Actually according to that fairly recent article in AFM don’t a large number of E models have the 23K F100-220’s with other batches having the 29K F100-229’s……?

Yes, the first 134 Strike Eagles have the -220 engine, with all the following (incl. all exported) come with the -229 engine. That should be around 90 examples which are operated at Lakenheath and I think by one of the now 2 squadrons at Mountain Home.

Is this your opinion because I’ve heard the CFTs actually improve the aerodynamics.

I have heard the CFTs produce some lift in subsonic flight.
But they add drag (not that much I guess, more at supersonic speeds) and weight (quite a lot). Definately not an improvement for an encounter with the Su-30.

In terms of ‘what all the fuss is about’, I understand that these aircraft were bought by Chad not for CAS purposes but for training. I gather that the deal to sell the aircraft was controversial in Switzerland anyway and news that they have been used in combat has got the government’s heckles up.

Correct. Chad had to agree to only use the PC-9s for training as a replacement for the PC-7s.
So now that Chad used both the PC-7 and the PC-9 in an armed role and thus violated agreements twice, I dont think we will ever see PC-21 in Chad.

The 5 F-15D of ‘Peace Fox IV’ delivered in 1992 were built as F-15E already and did allow the Israeli upgrade of former F-15A/B/C/D as close as possible to F-15E standard. A Baz 2000 is no longer a vintage F-15A-D for example.
When the first true F-15E+ were delivered as F-15I during ‘Peace Fox VI’ in 1999, that were further advanced with a MTOW of over 42 tons.

But the reason for that was the timescale. In 1992 the F-15C/D was out of production, so those Israeli “D”s had to be based on an E airframe simply because there was no D airframe. Further potential customers for fighter versions would have received the same airframe. I’m not sure, but I think some of the Saudi C/Ds are the same.

The F-15E was as far as I know basis for F-15 versions for Singapoor, Saudi Arabia, Korea and Israel (later deliveries in some cases). I don’t know about specific differences between F-15B/D and F-15E, but I guess the later has tougher structure and of course much more black boxes built in, it looks they didn’t even change the radar too much (no Terrain Following Radar).

Under the skin, there are many differences. The E has a reinforced structure with 14.6 vs 13 tons empty weight.
The radar didnt chance that much because the original radar was already A/G capable and was constantly upgraded. Later C model Eagles have basically the same radar hardware if I’m not mistaken. And as sferrin said, TFR is bolted on.

That didnt last long. 😀
If you want to listen to that show, try google. :p
I did listen to it, and its not bad at all. A little bit lower notes of course, but quite a vivid performance.

Yeah but we all know the reason for that.

Sure, but its a nice little fact.

That quotes and estimates do show, that your knowledge about strike-fighters is limited.
Something like the related aerodynamic refinements are going unnoticed and the enhancements through FBW f.e.

Yes, but are my assumptions wrong? Probably not. I dont see how a plane that doesnt have much more thrust than empty weight is going to perform satisfactory when loaded e.g. with 4 1000kg bombs plus the usual add-ons.
Reg. the radar, the Swiss werent impressed with F-16C radar performance in difficult terrain. Remember we are in the 80ies here so radar size matters.

Don’t think there are any implications as the six internal AAMs were always planned iirc – just not from the start as there are more pressing needs.
Whats planned about internal wvr AAM carriage would be more interesting.