Strike Fighters

An analysis of loaded performance in representative

combat scenarios for top-of-the-line Western
manufactured fighter aircraft in a mid-2020 timeframe
by James “Spurts” Nicklin
1 Table of Contents

1 Aircraft .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 6

1.1 Size ......................................................................................... 7

1.2 Load ....................................................................................... 7
1.2.1 Fuel ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7

1.2.2 Systems ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 8

1.2.3 Weapons ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12

1.3 Physical Factors .................................................................... 17

1.3.1 Wing Loading .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 17

1.3.2 Thrust to Weight ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 17

1.3.3 Stability ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17

1.3.4 Drag Area ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 18

1.3.5 Lift Area ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18

2 Performance.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19

2.1 Loaded Flight Envelopes ...................................................... 19

2.1.1 Level Flight ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19

2.1.2 Turn ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 20

2.1.3 Acceleration .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21

2.2 Applied Performance ........................................................... 22

2.2.1 Rutowski Push ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 22

2.2.2 Combat Turns .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 22

2.3 Systems Performance .......................................................... 24

2.3.1 Detection of Aerial threats .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 24
 2.3.2 Aerial Detection Avoidance ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 24

2.3.3 Targeting of Ground Forces ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 24

2.3.4 SAM Threat Avoidance .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 24

2.4 Mission Performance ........................................................... 25

2.4.1 CAP .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 25

2.4.2 Interception .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 25

2.4.3 Deep Strike ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 27

2.4.4 CAS .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 27

2.4.5 Total Scores ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 28

3 Model Validity ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 30

3.1 F-15SA .................................................................................. 30

3.2 F-16V.........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.3 F/A-18E .....................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.4 F-22A.........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.5 F-35A.........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.6 F-35B .........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.7 F-35C .........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.8 Su-35S .................................................................................. 30
2 Table of Figures
No table of figures entries found.
List of Acronyms
A-A Air to Air
AAM Air to Air Missile
A-G Air to Ground
AESA Active Electronically Scanned Array
AMRAAM Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missile
ASRAAM Advanced Short Range Air to Air Missile
ATP Advanced Targeting Pod
ATFLIR Advanced Targeting Forward Looking Infrared
CFT Conformal Fuel Tank
DASS Defensive Aid Sub-System
ECM Electronic Countermeasures
EFT External Fuel Tank
EO/DAS Electro Optical Distributed Aperture Sensor
EOTS Electro Optical Targeting System
EPAAWS Eagle Passive/Active Warning System
FBW Fly-by-Wire
FLIR Forward Looking Infrared
HOBS High Off Boresight
IIR Imagine Infrared
IRST Infrared Search and Track
MAWS Missile Approach Warning System
OSF Optronique Secteur Frontal
PIRATE Passive Infrared Airborne Track Equipment
RCS Radar Cross Section
SABR Scalable Agile Beam Radar
SPECTRA Système de Protection et d'Évitement des Conduites de Tir du Rafale
TGP Targeting Pod
TSFC Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption
TVC Thrust Vectored Control

