strike fighters

Strike Fighters

Table of Contents Aircraft .......................................................................................................................................................... 4

Compared Statistics .................................................................................................................................. 4

Mission Performances .............................................................................................................................. 5

Size ................................................................................................................................................................ 6

Load ............................................................................................................................................................... 7

Fuel ............................................................................................................................................................ 7

Systems ..................................................................................................................................................... 8

Weapons ................................................................................................................................................... 9

AIM-9X .................................................................................................................................................. 9

AIM-7M ................................................................................................................................................. 9

AIM-54C .............................................................................................................................................. 10

AIM-120D ............................................................................................................................................ 10

M61A1 ................................................................................................................................................. 10

M61A2 ................................................................................................................................................. 10

GAU-8 .................................................................................................................................................. 10

GAU-12 ................................................................................................................................................ 10

GAU-22 ................................................................................................................................................ 11

Physical Factors ........................................................................................................................................... 12

Stability ................................................................................................................................................... 12

Drag Area ................................................................................................................................................ 14

Lift Area ................................................................................................................................................... 14

Mission Performance .................................................................................................................................. 16

Interception ............................................................................................................................................ 16

F-15C vs F-22A: .................................................................................................................................... 17

F-16C vs F-35A: .................................................................................................................................... 20

AV-8B vs F-35B: ................................................................................................................................... 23

F-14D vs F/A-18E: ................................................................................................................................ 26

F/A-18C vs F-35C: ................................................................................................................................ 29

CAP .......................................................................................................................................................... 32

F-15C vs F-22A: .................................................................................................................................... 33

F-16C vs F-35A: .................................................................................................................................... 33

AV-8B vs F-35B: ................................................................................................................................... 35

F-14D vs F/A-18E: ................................................................................................................................ 36

F/A-18C vs F-35C: ................................................................................................................................ 37

Escort ...................................................................................................................................................... 37

F-15C vs F-22A: .................................................................................................................................... 39

F-16C vs F-35A: .................................................................................................................................... 40

AV-8B vs F-35B: ................................................................................................................................... 41

F-14D vs F/A-18E: ................................................................................................................................ 42

F/A-18C vs F-35C: ................................................................................................................................ 43

Aircraft

This study will investigate the classic “Teen-Series” of fighters as well as the aircraft that have or

will replace them. The following aircraft will be investigated in depth. Air aircrafts performance data

will come from the source listed below. All Aircraft will be evaluated at a year 2020 standard with the

exception of the F-14 which is the only aircraft never qualified for AMRAAM carriage and as such will be

a 2004 standard to utilize the AIM-54C.

F-15C Eagle – data taken directly from F-15C -1 using F100-PW-220 data, A-A only

F-15E “Mudhen” – data taken directly from F-15E -1 using F100-PW-229 data, A-G only

F-22A Raptor – data estimated from stated performance and engineering analysis

F-16C “Viper”– data taken directly from HAF -1 using F110-GE-129 data

A-10C “Hog”– Data taken directly from A-10A -1, A-G only

F-35A “Stubby” – data estimated from stated performance and engineering analysis

AV-8B Harrier– data derived from partial NATOPS and engineering analysis

F-35B “Bee” – data estimated from stated performance and engineering analysis

F-14D Tomcat – data derived from partial NATOPS and engineering analysis.

F/A-18E “Rhino” – data taken directly/derived from NATOPS and engineering analysis

F/A-18C Hornet – data taken directly/derived from NATOPS and engineering analysis

F-35C “Reaper” – data estimated from stated performance and engineering analysis

Compared Statistics

Size

Box volume

Density

Load

Fuel

Common systems

Weapons

Physical Factors

Stability

Drag

Lifting surfaces

Mission Performances

Data Reviewed

Fuel usage

Speed and Altitudes

Acceleration

Turning

Missile Flight

Air to Air

Interception

CAP @ 200nm

Deep Strike Escort

Air to Ground – Not Available at this time

CAS for 1hr

Deep Strike

Size Strike and fighter aircraft come in a wide variety of sizes. As with any engineering endeavor

there are tradeoffs to be made in deciding how large of a fighter aircraft to design and it is largely based

on the primary role of the aircraft. If one lists the pros and cons of large aircraft size the following is

seen.

Pros: Cons:

more fuel higher fuel burn

more weapons greater basing restrictions

more room for systems reduced agility

Aircraft size can be measures many ways such as length (from 72.8ft for the Su-35S to 46.3ft for

the AV-8B), span (from 64ft for the F-14D to 30.3ft for the AV-8B), wing area (from 667ft2 for the Su-35S

to 243ft2 for the AV-8B), or empty weight (from 43,735lb for the F-14D to 13,968lb for the AV-8B). For

our purposes we will use box volume (length times span times height) and density (empty weight

divided by box volume). A larger box volume will indicate greater size for the pro-con list above and a

greater density will indicate how tightly packaged everything is. All figures listed will be relative to the

smallest/least dense aircraft.

Box Volume: Density

AV-8B – 1 A-10C - 1

F-35A/B – 1.53 F-15C – 1.05

F-16C – 1.58 F-14D unswept – 1.23

F/A-18C – 1.86 F/A-18E – 1.35

F-35C – 1.89 F/A-18C – 1.36

F-14D swept – 2.33 F-15E – 1.38

F/A-18E – 2.62 F-16C – 1.42

A-10C – 2.75 AV-8B – 1.54

F-22A – 2.81 F-22A – 1.70

F-15C/E – 3.08 F-35C – 2.03

F-14D unswept – 3.92 F-14D swept – 2.07

F-35A – 2.09

F-35B – 2.32

From this we can see a few interesting date points. The Eagles are extremely large, second only

to the Tomcat, but very light. The F-35 family is extremely dense as it has many things internally that

most aircraft have externally.

Load The public often only sees fighter aircraft at airshows flying with clean wings for maximum

performance. A warplane is no good without a warload however so we will look at the fuel load,

systems, and both the air-to-air loadings and air-to-ground loading potentials of each aircraft. Loads are

carried on one of five types of stations; light (L), heavy (H), heavy/wet (H-W), wet (W), TGP. Light

stations typically carry only air to air missiles however Russian ECM systems typically go on the wingtip

light stations and the Hornet series carries TGP on them. Heavy stations are typically rated to carry

bombs, missiles (both air-to-air and air-to-surface), TGP, or ECM pods. Heavy/Wet stations gain the

ability to carry external fuel tanks but often lose the ability to carry air-to-air missiles. Wet stations are

dedicated to drop tanks only and are only found on the Tomcat. TGP stations are used exclusively to

carry additional targeting and navigation equipment. These dedicated stations are only found on the F-

16C and the F-15E.

