Too bad that’s unarmed 🙂

It takes part replacement to extend airframe hours by 50%, Boeing is FOS if they are claiming a 9k airframe for new buys. That kind of beefing up of structure (especially considering the added stress of the CFTs) would completely screw with the balance & weight of the airframe and would require a lot of new testing & certification.

btw, The video (starting at 7:10) explicitly says that they take “existing F-18s in the fleet” and extend them out to 9k. No mention of factory fresh 9k lifetimes.

Given that the F-15C (you know…. the one that has never lost in combat) has never gone above mach 1.4 in combat then m1.6 should be just fine.

There is also the issue that the Mig will never be flying at M3 unless he knows that he is under attack or is intercepting another aircraft. Given the VLO nature of the F-35, good luck with that.

the airframe {F-15C} is built with old technology and un upgradable for sustain high performance.

It does not have to sustain high speed to reach high speed…

The main limiting factor was fuel, not “old technology”.

there is no clue that it is while carrying 4 AMRAAMS and fuel for 760 nmi

That is the A2A config shown to Israel which is the slide where the 760nmi came from.

IIRC the F-35 hit mach 1.61 in testing. Besides, mach 1.6 is for full A2G load-out so it is 3300lbs heavier than in A2A mode.

That being said, even the vaunted F-15C with a top speed of mach 2.5 has never gone faster than 1.4 in combat.

ALIS can be configured as to what info is passed up to the LM database. The issue is a non-stater.

I’ll tell you the same thing I did years ago when you were pushing your micro-fighter idea… If it was viable and cheap then “someone” would have done it already.