1 Aircraft
This study will investigate the multi-role capable aircraft to be manufactured by western alliance
countries in the mid 2020’s. The most advanced version of each aircraft with secured funding will
be analyzed, regardless of the nation who purchases the aircraft. The following aircraft will be
investigated in depth across several mission types. All aircrafts performance data will come from a
detailed performance model generated from the sources listed below.
• F-15SA – The most advanced version of the F-15 Eagle in production, being purchased
by Saudi Arabia. This aircraft is equipped with Fly-by-Wire (FBW) controls, additional
wing hardpoints, Conformal Fuel Tanks (CFTs), APG-82(v)1 Active Electronically Scanned
Array (AESA) radar, Eagle Passive/Active Warning System (EPAAWS), and F110-GE-129
engines. Data validated against F-15E -1 using F100-PW-229 data, mild adjustment
made for F110-GE-129 based on HAF-1 for the F-16 to determine difference between
F100 and F110 thrust and fuel burn.
• F-16V – The most advanced version of the F-16 Fighting Falcon in production, being
purchased by Singapore, Taiwan, Bahrain, and Slovakia. This aircraft is equipped with an
APG-83 Scalable Agile Beam Radar (SABR) Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA)
radar, an unnamed advanced Electronic Countermeasures (ECM) suite, and an F110-GE-
129 engine. While the aircraft is capable of utilizing CFTs, only Singapore has purchased
them, thus a Singapore F-16V will be the standard. Data validated against HAF -1 using
F110-GE-129 data and relative F100 data for with/without CFTs.
• F/A-18E – The Block III update for the Super Hornet is being purchased by the United
States. This aircraft is equipped with CFTs, APG-79 AESA radar, an advanced ECM suite,
Advanced Targeting Forward Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) integrated into the centerline
external fuel tank (EFT), Radar Cross Section (RCS) reduction measures beyond those of
the Block II Super Hornet, and F414-GE-400 engines. Data validated against NATOPS
and adjusted for Block III based on published CFT data.
• Typhoon TR3 – The TR3 Typhoon represents the most advanced version of the Typhoon
in production, being purchased by Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia, and the U.K. This
aircraft is equipped with CAPTOR-E AESA radar, Passive Infrared Airborne Track
Equipment (PIRATE) combined Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) and Infrared Search and
Track (IRST), Praetorian DASS ECM suite, and EJ200 engines. While the aircraft is
capable of utilizing CFTs, no customer for the TR3 has purchased them so they will not
be included in the analysis. The U.K. standard will be used. Data validated against
stated performance.
• Rafale M – The M is the Maritime version of the Rafale and represents the most
advanced European carrier-based aircraft being purchased by France. This aircraft is
equipped with RBE2-AA AESA radar, Optronique Secteur Frontal (OSF) IRST, Système de
Protection et d'Évitement des Conduites de Tir du RAfale (SPECTRA) ECM suite, and
M88-s engines. While this aircraft is capable of utilizing CFTs, no customer for the RM
has purchased them so they will not be included in the analysis. Data validated against
stated performance.
• F-22A – The most advanced fighter aircraft produced by the United States, purchased
by the United States Air Force. This aircraft is equipped with an APG-77(v)1 AESA radar,
AN/ALR-94 ECM suite, and AN/AAR-56 Missile Approach Warning System (MAWS), and
F119-PW-100 engines. Data validated against stated performance
• F-35A – The most advanced multi-role aircraft produced by the United States, purchased
by the United States Air Force, Austria, Israel, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, South
Korea, and Turkey. This aircraft is equipped with an APG-81 AESA radar, AAQ-40 Electro
Optical Targeting System (EOTS), AN/AAQ-37 Electro Optical Distributed Aperture
System (EODAS), AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda ECM suite, and F135-PW-100 engines. Data
validated against stated performance.
• F-35B – The most advanced STOVL aircraft produced by the United States, purchased by
the United States Marine Corps, Italy, and the United Kingdom. The U.K. standard will
be used. This aircraft is equipped with an APG-81 AESA radar, AAQ-40 EOTS, AN/AAQ-