Fuel

Fuel is carried both internally and externally for most fighters. External fuel is carried in drop

tanks mounted to either a “heavy/wet” station or a dedicated “wet” station. The trade-off of external

fuel tanks is that while they are being carried they add significantly to drag and while they can be

dropped they are not very cheap. Below we will look at each aircrafts internal, external, and total fuel

loads as well as the number of external stations used for carrying said external fuel load. The aircraft

will be sorted based on total fuel weight

Aircraft Internal External Total “H-W” “W”

AV-8B 7,500 4,080 11,580 2 0

F-35B 13,326 0 13,326 0 0

F-16C 7,162 7,072 14,234 3 0

F/A-18C 10,810 4,480 17,530 3 0

F-35A 18,498 0 18,498 0 0

F-35C 19,624 0 19,624 0 0

F-14D 16,200 3,630 19,830 0 2

A-10C 11,000 12,240 23,240 3 0

F/A-18E 14,400 9,792 24,192 3 0

F-15C 13,850 12,261 26,111 3 0

F-22A 18,000 16,320 34,320 4 0

F-15E 22,300 12,240 34,540 3 0

Here we see that the F-35 family chose to forgo external tanks for combat loadings altogether

while the F-15C, F-16C, and F-22A roughly double their fuel loads with them. The F-22A, however, only

uses four external tanks for ferry missions. The F-15C and F-22A are essentially dedicated air-to-air

platforms in practice so they do not sacrifice load carrying capability with fuel tanks while the F-14 uses

dedicated fuel stations and the A-10 has stations to spare (11 in theory).

Systems

One of the most common systems associated with tactical aircraft is the radar. Radar uses, in a

most simplified form, radio waves transmitted through an antenna in the nose and then received

through the same antenna. Radar has evolved greatly over the ages and continues to evolve. Early fire-

control radars need to “lock” a target in order to get accurate enough azimuth, elevation, range,

heading, and velocity data to guide a missile. If the enemy aircraft was equipped with a Radar Warning

Receiver (RWR) then the RWR was able to distinguish this difference in pulse pattern and could warn the

pilot that he was being engaged. Once RWRs became common a new way of surprising your enemy was

needed. This lead to Track-While-Scan (TWS) technology in which the radar transmitted a normal

sweeping scan while noting the delta of a targets location on each pass and using that information to

derive all the needed data for a weapons lock.

A more recent advancement is that of the Active Electronically Scanned Array (EASA) radar with

Low Probability of Intercept (LPI) in which the radar does not have a single large transmitter but

hundreds of individual Transmit-Receive (TR) modules. These TR modules allow a radar to have as big or

small of an antenna as needed for a given task by working in groups. Each group can transmit in unique

directions and on separate frequencies. They also will change the frequency transmitted, and power of

the transmission, a thousand times a second. By doing this the AESA radar can mask it’s transmissions

as noise and can likely only be detected by a system of equivalent sophistication. This is supported by

numerous statements made about “teen-series” aircraft engaging in BVR training with F-22s (the first LPI

AESA equipped fighter) in which none of their systems, radar or RWR, ever detected the F-22. For Very

Low Observable (VLO) aircraft this is an important ability as it minimizes the chances of an enemy

knowing even the direction from which the VLO aircraft are attacking. The following will list the

specified aircrafts radar systems and if they are LPI.

Aircraft Radar LPI

F-15C AN/APG-63(V)3 ?

F-15E AN/APG-70 ?

F-16C AN/APG-68 No

A-10C none -

AV-8B AN/APG-65 No

F-14D AN/APG-71 No

F/A-18C AN/APG-73 No

F/A-18E AN/APG-79 ?

F-22A AN/APG-77 Yes

F-35A/B/C AN/APG-81 Yes

Other common systems carried by strike fighters are ECM for protection from enemy aircraft

and ground threats as well as EO/IR systems for air-to-air and/or air-to-surface targeting work. Before

the “Fifth Generation” aircraft these systems were very large and were often carried externally in self-

contained pods. The below list gives the systems used by the selected aircraft and, if externally carried,

what type of station is used to carry it in parentheses.

Aircraft ECM EO/IR

F-15C AN/ALQ-128 None

F-15E AN/ALQ-128 LANTIRN/Sniper XR/LITENING (TGP)

F-16C AN/ALQ-131 (H-W) LANTIRN/Sniper XR/LITENING (TGP)

A-10C AN/ALQ-131 (H) LITENING (H)

AV-8B AN/ALQ-131 (H-W) LITENING (H-W)

F-14D AN/ALQ-165 AN/AAS-42

F/A-18C AN/ALQ-131 (H-W) LANTIRN/Nighthawk/ATFLIR (L)

F/A-18E AN/ALE-214 LANTIRN/Nighthawk/ATFLIR (L)

F-22A none listed none

F-35A/B/C AN/ASQ-239 EOTS and EODAS

Weapons

All the above items are to enable the aircraft to deploy their weapons effectively. Weapons will

fall into two major categories: Air to Air and Air to Ground.

Air to Air weapons again fall into the categories of missiles and cannon. Missiles are typically

judged by their speed, range, and turning ability. However, all three of these parameters will vary

greatly based on many factors. For now we will just discuss the missiles employed by these aircraft.

Missile

AIM-9X

The current standard of short range missile is the AIM-9X which has become, arguably, one of the best

Infrared missiles in the world. With an Imaging InfraRed seeker it is very resistant to traditional flares

and it possesses a high off-boresight (HOBS) capability to lock a target up to 90 degrees off it’s nose and

a Thrust-Vectoring Control (TVC). It has smaller fins than previous versions of the Sidewinder giving it

greatly improved rated range of 19nm. The AIM-9M carried by the Tomcat only had a rated range of

14nm, a 45 degree field of regard, and no TVC.

AIM-7M

The Sparrow missile is no longer in service due to the prevalence of the AIM-120. It will be used on the

F-14D only as it was never operationally cleared for the AMRAAM. In Viet ‘Nam the AIM-7 proved an

agile missile in a dogfight once its control laws were altered. With a warhead four times that of the

Sidewinder it’s lethal blast radius was twice as large. The M model has a rated range of 27nm.

