That couldn’t happen because India didn’t ask for it, & eventually (when it would have been possible), changed the requirement so it couldn’t be done.

Yep, nice story. thanks for pointing out the usual political bs. IMHO, it would have been the best solution, but since they didnt ask for it… Well, maybe the Rafale will follow, it certainly is my preferred choice.

F-14 is really wrong, the Tomcat has been a classic since Top Gun (the one with Tom Cruise). 🙂
I’d say F-15, F-16, MiG-29, Su-27. Though both lighter designs seem to have more potential to become a classic to me. Plus probably the Mirage 2000.

The Rockeye has me somewhat stumped. I thought that weapon was either no longer used or used only by the Navy and Marines? It’s much lighter in weight than the CBU-87/89/97 weapons correct?

I dont know if its still in use, but it has been used by the F-15E in Desert Storm. And yes, its lighter. Its in the 500lb class, the newer CBUs are in the 1000lb class.

Does anyone know if its possible to carry the SDB rack on the upper CTF stations, provided the stations are correctly wired?

PII, are you sure about the Mk83? I dont think the USAF ever used that weapon, not until the F-22 arrived that is.

Some additions: Mk20 Rockeye and the GBU-28 penetrator.

EdLaw, The F-15A-D can carry up to 18 Mk82 on MERs. But when CFTs are carried, on F-15C-E, the wing mounted MERs are restricted to 4 bombs each if I remember correctly. So that gives a maximum of 26 bombs, or 20 without the centerline.
But since MERs are no longer in use, thats a moot point anyway. Also, MERs or TERs (currently) dont support JDAMs.

Hmm outaccelerate in certain regimes maybe, but I highly doubt the F-16s climb performance is better than that of the MiG-29. Pilot reports speak against it with saying the F-16 should keep speed and avoid the vertical as low speed manoeuvreability and vertical performance are more the strenght of the MiG-29 than that of the F-16.

I cant remember exactly about climbing, but the data I read suggested the F-16 outaccelerates the MiG-29. But I think the F-16 climbed at least as fast, because all comparisons were won by the F-16 or too close to call…

Hell of a lot more thrust? Shouldn’t be too big a deal since the F135 is related to the F119. Dunno if they have similar dimensions though.

If you really wanted be serious though you’d do the sensible thing and start working the F136 into the Raptor, and the JSF for that matter.

The F135 has an enlarged fan/bypass ratio so wont fit without major modification. It would be bad for supercruise performance too.
The difference in static thrust isnt all that big, like 39’000lb vs 43’000lb.

Nice pics, looks like a good show. 🙂
I’d love to see/hear the Zipper or the Phantom. Unfortunately, I’ve seen them on the ground only… 🙁
btw, the F-35 on take off makes a nice howling sound aswell.

Then wasn’t this an issue with the F-5 as well? As far as i understand it, the wing is where the F-18 still shows it’s descendance from Northrop’s original lightweight fighter. Which had supersonic performance at low cost as one of it’s main selling points.

The F-5 isnt famous for its supersonic performance. Its very poor actually thanks to its weak engines. It usually doesnt even get to the point were the wing sweep matters.

F-16 and F-18 both use very similar intakes, so the effectiveness of the intake system can be considered comparable. The pressure loss for such intakes is given with ~10% at M1.5;
F-18C has 11.2 ton empty weight, with internal fuel 16.2 tons. Uninstalled static thrust is 158kN, which equals a TWR of .994;
F-16C has 8.3 ton empty weight, with internal fuel ~11.5 tons. Uninstalled static thrust is 106kN (F100), which equals a TWR of .94;

Note how the F-18C with best TWR is compared to the F-16C with the old F100 engine and lowest TWR and still the F-16 is faster. Clearly shows the F-18s shortcomings. Top speed of different F-16 models is almost identical showing that thrust isnt the limiting factor.