37 EODAS, AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda ECM suite, and F135-PW-600 engines. Data
validated against stated performance.
• F-35C – The most advanced carrier based aircraft produced by the United States,
purchased by the United States Navy and Marine Corps. This aircraft is equipped with
an APG-81 AESA radar, AAQ-40 EOTS, AN/AAQ-37 EODAS, AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda ECM
suite, and F135-PW-400 engines. Data validated against stated performance.
This study will use the Su-35S as a threat aircraft as it represents the pinnacle of non-western 4th
generation multirole fighter capability being purchased around the globe.
Each aircraft will be evaluated against several mission sets utilizing realistic payloads, verified by
observing operational capability where possible, and the effect of their various electronic
equipment will be investigated.
 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),
1.1 Size TGP. Light stations typically carry only air to air missiles however Russian ECM systems typically go
Strike and fighter aircraft come in a wide variety of sizes. As with any engineering endeavor there on the wingtip light stations and the Hornet series carries TGP on fuselage mounted light stations.
are tradeoffs to be made in deciding how large of a fighter aircraft to design and it is largely based Heavy stations are typically rated to carry bombs, missiles (both air-to-air and air-to-surface), TGP,
on the primary role of the aircraft. If one lists the pros and cons of large aircraft size the following or ECM pods. Heavy/Wet stations gain the ability to carry external fuel tanks but often lose the
is seen. ability to carry air-to-air missiles. TGP stations are used exclusively to carry additional targeting and
Pros: Cons: navigation equipment. These dedicated stations are only found on the F-16 and the F-15.
more fuel higher fuel burn
more weapons greater basing restrictions
more room for systems reduced agility 1.2.1 Fuel
Fuel is carried both internally and externally for most fighters. External fuel is carried in drop
Aircraft size can be measures many ways such as length (from 72.8ft for the Su-35S to 49.4ft for the tanks mounted to a “heavy/wet” station. The trade-off of external fuel tanks is that while they are
F-16V), span (from 50ft for the Su-35S to 32.7ft for the F-16V), wing area (from 667ft2 for the Su- being carried they add significantly to drag and while they can be dropped they are not very cheap
35S to 300ft2 for the F-16V), or empty weight (from 43,340lb for the F-22A to 21,200lb for the F- and operationally are rarely dropped. Below we will look at each aircrafts internal, external, and
16V). For our purposes we will use Spot Area (length times span) and density (empty weight total fuel loads as well as the number of external stations used for carrying said external fuel load.
divided by Spot Area). A larger Spot Area will indicate greater size for the pro-con list above and a The number in parentheses represents the common fuel tank load used operationally based on
greater density will indicate how tightly packaged everything is. All figures listed will be relative to observable evidence. The aircraft will be sorted based on maximum total fuel weight
the smallest/least dense aircraft.
Table 1 - Aircraft fuel loads
Spot Area Density
Aircraft Internal External Total “H-W”
F-16V – 1.00 Su-35S - 1 F-35B 13,326 0 13,326 0
F-35A – 1.09 F/A-18E - 1.10 TR3 11,020 5,365 16,385 3 (2)
F-35B – 1.09 TR3 - 1.15 F-16V 10,172 7,072 17,244 3 (2)
F-35A 18,498 0 18,498 0
RM - 1.10 F-16V – 1.18
F-35C 19,624 0 19,624 0
TR3 - 1.17 RM - 1.19 RM 10,400 15,260 25,660 5 (2)
F-35C – 1.35 F-15SA – 1.28 F-22A 18,000 8,160 26,160 2 (0)
Su-35S 25,400 7,164 32,554 2 (0)
F/A-18E – 1.66 F-22A – 1.41
F/A-18E 17,900 16,272 34,172 5 (1)
F-15SA – 1.69 F-35C – 1.43 F-15SA 22,300 12,240 34,540 3 (2)
F-22A – 1.71 F-35A – 1.48
Su-35S – 2.26 F-35B – 1.65
Here we see that the F-35 family chose to forgo external tanks altogether while Rafale can more
From this we can see a few interesting date points. The Flanker is very large but relatively light,
than double its fuel load with them.
largely due to the long nose and tail cone. The F-22 and F-35 family are extremely dense as they
have many things internally that most aircraft have externally.