AIM-54C

The Phoenix missile was only carried by the F-14 and was retired before the Tomcat was iteself. It will

be used for the F-14D only as it was never operationally cleared for the AMRAAM. While the AIM-54 is a

heavy missile and not agile enough for most anti fighter work it carries a warhead over six times as large

as the Sidewinder for a lethal blast radius nearly two and a half times larger. The AIM-54C had a rated

range of 100nm.

AIM-120D

The AIM-120D is the latest version of the AMRAAM line which combined advanced datalinking,

optimized trajectory and guidance, and improved HOBS while maintaining a small package in both

weight and diameter. A warhead only 81% larger than the Sidewinder gives a lethal blast radius increase

of 34.5%. The AIM-120D has a rated range of 97nm, nearly equaling the much larger Phoenix.

Cannon

M61A1

The six-barreled Vulcan cannon was designed in 1946 and was first used on the F-104 and has been used

on nearly every US fighter aircraft up to the F-22. At 248 pounds and nearly 72 inches in length it is a

rather compact weapon system. It fires a 20x102mm cartridge at a rate of 6,000 rounds per minute and

a velocity of 3,450 feet per second (fps). The projectiles weigh 102.4g with a 10g bursting charge. This

gives a Weight of Fire (WoF) of 10.24kg/s raw and 1kg/s burst.

M61A2

The six-barreled Vulcan cannon was lightened for the F-22. This model weighs 202 pounds and is also 72

inches in length. It fires a 20x102mm cartridge at a rate of 6,600 rounds per minute and a velocity of

3,450 feet per second (fps). The projectiles weigh 102.4g with a 10g bursting charge. This gives a

Weight of Fire (WoF) of 11.22kg/s raw and 1.1kg/s burst.

GAU-8

The seven-barreled Avenger was built for destroying tanks and armored vehicles in the Cold War and

was the starting point of the A-10 design. The gun is 620lb and over 112in long, but the system is almost

20ft long and weighs 5,000lbs fully armed. It fires a 30x173mm cartridge at a rate of 3,900 rounds per

minute and a velocity of roughly 3,500fps. The projectiles weigh 367g for HEI. While the heavier API

round is the most famous, the use of Depleted Uranium is now highly frowned upon. If we assume a

similar percentage of charge weight between the HEI for the Avenger and the round used in the Vulcan

this gives a WoF of 23.86kg/s raw and 2.33kg/s burst for HEI.

GAU-12

The five-barreled Equalizer is based on the much larger Avenger cannon that has been scaled down for

use on the AV-8B. The system is 270lb and over 83in long, but the external case gives a total weight of

1,230lb. It fires a 25x137mm cartridge at a rate of 3,600 rounds per minute and a velocity of roughly

3,350fps. The projectiles weigh 184g for HEI and 215g for API. If we assume a similar percentage of

charge weight between the HEI for the Equalizer and the round used in the Vulcan this gives a WoF of

11.04kg/s raw and 1.08kg/s burst.

GAU-22

The GAU-22 is a version of the Equalizer that uses four barrels instead of five for use in the F-35. The

internal system weighs 416lb while the external system weighs 735lb. The rate of fire is slightly reduced

to 3,300 rounds per minute. While the GAU-8 and GAU-12 had two distinct types of ammunition the

GAU-22 uses a combined APEX projectile. The 223g projectile with a similar burst charge percentage as

the Vulcan ammunition would give a 21.8g burst charge. This would give a WoF of 12.27kg/s raw and

1.2kg/s burst.

Physical Factors There are many factors that determine the performance of a combat aircraft. The most commonly used

metrics are Wing Loading (W/S) and Thrust to Weight (T/W). These two parameters are often used by

those who do not grasp the complexities of aircraft performance and below we will look at why these

can be very misleading.

Wing Loading is a measure of aircraft weight per unit area of wing and is often used to determine

instantaneous turn capability. This value can be very misleading as different wing planforms allow for

different maximum lift coefficients (CLmax), lift curve slopes, load limits, and only takes into account the

reference wing area. While many people recognize that the bodies of many fighter aircraft generate a

sizable portion of lift they often fail to recognize that a sizable portion of the reference area is also

“inside” the body of the aircraft. A prime example of this is the F-15, one of which famously lost almost

an entire wing and flew home “on body lift.” While essentially the entire right wing was missing, that

only accounts for roughly 25% of the “wing area.” The pilot was also using left roll input that generated

positive lift on the right side with the horizontal tails. While a single horizontal tail only equals 8% of the

“wing area” it can be deflected to a greater degree relative to the local airflow (given the medium speed

and low maneuver environment of the remainder of the flight) to allow it to make up the lost lift. Tail

area is not accounted for in the “wing area” and its effects vary with stability. We will look at this

shortly.

Thrust to Weight is a measure of the combined engines uninstalled sea-level static thrust divided by the

weight and is often used to determine straight line speed, acceleration, climb, and sustained turn

capability. The first problem is that no aircraft ever operated with uninstalled engines and are almost

never at zero airspeed at sea level. Installing an engine in the aircraft reduces thrust available in two

ways. The intake reduces the airflow through surface friction and flow distortion. Think of breathing in

through a curved straw compared to without. The equipment gearbox allows the turbine section of the

engine to power all the systems onboard an aircraft. To help visualize this reduction in power think of

pedaling a bicycle with the back tire off the ground. The tire can easily be spun up to almost any speed

with a hand. Once the tire presses onto the road however work is being done by the system and the

energy required to rotate the tire at a given rate increases. The summation of these effects on sea-level

static thrust is typically about 25% of the military thrust rating based on data of installed thrust ratings

for various aircraft. Thrust will then change drastically with speed and altitude increase, generally

increasing with speed to the inlet/airflow limit and decreasing with altitude as density drops. Lastly, all

the above performance parameters are dependent on excess thrust, or thrust remaining after drag has

been subtracted.

Stability

Stability is the tendency of an aircraft’s nose to pitch down under normal flight conditions. The cause of

this is the center of mass of the aircraft being in front of the center of lift. Think of a paper airplane on a

string representing the lifting force. If the string is behind the center of mass the nose will point down.

This has traditionally been countered using negative lift on the tails, a string on the back pulling the tail

down and the nose up.

