK, the E has lots of thrust so at least the acceleration must be very high.
But thrust alone doesn’t compensate for lift. While thrust to weight/drag is better, lift to weight is much worse.

Not true. Block 0, 1, 5 & 10 F-16s had smaller horizontal stabilators than Block 15 & later F-16s…

And the stabs got enlarged to compensate for less instability.

No, earlier F-16s do not have the same kinetic performance of later F-16s.

Again, the lighter weight of earlier F-16s provides some instantaneous ‘agility’ advantage over later F-16s BUT the greater thrust of later F-16s allow them to hold their own in sustained ‘agility’.

Well, I read stories about earliest A vs. Block 50 comparisons and there they were judged about equal with the A “lighter on the nose”, probably meaning better instantaneous performance.
Block 60 is in another league with probably better characteristics in some areas, but worse in others. So saying performance is the same is not true. I’ve never said it’s bad though. It isn’t.