1.2 Load
The public often only sees fighter aircraft at airshows flying with clean wings for maximum
performance. A warplane is no good without a war load, however, so we will look at the fuel load,
 Radar Mode PRF Advantages Disadvantages
1.2.2 Systems
High resolution

1.2.2.1 Radar Track While Scan High- Multi-target tracking Smaller sweep size in mechanical
(TWS) Med radars vs RWS
One of the most common systems associated with tactical aircraft is the radar. Radar uses, in a
Needs to “guess” where the next return
most simplified form, radio waves transmitted through an antenna in the nose and then received
for a target will be.
through the same antenna. Radar has evolved greatly over the ages and continues to evolve. Early
Single Target Low Detailed targeting No other functionality available
fire-control radars allowed for a beyond visual range surprise attack but needed to “lock” a target
Track information
in order to get accurate enough azimuth, elevation, range, heading, and velocity data to guide a
Ground Target Locating and targeting Detecting moving ground targets
missile. This process changed the nature of the radio signal sent. If the enemy aircraft was
Track (GTT) stationary ground Seaborne targets
equipped with a Radar Warning Receiver (RWR) then the RWR was able to distinguish this
objects
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 GMT Locating and targeting Detecting stationary ground targets
(TWS) technology. Using this mode the radar transmitted a normal sweeping scan while noting the moving ground targets Seaborne targets
delta of a targets location on each pass and using that information to derive all the needed data for SEA Location and detecting Detecting land based targets
a weapons lock. A RWR would still detect this signal and let the pilot know an enemy aircraft was seaborne targets
searching for him but not when he was actually under attack. SAR Providing visual map of Size of area, range of map, and
A more recent advancement is that of the Active Electronically Scanned Array (EASA) radar in which ground area using resolution of map are all dependent on
the radar does not have a single large transmitter but hundreds of individual Transmit-Receive (TR) radar radar gain, power, and frequency
modules. These TR modules allow the radar to have as big or small of an antenna as needed for a bandwidth (the same way air-to-air
given task by working in groups. Each group can transmit in unique directions and on separate detection and tracking ranges are)
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 its transmissions, a feature The following will list the specified aircrafts radar systems and what special modes they use. ECCM
referred to as Low Probability of Intercept (LPI), and can likely only be detected by a system of will refer to the ability of the radar system to avoid detection and resist jamming by an opposing
equivalent sophistication. This is supported by numerous statements made about “teen-series” ECM system through the innate use of PRF Jitters and frequency agility. Ranges calculated using
aircraft engaging in BVR training with F-22s (the first LPI AESA equipped fighter) in which none of the AESACalcTrial.xlsx. or here
their systems, radar or RWR, ever detected the F-22. For Very Low Observable (VLO) aircraft this is http://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/08.airborne/karte020.en.html
an important ability as it minimizes the chances of an enemy knowing even the direction from
which the VLO aircraft are attacking. Some AESA radars take the next step and have Electronic
Attack (EA), active jamming, built in to the radar system. Modern radars all have the following Table 3 - Aircraft radars
capabilities and modes Aircraft Radar ECCM EA 1m2 1m2 tracking Radar
detection range range – Display limit
Table 2 - Radar modes range – TWS TWS (assumed)
Radar Mode PRF Advantages Disadvantages F-15SA AN/APG- 8 No 147nm 114nm 200nm
Velocity Search High Med-High Closure Low-No Closure Targets 82(v)1
(VS) Targets No Range info given F-16V AN/APG- 8 Yes 79nm 61nm 160nm
Detection range 68(v)8
double TWS F/A-18E AN/APG-79 8 No 73nm 56mn 160nm
Range While High- All-aspect, All-altitude Subject to clutter at range TR3 CAPTOR-E 8 No 119nm 92nm 200nm
Scan (RWS) Med detection No targeting information Rafale M RBE2-AA 8 Yes 89nm 69nm 160nm
Aircraft Radar ECCM EA 1m2 1m2 tracking Radar Table 4 - ECM modes
detection range range – Display limit ECM Type Technique Advantage Limitation
range – TWS TWS (assumed) Noise Spot Jams specific Frequency agile radars
F-22A AN/APG-77 10 Yes 153nm 119nm 240nm frequency HOJ missiles.
F-35A/B/C AN/APG-81 10 Yes 133nm 104nm 160nm Better “burn