This has two negative effects. The first is that the lifting surfaces, the “main string” if you will, now have

to pull that much harder to balance the total force. This means that at any given time a stable aircraft is

using less than 100% of the lift being generated by the wing/body to maintain flight or turn. The second

is that there is now an increase in the induced drag. There is induced drag on the tail and an increase in

induced drag on the wing/body. This is called “trim drag.”

These effects were mitigated by trying to minimize the stability margin. Starting with the F-16 there was

a new option. Fly-by-Wire (FBW) controls allowed for an unstable aircraft’s disturbances to be

monitored and corrected dozens to hundreds of times a second. In an unstable “paper aircraft” the

nose points up when hanging from the string. A second string is then added to the tail to lift that up as

well. This reverses the drawbacks mentioned in the previous paragraph. The aircraft not only gets all of

the lift generated by the wing/body, but also that of the tail. As a result of this level flight is maintained

with a lower CL. This reduces the induced drag by a second order.

We will now analyze stability estimates of our aircraft. Estimated were determined by looking at the

Idle Descent charts and measuring L/D to determine total drag and thus find the induced drag which

gives us the absolute value of the total CL and comparing that to the CL required to maintain flight, in

effect measuring the trim drag. When that was not available the author used experimental values to

find the point at which the benchmark specifications were met. It is important to note that stability

changes with fuel burn and weapon load, it is not static. This is most notable in the F/A-18E which has a

15% range which goes from the neutral end of stable to unstable. In contrast the F-15E only has a range

of around 4%. Stability listed is the percentage of the main wing/body lift that the tail is producing as

downforce.

Aircraft Stability

F-15C 4.7%

F-15E 3.3%

F-16C -11.0%

A-10C 10.6%

AV-8B 12.0%

F-14D 17.0%

F/A-18C 3.0%

F/A-18E 2.0%

F-22A -10.0%

F-35A/B/C -8.0%

Drag Area

So just as we have seen how stability can have positive or negative impacts on aircraft performance we

shall now also look at airframe drag. Drag always has a negative impact. The primary factors for drag

are the raw surface area and shaping. More surface gives more skin friction but this is mitigated on

aircraft designed for large degrees of radar stealth as the required surface tolerances result in a

dramatically smoother surface. Shaping based drag can be intersections between surfaces or antennae

sticking up from the surface and even the angle at which a surface meets the airflow. Again, airframe

drag is found using the Idle Descent charts where available, elsewise found with wind tunnel data or

experimentally matching the benchmark specifications. Drag Area will be the Zero-Lift Drag Coefficient

multiplied by the reference wing area and represents the flat plate area in square feet of the clean

aircraft.

Aircraft Drag Area

F-15C 11.55

F-15E 14.08

F-22A 12.60

F-16C 8.92

A-10C 19.73

F-35A 9.75

AV-8B 7.48

F-35B 10.03

F-14D 16.39

F/A-18E 12.13

F/A-18C 9.76

F-35C 10.54

Lift Area

Just as there is a Drag Area there is also a maximum Lift Area representing the total CLmax of the aircraft

multiplied by the reference wing area. Lift Areas are calculated either using stall speeds from flight

manuals, where available, and otherwise are found using either a CFT analysis or a formula to

approximate the lift curve slope based on wing thickness, aspect ratio, taper ratio, sweep, stability, and

high lift devices. The formula was first tested against known aircraft for validation. The F-16 is the

anomaly here in that it reduces its max angle of attack as speed increases and as such it’s maximum

value of CLmax changes. This study shows the difference of the values for 25 degrees (1G max AoA) and

15 degrees (9G max AoA) angle of attack. All stability corrections are already made at this point and this

number would be a better reference than traditional wing loading to examine turning ability below

corner velocity. At the lowest speeds of course there are controllability issues but that is outside the

scope of this review. Weight for wing loading will be clean plus a 20% fuel fraction as a reference only

Aircraft Wing Area Wing Loading Lift Area Lift Loading

F-15C 608 60.6 754 48.9

F-15E 608 76.1 754 61.3

F-22A 840 64.5 1680 32.2

F-16C 300 84.2 315-525 80.2-60.1

A-10C 506 69.2 810 43.2

F-35A 460 79.1 851 42.7

AV-8B 230 73.1 345 48.7

F-35B 460 87.8 851 47.4

F-14D 565 96.8 1288 42.4

F/A-18E 500 78.8 907 43.4

F/A-18C 400 76.6 668 45.8

F-35C 620 70.2 1147 37.9

Note: CLmax values for F-35 series taken as 1.85 despite data implying values of 1.91 and 2.1 for the A/B

and C respectively based on calculations of lift enhancing effects. A value of 2.0 was used for the F-22A

based on an analysis of the Low Speed Pass procedure and the amount of thrust available under said

circumstance.

Mission Performance All of the previous reviews and data only serve to get help one understand some of the factors that

impact mission performance. Several different mission types will be reviewed and they will be reviewed

in stages of flight for the mission.

Interception

The basis of this mission is that the early warning systems have detected incoming hostile aircraft and

the strike fighters are being launched to engage. Each fighter will have missiles for four BVR shots and

will have at least two missiles in reserve for a potential close in fight. Any External Fuel Tanks (EFT) will

be jettisoned as soon as they are empty.

The flight profile being used is maximum power take off followed by acceleration to maximum thrust

climb profile speed. The maximum thrust climb profile will be followed until the aircraft reaches an

altitude at which it can accelerate to its maximum physical speed. If the maximum forward speed is

drag limited then the aircraft will continue at maximum thrust for the dash stage. If the maximum

speed is a placard limit and the aircraft has excess thrust then it will climb at its maximum speed until

the rate of climb falls below 500ft/min or the aircraft reaches a critical fuel state. Each aircraft will then

be assumed to be in a turning engagement, which for planning purposes is the fuel required for three

full circle turns at max power while flying at 0.8M and 20,000ft. After the combat phase they will

perform a military power climb to their optimum cruise altitude and perform an idle maximum range

descent back to base/ship with a 14% internal fuel reserve unless another load is explicitly given in the

manuals. 14% was chosen as in several manuals where reserve fuel is specified it averages to be 14% of

the internal fuel capacity.

The simplified metrics that would often be used to determine Intercept performance would be T/W and

fuel fraction, the percentage of total weight that is made of fuel. This study will also look at Drag Area,

which will impact tope speed; Wing Loading, which will not have any real impact; and Lift Loading, which

will impact turning capabilities.

