Is it at all worth pointing out that the F-16C is missing a number of items of ordnance like the GBU-39/A & AIM-9X for example, that would / should be present for a configuration circa 2006.
Except for the fact that the US has sufficient airframes, pilots and infrastructure in place so that requiring an airframe to be able to do all of them is unneeded, and the relevant airframes that would handle any specific mission probably outdo the Eurofighter, Take the A-10 for example; It would almost certainly out do them in relation to CAS, Interdiction and Search & Rescue related mission sets due to extended time on station and sheer ordnance count (especially with the A-10C receiving 4x BRU-61A/A capability, providing access to 16x GBU-39A/A, -53/A and AGM-187A).
You have the B-1B, B-2, B-21, B-52, F-22, F-15EX & F-16V-7x, F-22 & F-35, S-3, AV-8B as well that would have similar advantages with their own, which only further magnify considering the scale at which they could be employed to support one another.
Requiring everything to be able to self-escort wastes performance and money that could be better spent elsewhere, specialization to a degree is important. But knowing where you can save on expenses is key.
You also get ordnance like the RGM-184, AGM-88G, AGM-187A that have recently really improved the performance of a internal only loading for the F-35 for their particular relevant target sets, I’m sure that whenever the other TR-4 stores turn up things are only going to get more interesting, though I do to some degree foresee similar problems being caused due to bay dimensions again, as happened with the AIM-132 and the F-22 and its impacts on stagnating ordnance and interoperability going forward.
A 2024 Mustang is very different than a 1975 Mustang. A Mustang designed in 1975 but updated for 1980 will still be based off the 1975 design. It will still be limited by the base design. The only thing in common between a 1975 Mustang and a 2024 Mustang is the name.
There are limits to what can be done to upgrade an existing air frame. There were discussions to update the Raptor with some of the tech from the F35 program but it was too costly.
Obviously if the USAF got some newly manufactured Curtiss P-36s (extreme example), it wouldn’t matter if they’re made in 2024 or not, they’re not gonna stack up to a fighter designed and originally produced in the 70s.
In comparison, the Rafale only came a mere 4 years before the F-22, and it stands absolutely no chance in BVR, with WVR being a tough ask as well.
No. Let’s put it in perspective, the youngest F-15Cs still in service today were produced in 1986, just shy of 40 years ago. You can upgrade the systems significantly and the flight performance to a degree, but you can’t compare an airframe literally designed with a slide-rule to one done with CAD and computer simulation
Also if its known (or expect) that they will be fighting or not, IRST range is somewhat reduced at lower altitudes( diffraction & and absorption more significant due to higher fluid density), and significantly by not flying supersonic(Skin heating), take for example the performance of the AN/ALR-23 IRSTS from the F-14.
And that doesn’t take into account any potential Signature control features that may or may not be present(e.g. Active cooling using on board Fuel as a heat sink, or variable / high bypass ratio engines), though it is certainly likely to be more reliable than the radar at range.
not at all, it’s closer in relation to the aim7M than the aim120 if anything being designed at the 203mm standard and designed to fit into places aim7s already had (they even planned it for their F4s but that got canned for cost reasons post cold war). It also went into service around the same time so unless they had a time machine that’d be hard.
It will have range advantages over an early amrram but that’s also because its a singifignatly larger missile. This means it can both have more fuel and a more powerful seeker with the same technology, but of couse the downsides of extra weight and not being as small and flexible as the amraam (which can even fit on the wingtips of an F16). Just differnt design rules and tradeoffs.
Only in this case the AAM-4 is a domestically developed and manufactured missile from Japan for Japanese service Aircraft and U.S has no claim to it whatsoever
well rather funny the AAM-4 was based off an AIM-7M just that they did their own stuff in there specially in the electronics, making it stupidly good for a first attempt on an ARH, the missile overall performs pretty similarly to an AIM-7M but with really good turn rate for how heavy it is, aswell as having a decently good range too