Su-35S Irbis-E 7 No 93nm 72nm 220nm through” resistance
S-400 8 No 234nm 182nm 325nm Barrage Wide bandwidth of Increased “burn through”
jamming range
HOJ missiles
Sweep Wide bandwidth of Frequency agile radars
1.2.2.2 RWR jamming Somewhat increased “burn
The first step in countering radar is to warn the pilot of its presence. To this end Radar Warning Lower power needs through” range
Receivers had become standard equipment in fighter aircraft built after the Vietnam era. Some than barrage HOJ missiles
RWR systems provide little more than general direction to an emitter while others can self- Deceptive Range Gate PO Spoofs range of PRF jitters, frequency agile
geolocate ground-based emitters. The function of a RWR is integrated with the ECM systems in perceived radar track radars
modern aircraft. As such systems that are more or less sensitive may have detection ranges Velocity Gate PO Spoofs Doppler-shift PRF jitters, frequency agile
greater than or less than normal. For the purpose of this comparison normal RWR detection range of radar track radars
will be scaled to the range at which the radar detects a 1m2 target as follows. Active Cancelation Reduces return signal PRF jitters, frequency agile
When ECCM is greater than ECM radars, multiple radars.
RRWR=2*R1/(1+(ECCM-ECM)^2)
When ECM is greater than ECCM
When fighter aircraft began utilizing ECM it started with large external pods. As technology
RRWR=2*R1*(1+(ECM-ECCM)/10)
advanced the pods became smaller. Further advancements allowed the components of the pods to
be placed within the airframe itself. Pods and internal ECM both share the weakness that any
1.2.2.3 ECM missile tracking the jamming signal will still hit the aircraft. This led to the development of
launched or towed decoys. Launched decoys take up ordnance space while modern towed decoys
Other common systems carried by strike fighters are ECM for protection from enemy aircraft and
are deployed from inside the aircraft or inside a pylon. Towed decoys are more limited in the types
ground threats. Before the “Fifth Generation” aircraft these systems were very large and were
of jamming they can perform due to power and waveform restrictions. Simply having a type of
often carried externally in self-contained pods. The below list gives the systems used by the
jamming capability does not imply that the capability can be used. If the ECCM of a radar is
selected aircraft and, if externally carried, what type of station is used to carry it in parentheses.
sufficiently more advanced it allows the radar signals to be more discrete and prevents the ECM
Early ECM technologies involved trying to mask the return signal of the enemy radar in a blanket of
system from even being activated. Again, accounts from “teen-series” vs F-22 BVR training
noise. This is countered by transmitting over a wider range of frequencies causing the power
indicates that even an F-15 gives the pilot no indication that an F-22 is even in the air with them.
output of the jamming to be reduced. Jammers with Digital Radio Frequency Memory can record
Meanwhile, the AN/ASQ-239 suite combined with the APG-81 has been recorded detecting and
incoming radar signals and analyze their pattern in order to jam the right frequency at the right
jamming the signals of an F-22s APG-77. Until such time as other ECM suites can make such claims
time. This allows not only for reduced jamming power, due to being able to utilize narrower
the ECCM value of the APG-77 and APG-81 will only be matched by the AN/ALR-94 and AN/ASQ-
bandwidth, but for more deceptive jamming techniques that may cause the targeting aircraft to
239.
track and lock up a false signal track. If the DRFM is sufficiently more advanced than the radar
signal pattern it can even theoretically send a signal 180 degrees out of phase, reducing the return
signal to possibly undetectable levels. The below table describes some of the ECM modes.
http://www.deagel.com/Protection-Systems.htm
The following is a list of the ECM equipment being carried by the aircraft in this comparison. APG-77 Internal 10 Front Pin Noise and
Deceptive
Table 5 - Aircraft ECM
F-35A AN/ASQ- Internal 10 Full High Noise and
/B/C 239 Deceptive
Aircraft System Location ECM Directional Directional Modes Limitations
level Coverage Gain APG-81 Internal 10 Front Pin Noise and
Deceptive
F-15SA AN/ALQ- Internal 8 Full High Noise and
239(v)2 Deceptive ALE-70 Towed 8 Full Low Noise and Low G, 2-
EPAWSS Deceptive way
datalink
F-16V AN/ALQ- External 7 Full High Noise and
defeat
184 Deceptive
Su-35S Khibiny- Internal 7 Full High Noise and
Unknown Internal 8 Front/Rear High Noise and 10V Deceptive
(AN/ALQ- Deceptive
187 ?)