Using the miniZAP missile calculator I found that the rated range for the AIM-120B in the program was

matched by using default launch conditions of 32,808ft, launching from 1.02M at a target flying at the

same altitude head on at 0.83M. The parameters of the missile were altered until the rated range of the

AIM-120D were matched.

A higher launch speed and/or altitude allow the missile to carry more energy into the top of its flight

profile. This serves to greatly extend the range of the missile. This study will look at the flight distance

of the missile that can be achieved while still holding a speed of Mach 1.88 or better. This is not

indicative of launch range as that varies by the vector of the target.

F-15C vs F-22A:

Aircraft # of EFT

# of AIM-

120D # of AIM-9X

Sec of

cannon fire

F-15C 1 4 4 9.4

F-22A 2 6 2 4.4 Figure 1 - F-15C vs F-22A Payload

Aircraft T/W Fuel Fraction Drag Area Wing Loading Lift Loading

F-15C 0.93 0.35 13.97 84.4 68.1

F-22A 1.02 0.36 13.27 87.2 43.6

Figure 2 - F-15C vs F-22A Physical Characteristics

In terms of loadout the F-15C and F-22A are quite comparable. The F-15C has quite a bit of cannon

ammo and can be outfitted with an identical missile load for almost no change in overall performance.

The physical characteristics are mostly all in the F-22A’s favor.

The fuel graph shows how much fuel

the F-22A can carry but it does not

explain why it has nearly three times

the range of the F-15C. Both fighters

are flying a bit over Mach 2 on these

intercepts and they both should be

burning fuel at a prodigious rate. The

overwhelming thrust of the F-22A

allows it to finish its initial climb at

60,000 feet having already

accelerated to Mach 1.5. Around this

same distance the F-15C is

accelerating through Mach 1.5 at

36,000 feet.

Looking at the speed chart past

50nm it is easy to see that the F-15C

is accelerating faster than the F-22A

after they both level off despite the

F-22A having a much more favorable

rated T/W after dropping the

external tanks of 1.16 to the F-15C

1.01. This is due to the difference in

altitude.

While the F-15C has a more effective

inlet design for supersonic pressure

recovery the F119 of the F-22 is

designed for high dynamic thrust at

altitude. The F-15C is thrust limited

in this mission as it is at full throttle

until to needs to decend for the

combat portion. The F-22A on the

other hand is still pulling power to

not exceed its maximum design

speed, which when combined with

the extreme altitude gives a very low

fuel burn.

In the missile launch chart we can

see the positional advantage of the

F-22A over the F-15C. Accelerating

during the climb pushes it further

out in front and causes the missile

engagement envelope to expand

rapidly. We can also readily see the

advantage of launching the AIM-

120D from 23,000ft higher at

essentially the same speed. The F-

15C can get an AIM-120D out 150nm

from the airfield in 13.2 minutes

while the F-22A can do so in a

remarkable 11.2 minutes.

We can see from the turn performance data that the F-15C is

essentially at corner velocity at 0.8M for this weight and that

the 0.8M performance varies a realitvely small amount

compared to their respective corner velocity performance.

The superior Lift Loading of the F-22A gives a much lower

corner velocity which give improve rate and radius for a

given G.

Figure 3 - F-15C vs F-22A turn performance

Aircraft F-15C F-22A

0.8M@FL200

Avail G 9.0 9.0

IT Rate, deg/s 19.9 19.9

IT Radius, ft 2390 2390

Sust G 5.1 5.38

ST Rate,

deg/s 11.1 11.8

ST Radius, ft 4266 4041

Corner V

M 0.796 0.626

Avail G 9.0 9.0



PS, ft/s -1400 -1810

Decel, G -1.7 -2.8

Sust G 5.0 4.1

ST Rate,

deg/s 11.0 11.3


F-16C vs F-35A:

Aircraft # of EFT

# of AIM-

120D # of AIM-9X

Sec of

cannon fire

F-16C 1 4 2 5

F-35A 0 6 0 3.3 Figure 4 - F-16C vs F-35A Payload


F-16C 0.91 0.29 10.96 106.4 76.0

F-35A 0.87 0.37 9.75 108.0 58.4 Figure 5 - F-16C vs F-35A Physical Characteristics

In terms of loadout the F-16C can

mimic the missile load of the F-35A

for almost no penalty and it has

more cannon fire. In terms of the

physical characteristics the F-16C

shows minor superiority in basic

T/W and Wing Loading but it is

inferior in the other three.

In the Fuel chart the first thing that

should become apparent is that

even when carrying a centerline gas

tank the F-16C has half the fuel

capacity of the F-35A on internal

fuel.

The Speed chart highlights some

common criticisms of the F-35

program. It is out climbed, out

accelerated, and has a lower top

speed than the intercept configured

F-16C. It completely outranges the

smaller F-16C due in no small part

to the higher fuel fraction.

The Altitude chart shows that while

the F-16C has to stay at 37,000 feet

to maintain the best forward speed

we see that the F-35A has enough

reserve thrust at its placard speed

limit that it can climb to 50,000 feet

while at 1.6M. Being able to climb

to such a high altitude helps give it a

vastly improved range by keeping

the fuel burn rate down in the same

manner that the F-22A did.

The missile launch chart shows how

the acceleration and speed of the F-

16C give it an edge in getting a

missile downrange initially. Once the

F-35A gains some altitude it gains a

farther cast. The F-16C can get an

AIM-120D out 150nm from the

airfield in 12.9 minutes while the F-

35A takes 14.0 minutes to do so.

The turning data for this pair also reveals one of the common

criticisms of the F-35 program, Sustained G. With a lower

corner velocity, the F-35 can make up some of its 0.8M FL200

sustained disadvantage and generate fantastically quick and

tight turns. Due to the unique FLCS of the F-16 it has a

corner plateau instead of a corner velocity. This shifts its

best speed to the right and while it picks up improvements to

turn rate in both instant and sustained turns it widens the

turn radii for both.

Figure 6 - F-16C vs F-35A turn performance

Aircraft F-16C F-35A

0.8M@FL200

Avail G 7.3 9.0



Sust G 5.0 4.5

ST Rate,

deg/s 10.8 9.7


Corner V

M 0.90 0.74

Avail G 8.6 9.0



PS, ft/s -1610 -1850

Decel, G -1.7 -2.4

Sust G 5.8 4.1

ST Rate,

deg/s 11.3 9.6


AV-8B vs F-35B:

Aircraft # of EFT

# of AIM-

120D # of AIM-9X

Sec of

cannon fire

AV-8B 0 4 2 4.3

F-35B 0 6 0 0 Figure 7 – AV-8B vs F-35B Payload


AV-8B 0.74 0.31 9.75 110.2 73.4

F-35B 0.90 0.28 10.03 103.8 56.1

Figure 8 – AV-8B vs F-35B Physical Characteristics

In terms of loadout the AV-8B and F-

35B are quite comparable. The lack

of cannon pod on the F-35B gives a

notional advantage to the AV-8B

however the AV-8B may never get

within range to use it. The physical

characteristics tend to favor the F-

35B.