AN/ALE- Towed 6 Full Low Noise Low G, 2- Effects of ECM vary by the technological level of the ECM equipment and the radar being
50 way jammed. The following chart gives both a baseline effect of Noise jamming for the purpose of this
datalink comparison and the effects of technological capability.
defeat
F/A- AN/ALE- Internal 7 Full Med Noise and Table 6 - ECM effects
18E 214 Deceptive
Adjust from baseline Gain based on ECM-ECCM →
ALE-55 Towed 7 Full Low Noise Low G, 2- Gain Low High Pin
way
Noise added to received signal, 5 15 25 35 45 55 65
datalink
dB
defeat
TR3 DASS Internal 8 Full High Noise and Deceptive impact on missile pK -30% -40% -50% -60% -70% -80% -90%
Deceptive

DASS Towed 8 Full Low Noise and 2-way

Deceptive datalink
defeat
Rafale SPECTRA Internal 8 Full High Noise and
M Deceptive

F-22A AN/ALR- Internal 10 Full High Noise and

94 Deceptive
 EODAS Internal Full spherical 20 nm N/A – Passive
only
1.2.2.4 EO/IR On detection if
Strike aircraft carry Electro-Optical/Infra-Red (EO/IR) systems to assist in navigation, detection, networked
targeting, and identification outside of the use of radar. Detection ranges are based on the ratio of Su-35S OLS-35 Internal Front, limited 19 nm 11 nm
the OLS-35 head on subsonic to rear afterburning ratios. If a system is only listed as having a below
maximum range then it is assumed to be a rear afterburning target. Visual ID of a target can be
assumed to be made at twice the detection range assuming it can be cued by a radar or other
sensor. Targeting range is the maximum laser designation range.
Aircraft EO/IR Location Coverage Detection Range, Targeting
subsonic, head- Range
on
F-15SA Advanced Pod Front/ limited N/A – A-G only 40 nm
Targeting Pod rear, below
(ATP)
Infrared Search ATP Front, limited 26 nm N/A – Passive
and Track (IRST) pylon above only
21
F-16V ATP Pod Front/limited N/A – A-G only 40 nm
rear, below
IRST21 Pod Front, limited 26 nm N/A – Passive
above only
F/A-18E ATP Pod Front/limited N/A – A-G only 40 nm
rear
IRST21 Tank Front, limited 26 nm N/A – Passive
above only
TR3 PIRATE Internal Front, limited 16 nm 12 nm
below
Sniper-XR Pod Front/ limited N/A – A-G only 30 nm
rear, below
Rafale OSF Internal Front, limited 27 nm 12 nm
M below
Damocles Pod Front/ limited N/A – A-G only 9 nm
rear, below
F-22A none
F-35A / EOTS Internal Front/ limited 30 nm 40 nm
F-35B / rear, Below/
F-35C limited above
 The current standard of short-range missile is the AIM-9X. With an Imaging Infrared (IIR) seeker it
is very resistant to traditional flares and it possesses a HOBS capability to lock a target up to 90
degrees off its nose and a TVC system for rapid orientation right off the rail with Datalink to allow
1.2.3 Weapons Lock On After Launch (LOAL).
All the above items are to enable the aircraft to deploy their weapons effectively. Weapons will fall Rated range: 15.6nm 17.0nm 24.9nm
into two major categories: Air to Air and Air to Ground. Pk: 78% 78% 16%
Air to Air weapons again fall into the categories of missiles and cannon. Missiles are typically Nominal Radius: 2,820ft
judged by their speed, range, and turning ability. However, all three of these parameters will vary Warhead: 9.4kg.
greatly based on many factors. Cannons are typically judged by their rate of fire, muzzle velocity, Total Score: 24.1
and weight of the projectile.
Air to Ground weapons keep the cannon, as well as air to ground missiles, and add bombs to the AIM-132
mix. Bombs are judged on their accuracy, range, and weight of charge. The Advanced Short Ranged Air to Air Missile (ASRAAM) was developed by the U.K. during the
same time as the U.S. was developing the AIM-9X and AIM-120. Using a larger rocket motor than
1.2.3.1 Air-to-Air Weaponry the AIM-9, the ASRAAM has improved range and speed relative to the AIM-9X. The missile includes