The fuel graph shows that while the

F-35B has a signifficantly greater fuel

load it also burns fuel at a much

faster rate due to the lack of

afterburner on the AV-8B. While

this gives the AV-8B a great range

advantage on a full-throttle mission

an intercept really is time sensitive so

much of that added range is wasted.

Looking at the speed graph we can

see the greatest physical advantage

the F-35B has over the older AV-8B.

The F-35B does have a very short

range in this profile as it has a small

fuel load concidering the output of

the engine.

In the altitude graph we see that the

F-35B climbs to a higher altitude in

less distance than the AV-8B.

The missile launch graph helps to

shiow the combined effect of the

performance gap between these two

aircraft. In the time it takes for the

AV-8B to reach 32,000ft at 0.82M the

F-35B is already at 36,000ft and has

accelerated to 1.5M and could

potentially already be in a position to

get a missile 150nm from the LHA.

The AV-8B needs an astounding 19.4

minutes to get an AIM-120D 150nm

from the LHA due to its low speed

and altitude while the F-35B shaves

five full minutes off of that time and

can do the same task in 14.4 minutes.

This shows that while the AV-8B has

been equipped with a BVR radar and

missile it is by no means an

interceptor.

We can see from the turn performance data that the AV-8B

and F-35B are very similar in what the airframes can generate

at 0.8M at FL200 but the sustained performance is worlds

apart due to the lack of afterburner on the AV-8B. The

corner velocity data shows that the F-35B is superior in every

way.

Figure 9 – AV-8B vs F-35B turn performance

Aircraft AV-8B F-35B

0.8M@FL200

Avail G 7.1 7.0



Sust G 3.0 4.2

ST Rate,

deg/s 6.3 9.0


Corner V

M 0.82 0.67

Avail G 7.4 7.0



PS, ft/s -1250 -1200

Decel, G -1.5 -1.7

Sust G 3.0 3.5

ST Rate,

deg/s 6.1 9.0


F-14D vs F/A-18E:

Aircraft # of EFT

# of AIM-

120D

# of AIM-

54C # of AIM-7M # of AIM-9X

Sec of

cannon fire

F-14D 2 0 2 4 2 (-9M) 6.8

F/A-18E 1 4 0 0 2 5.8 Figure 10 – F-14D vs F/A-18E Payload


F-14D 0.78 0.28 20.91 123.3 54.1

F/A-18E 0.79 0.34 15.98 104.4 57.5

Figure 11 – F-14D vs F/A-18E Physical Characteristics

The loadouts for the F-14D and F/A-

18E are very different due to the F-14

never being operationally cleared for

AIM-120 use. As the F-14D has two

BVR missile type we will look at both

of them here. While the physical

performance of the F/A-18E was

highly criticized when it was being

introduced we can see here that it

actually comes out ahead in many of

the traditional physical

characteristics.

The fuel graph shows that while the

F/A-18E has a signifficantly better

fuel fraction and lower theoretical

drag area it has a comparitively poor

dash range. This is due to the F/A-

18E having greatly comprimised wave

drag characteristics.


see many of the criticisms of the

Super Hornet come out in a slower

acceleration to a lower top speed.

In the altitude graph we see both of

these aircraft have similar altitude

profiles until they are returning to

the ship in which case the F/A-18E is

able to cruise at a much higher

altitude.

The missile launch graph shows that

while there is a remarkable

performance gap between these two

planes the missile technology

advancements very nearly close the

gap. Importantly the AIM-7M, while

a medium range missile, lacks the

speed over most of it’s flight profile

to gain much separation from the

launching aircraft. The AIM-54C uses

a high loft profile that the AIM-7M

lacks to extend it’s range. The F-14D

can get an AIM-54C 150nm from the

Carrier in 13.8 minutes, the AIM-7M

will never get 150n from the carrier

in this profile. The F/A-18E takes 15

mintues to get an AIM-120D the sme

distance, but this means the Super

Hornet has 4 missiles it can launch at

range while the Tomcat actually only

has two. While the F-14D can be

fitted with as many as six of the

Phoenix missiles their weight and

drag would reduce the range and

speed to the point where the F/A-

18E would actually outperform it.

The turn performance at 0.8M and FL200 heavily favors the

F/A-18E but things mostly even out once both aircraft are at

their corner velocities with the Super Hornet still holding a

small edge in turn rate. Important to note however is the

difference in G-limits. The F-14 series is unique in that the

manufacturers G limit was not observed by the user. The

NATOPS had imposed a wartime G limit of 6.5G at 57,000lb

weight to the F-14D (used in analysis), while Grumman had

recommended a G limit of 9.5G at 57,000lb and had tested

the plane out past 12G. Under the Grumman recommended

guidelines the F-14D corner velocity moves up to 0.75M,

9.5G, 22.3 ITR, 2005ft radius, and -1640 PS(-2.1G). Service

pilots would go over the NATOPS limit on occasion and at

least one has pulled the plane to 12G without damage.

“All of a sudden it’s “Guns on Hoser.” At “Guns” I yanked that poor

Tomcat into a break that topped out at 12Gs… Grumman checked

that bird over when we recovered. Not a hair out of place.” – Joe

‘Hoser’ Satrapa

“Snort (Dale Snodgrass) would bring in a bird from a cross-country…

you’d start looking closer. Over-G’d. Leaking fluids.” – Rocky Riley

Figure 12 – F-14D vs F/A-18E Turn Performance

Aircraft F-14D F/A-18E

0.8M@FL200

Avail G 6.5 7.5



Sust G 4.3 5.0

ST Rate,

deg/s 9.3 10.8


Corner V

M 0.62 0.68

Avail G 6.5 7.5



PS, ft/s -620 -900

Decel, G -1.0 -1.3

Sust G 3.9 4.2

ST Rate,

deg/s 11.0 10.7


F/A-18C vs F-35C:

Aircraft # of EFT

# of AIM-

120D # of AIM-9X

Sec of

cannon fire

F/A-18C 1 4 2 5.8

F-35C 0 6 0 0 Figure 13 – F/A-18C vs F-35C Payload


F/A-18C 0.79 0.32 11.86 100.9 60.4

F-35C 0.73 0.35 12.40 91.2 49.3

Figure 14 – F/A-18C vs F-35C Physical Characteristics

The biggest difference in the loadouts

is the lack of cannon for the F-35C.

The physical characteristics seem to

even out with the F/A-18C having a

better T/W and drag area and the F-

35C having a better fuel fraction and

both wing and lift loadings.

The fuel graph shows that while the F-

35C has a greater fuel load it also

burns fuel at a faster rate due to the

output of its single engine being

roughly a third greater than the

combined output of the two engines

in the F/A-18C.


see the F/A-18C accelerates much

more quickly to the point that having

a lower top speed is almost a wash.

The large wing of the F-35C gives it

the most comprimised wave drag of

all the F-35 variants. Important to

note is that the Hornet performance

here is for the F404-GE-400 engines.

The F404-GE-402 engines provide a

roughly 13% improvement to rated

afterburning thrust but that

performance is not in the NATOPS.

In the altitude graph we see that the

altitude performance of both these

planes is fairly similar with the

exception that once the F-35C

reaches 1.6M it can still climb on its

excess thrust.

The missile launch graph shows just

how similar these two aircraft are in

the interception role. The F/A-18C

can get an AIM-120D 150nm from the

Carrier in 14.3 minutes to the F-35Cs

14.7.

We can see from the turn performance data that the F/A-18C

and F-35C are nearly identical in both instant and sustained

performance at 0.8M at FL200. The corner velocity data

shows that the F-35C has far better turn performance.

Figure 15 – F/A-18C vs F-35C Turn Performance

Aircraft F/A-18C F-35C

0.8M@FL200

Avail G 7.5 7.5



Sust G 4.8 4.9

ST Rate,

deg/s 10.5 10.7


Corner V

M 0.70 0.62

Avail G 7.5 7.5



PS, ft/s -814 -950

Decel, G -1.1 -1.5

Sust G 4.2 3.9

ST Rate,

deg/s 10.3 10.7


CAP

The basis of this mission is that as part of a larger military action Combat Air Patrol is needed 200nm out

from the base/ship. Each fighter will have missiles for four BVR shots and will have at least two missiles

in reserve for a potential close in fight. All available external tanks will be used and will be held for the

duration of the mission. “Rated” military power Thrust to Weight ratio, Fuel Fraction, Drag Area, and

Wing Loading will be compared for each legacy aircraft and its replacement. Wing Loading here should

reflect optimum altitudes.

The flight profile being used is maximum power take off followed by military power acceleration to the

military power thrust climb profile speed. The military thrust climb profile will be followed until the

aircraft reaches its optimum cruise altitude. Each aircraft will then perform an optimum cruise to a

point 200nm from base/ship at which point they will fly at maximum endurance speed and altitude.

Each aircraft will then perform a military power climb, as needed, to their optimum cruise altitude and

perform an idle maximum range descent back to base/ship with reserves as specified in the Intercept

section.

The CAP chart will also show how the CAP time available changes with distance pushed and will

culminate with a zero-time CAP representing the maximum range each aircraft can fly with the given

loadout under an optimum profile.

F-15C vs F-22A:

AIM-120D AIM-9X EFT

F-15C 4 4 3

F-22A 6 2 2 Figure 16 - F-15C vs F-22A Payload

T/W mil FF DA WL

F-15C 0.49 0.43 14.63 98.9

F-22A 0.71 0.36 13.68 87.2


Initial Final Initial Final

F-15C 37kft 44kft 25kft 33kft

F-22A 40kft 47kft 30kft 34kft

Optimum Cruise Alt Optimum Loiter Alt

Figure 18 - F-15C vs F-22A Mission Altitudes

Despite the F-15C having a much better fuel

fraction than the F-22A the Raptor’s larger wing,

cleaner design, and more powerful motors allow

the F-22A to have higher optimum altitudes

allowing for a comparatively lower fuel burn

which in turn gives overall comparable

endurance and maximum range.

F-16C vs F-35A:

AIM-120D AIM-9X EFT

F-16C 4 2 3


T/W mil FF DA WL

F-16C 0.47 0.37 12.67 126.7

F-35A 0.56 0.37 9.75 108.0




F-35A 36kft 46kft 33kft 34kft


Figure 21 - F-16C vs F-35A Mission Altitudes

With exception of Fuel Fraction, the F-16C is

markedly inferior to the F-35A in all physical

characteristics and this is reflected in the lower

optimum altitudes, lower time on station, and

lower maximum range. The difference in range

at which they can provide two hours of CAP is

nothing short of astounding.

AV-8B vs F-35B:

AIM-120D AIM-9X EFT

AV-8B 4 2 0

F-35B 6 0 0 Figure 22 – AV-8B vs F-35B Payload

T/W mil FF DA WL

AV-8B 0.57 0.31 9.75 110.2

F-35B 0.59 0.28 10.03 103.8



AV-8B 37kft 42kft 36kft 36kft

F-35B 36kft 41kft 36kft 36kft


Figure 24 – AV-8B vs F-35B Mission Altitudes

The AV-8B manages to have better performance

due primarily to its fuel efficient engine. While it

does have inferior Thrust to Weight and Wing

Loading it does have lower drag and a higher

relative fuel load.

F-14D vs F/A-18E:

AIM-120D AIM-9X AIM-54C AIM-7M AIM-9M EFT

F-14D 0 0 2 4 2 2

F/A-18E 4 2 0 0 0 3 Figure 25 – F-14D vs F/A-18E Payload

T/W mil FF DA WL

F-14D 0.48 0.28 20.91 123.3

F/A-18E 0.47 0.41 20.73 120.4



F-14D 33kft 39kft 36kft 36kft

F/A-18E 35kft 44kft 25kft 31kft


Figure 27 – F-14D vs F/A-18E Mission Altitudes

The dynamic nature of the F-14Ds wing means

the optimum altitudes will not follow the same

trend as a traditional wing since once the

optimum speed exceeds 0.7M the wings begin

to sweep back and lose their efficiency. In this

mission profile the Thrust to Weight, Drag, and

Wing Loading are all very similar. In the end the

far greater Fuel Fraction gives the F/A-18E the

edge.