LOAL capability for extreme HOBS shots, and TVC systems for initial maneuverability.
Rated range: 17.4nm 17.7nm 24.7nm
1.2.3.1.1 Missile Pk: 78% 78% 18%
The Primary air-to-air weapon is the missile. Missiles may be guided by radar or by Infra Red Nominal Radius: 2,480ft
homing. Missiles have limits in seeker range and seeker FOV. Missile ranges are listed as the max Warhead: 10.0kg.
flight range, not launch range, at which a co-altitude 36,000ft launch from a 1.00M shooter against Total Score: 29.5
a target with no evasive maneuvers results in a forward speed of the missile of corner speed, 2.0M,
and 1.0M. The nominal radius is the turn radius at the missiles corner velocity at 36,000ft. The MICA
term Pk will list the probability that the launch, guidance, and detonation functions of a missile The MICA is a French designed missile to replace both the Super 530 and the Magic II. With both
work on any given launch and will decrease in proportion to turning ability remaining at a given IIR and active radar seeker variants, TVC, and LOAL capability through datalink, the MICA is
speed. Radar guided missiles will also have their native ECCM value listed. IR missiles will have a designed to be a threat at close or medium ranges.
value of 5 for IR and 10 for IIR to simulate ECCM values. TVC will be allocated as 2 or 0. A total Rated range: 18.5nm 15.4nm 23.5nm
score will be comprised of all these values taken together as follows. Pk: 78% 78% 35%
Nominal Radius: 1,230ft
(Wh/20)*(ECCM+DL+TVC+IR/10)*(NEZ*Pk+M2r*Pk+M1r*Pk)/(Rad/6080)=score Warhead: 12.0kg.
ECCM: 7
R-73 Total Score: 68.9
The “Archer” missile revolutionized the way dogfight missiles would be designed. This was the first
missile equipped a high off-boresight (HOBS) capability to lock a target up to 60 degrees off its nose
and a Thrust-Vectoring Control (TVC) system for rapid orientation right off the rail. R-77-1
Rated range: 7.5nm 8.1nm 11.2nm The R-77-1 is the Russian answer to the AMRAAM. It is roughly analogous to the AIM-120B in
Pk: 73% 73% 14% capability, but was designed with enhanced maneuverability in mind.
Nominal Radius: 3,010ft Rated Range: 28.3nm 26.1nm 36.4nm
Warhead: 10.5kg. Pk: 73% 73% 22%
Total Score: 13.1 Nominal Radius: 1,890ft
Warhead: 18.1kg.
AIM-9X ECCM: 6
Total Score: 55.8 Tactical aircraft carry droppable countermeasures to help fool missile seekers. Different types
are available to defend against different missile types. This comparison will use the following
R-27ET assumptions. Flares reduce pK of IR missiles by 25% and IIR missiles by 5%. Chaff reduces pK of
The R-27R Alamo was originally analogous to the AIM-7 Sparrow, with the ER being an extended radar guided missiles by 25%. These reductions, along with the Deceptive Jamming reductions, are
rage variant. The use of T instead of R in the designation denotes an IR seeker in the nose instead multiplicative, not subtractive.
of passive radar guidance. The R-27ET was a novel implementation by the Russians to allow both a
medium-ranged fire-and-forget missile and medium-ranged dual-seeker capability, when used in
conjunction with an R-27ER, so that no one countermeasure can fool the incoming missiles.
1.2.3.1.3 Cannon
Rated Range: 20.5nm 20.2nm 28.3nm While the cannon has not been a primary air-to-air armament since the 1950s, and has not been
Pk: 73% 73% 19% used in aerial combat since the 1990s, it nonetheless remains an ubiquitous staple in the fighter jet
Nominal Radius: 2,120ft arsenal. Cannons will be compared on their rate of fire, weight of fire, and range at which the
Warhead: 39kg. round still has a velocity of over 2.0M at 36,000ft when fired from M1 at 36,000ft, for consistency
Total Score: 51.7 with the missile specification. Pk/sec will be defined as follows.