F/A-18C vs F-35C:

AIM-120D AIM-9X EFT

F/A-18C 4 2 3

F-35C 6 0 0 Figure 28 – F/A-18C vs F-35C Payload

T/W mil FF DA WL

F/A-18C 0.46 0.38 13.62 115.1

F-35C 0.50 0.35 12.40 91.2



F/A-18C 36kft 43kft 28kft 33kft



Figure 30 – F/A-18C vs F-35C Mission Altitudes

The lower drag and the lighter Wing Loading

make up for the smaller Fuel Fraction on the F-

35C allowing it to have improved loiter time and

range relative to the F/A-18C.

Escort

The basis of this mission is that as part of a larger military action a hard target is being hit behind enemy

lines. The strike aircraft will ingress at 0.9M at an altitude of 30,000ft, if able, for 390nm. The Escort

plane will match speed, altitude, and distance so that any detection by the enemy will not be able to

distinguish between the bombers and the escort. Each fighter will have missiles for four BVR shots and

will have at least two missiles in reserve for a potential close in fight. All available external tanks will be

used and will be held for the duration of the mission for the non VLO aircraft as they would be reliant on

escort jammers. The VLO aircraft would maximize their stealth for this type of mission and as such will

not carry any fuel tanks. Fuel Fraction and Thrust Loading (Military Rated Thrust in tons over Drag Area

in ft2) will be compared as these two should indicate if a plane can complete the profile as described.

The flight profile being used is maximum power take off followed by military power acceleration to the

military power thrust climb profile speed. The military thrust climb profile will be followed until the

aircraft reaches its optimum cruise altitude. Each aircraft will then perform an optimum cruise to an

initial point 390nm from the target. Each aircraft will ingress at the specified profile of 0.9M at 30,000ft

(if able). The escort fighters will then have a fuel allowance for three 360-degree sustained turns at

0.8M at 30,000ft at maximum power. The aircraft will then exit the combat area with the same profile

they entered with. Each aircraft will then perform a military power climb, as needed, to their optimum

cruise altitude and perform an idle maximum range descent back to base/ship with reserves as specified

in the Intercept section.

F-15C vs F-22A:

AIM-120D AIM-9X EFT

F-15C 4 4 3


FF TL

F-15C 0.43 1.00

F-22A 0.28 2.06


Both the F-15C and the F-22A possess enough fuel and thrust to perform the specified mission profile.

Interesting to note is how little the specific

range seems to vary for the F-22A on ingress:

0.1090 nm/lb cruising at FL420/0.944M vs

0.0957 nm/lb cruising at FL300/0.900M.

Despite having a more efficient fuel flow the F-

22A is outranged in this profile due to the sheer

volume of fuel being carried by the F-15C. The

F-15C has nearly burned more fuel by the time

the combat phase has ended than the F-22A

needs for the entire mission and it still has more

left than the F-22 uses from engine start

through combat phases.

F-16C vs F-35A:

AIM-120D AIM-9X EFT

F-16C 4 2 3


FF TL

F-16C 0.37 0.71

F-35A 0.37 1.44


With an identical Fuel Fraction these two aircraft have remarkably similar performance in this profile.

Both of these dimensionally small aircraft are

able to reach out over 600nm from their base to

hit the target, with the F-35A needing 2800lb

more fuel to accomplish the mission. Of that

extra fuel, 700lb comes from the combat

portion. This is interesting as in this case the F-

35A can perform the three 360-degree turns in

3.26 minutes while the F-16C needs 3.71

minutes.

The F-16C has the option of dropping the

external tanks to lower the drag, which is more

significant than the weight at this point. This

decreases time needed to turn to 3.21 mintues,

saves no fuel in that phase as the turn burns

200lb less fuel but there was still 200lb in the

tanks dropped, increases the non-weapon

consumables cost of the mission four to six

times over*, and puts additional strain on

logistics for planning future missions.

*Assumes $1/lb JP-8 and $20,000-$30,000 per

EFT

AV-8B vs F-35B:

AIM-120D AIM-9X EFT

AV-8B 4 2 0

F-35B 6 0 0 Figure 35 – AV-8B vs F-35B Payload

FF TL

AV-8B 0.31 0.75

F-35B 0.28 1.40


Neither of these aircraft possess the ability to complete the specified mission. The AV-8B lacks the

thrust to make 0.9M and the F-35B lacks the

fuel to maintain that speed and altitude with

enough fuel reserve for combat. As such both

of these aircraft have their performance

plotted for a reduced speed of 0.8M.

The F-35 offers improvements in every way

except total fuel burned. It can fly from

almost 40nm further out to sea. It has far

more agility available for the combat phase,

needing 3.36min to the AV-8Bs 7.15min to

complete three 360-degree turns. All this

despite having a landing weight over five tons

higher than the AV-8Bs starting weight.

F-14D vs F/A-18E:

AIM-120D AIM-9X AIM-54C AIM-7M AIM-9M EFT

F-14D 0 0 2 4 2 2

F/A-18E 4 2 0 0 0 3 Figure 37 – F-14D vs F/A-18E Payload

FF TL

F-14D 0.28 0.79

F/A-18E 0.41 0.68


Neither of these planes are able to complete the mission within the specified parameters. The F-14D

lacks the fuel and the F/A-18E lacks the thrust.

Both of these aircraft will have their

performance measured as if they flew the

mission at 0.8M.

The F-14D is so short on fuel that is begins its

final decent back to the carrier as soon as it

clears the 390nm restriction. The F/A-18E has

4600lb more fuel to carry 9000lb less total

weight. This helps drastically with fuel burn

when both aircraft have nearly the same drag

area.

F/A-18C vs F-35C:

AIM-120D AIM-9X EFT

F/A-18C 4 2 3

F-35C 6 0 0 Figure 39 – F/A-18C vs F-35C Payload

FF TL

F/A-18C 0.38 0.79

F-35C 0.35 1.13


Both aircraft are able to meet the mission parameters. Their performance is again remarkably similar.

Both aircraft are ready to descend to the carrier

once outside of the 390nm egress point. The

wave drag issues of the F-35C begin well before

the 0.9M cruise speed listed here but the F-35C

is able to suffer no operational loss of

performance despite carrying an extra five tons

of weight at all times. Even in turning the F/A-

18C needs 3.16min while the F-35C needs

2.92min.

strike fighters

Documents