AIM-120D RM2*(RoF/1000+WP/100+WE/10)=PK/s
The AIM-120D is the latest version of the AMRAAM line which combined advanced 2-way
datalinking, improved range through optimized trajectory and guidance, and improved HOBS while GSh-30-1
maintaining a small package in both weight and diameter. A single barrel, short-recoil action cannon developed by the Soviet Union. Used in all Fulcrum and
Rated Range: 62.5/ 63.2/ 84.7nm Flanker fighter aircraft. At 101 pounds and nearly 78 inches in length it is a compact weapon
Pk: 78%/ 78%/ 918% system. It fires a 30x165mm cartridge at a velocity of 2,950 feet per second (fps).
Nominal Radius: 2,790ft M2 Range: 1.0nm
Warhead: 18.1kg. Rate of Fire: 1,500rpm
ECCM: 7 (host radar with two way datalink) Weight, Projectile: 390g
Total Score: 129.3 Weight, Explosive: 48.5g
Pk/sec: 10%
Meteor
The Meteor was developed as a longer ranged option to the AIM-120B. Utilizing a ram-rocket M61A1
engine, it allows for sustained engine use throughout most of the flight, significantly enhancing the The six-barreled Vulcan cannon was designed in 1946 and was first used on the F-104 and has been
No Escape Zone. The added complexity of the propulsion system decreases reliability somewhat used on nearly every US fighter aircraft up to the F-22. It weighs 248 pounds and is nearly 72
compared to traditional missiles. None of the Meteor equipped aircraft in this comparison have 2- inches in length. It fires a 20x102mm cartridge at a velocity of 3,450 feet per second (fps).
way datalink capability with the Meteor. M2 Range: 0.7nm
Rated Range: 89.9nm 119.1nm 137.3nm Rate of Fire: 6,000rpm
Pk: 72% 45% 8% Weight, Projectile: 102.5g
Nominal Radius: 5,510ft Weight, Explosive: 10g
Warhead: 20kg Pk/sec: 5%
ECCM: 7
Total Score: 250.7 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 velocity of 3,450 feet per second (fps).
1.2.3.1.2 Countermeasures M2 Range: 0.7nm
Rate of Fire: 6,600rpm
Weight, Projectile: 102.5g
Weight, Explosive: 10g Type: Land/Sea attack
Pk/sec: 6% Range: 150nm
Speed: 0.88M (0.161nm/s)
GAU-22 Profile: NOE
The GAU-22 is a version of the 25mm Equalizer that uses four barrels instead of five for use in the Warhead: 320kg
F-35. The internal system weighs 416lb while the external system weighs 735lb. The round is fired Total weight: 930kg
at a velocity of 3,560 feet per second. RCS: 1m2
M2 Range: 0.9nm
Rate of Fire: 3,300rpm Kh-31PD
Weight, Projectile: 223g The Kh-31P is a ramjet powered anti-radar missile. It utilizes a passive radar seeker. It is carried by
Weight, Explosive: 21.8g the Su-35S.
Pk/sec: 6% Type: Anti-Radar
Range: 80nm
BK-27 Speed: 2.38M (0.379nm/s)
A single barrel, revolver action cannon developed by the Germans in the 1960s. Used in the Profile: Loft
Typhoon. The cannon weighs 220 pounds and is 91 inches in length. It fires a 27x145mm cartridge Warhead: 87kg
at a velocity of 3,600 feet per second (fps). Total weight: 600kg
M2 Range: 1.1nm RCS: 1m2
Rate of Fire: 1,700rpm
Weight, Projectile: 260g AGM-88E
Weight, Explosive: 27g The AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) is an evolution of the AGM-88
Pk/sec: 8% High speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) that incorporates an active millimeter-wave radar seeker
as well as INS to improve guidance. It is carried by the F-15SA, F-16V, F/A-18E, and Typhoon.
GIAT 30 Type: Anti-Radar
A single barrel, revolver action cannon developed by the French to replace the DEFA series of Guidance: Passive/Active radar with INS
cannons. Used in the Rafale. The cannon weighs 260 pounds and is 94 inches in length. It fires a Range: 80nm
30x150mm cartridge at a velocity of 3,360 feet per second (fps). Speed: 2.0M (0.343nm/s)
M2 Range: 0.9nm Profile: Loft
Rate of Fire: 2,500rpm Warhead: 66kg
Weight, Projectile: 270g Total weight: 355kg
Weight, Explosive: 28g RCS: 0.5m2
Pk/sec: 7%
AGM-88G
The AGM-88G AARGM-ER uses wide body strakes for lift and an improved ram-rocket motor to
double the range and improve speed. This variant is designed for internal carry in the F-35 family
1.2.3.2 Air-to-Ground Weapons with external integration on the F/A-18E.
Type: Anti-Radar
1.2.3.2.1 Missiles Range: 160nm
Speed: 3.0M (0.515nm/s)
Kh-59MK2
Profile: Loft
The Kh-59MK2 is a turbojet powered cruise missile that can target land or sea targets. It utilizes an
Warhead: 66kg
active radar seeker and INS. It is carried by the Su-35S.
Total weight: 325kg
RCS: 0.1m2 Storm Shadow
The Storm Shadow is a turbojet powered cruise missile designed for long range attacks, It uses INS
AGM-84K and IIR for guidance and homing. This system is used by the Typhoon and Rafale.
The AGM-84K Standoff Land Attack Missile-Expanded Response (SLAM-ER) is a heavily modified Type: Land/Sea attack
Harpoon anti-ship missile that incorporates the warhead of the Tomahawk cruise missile. It is Range: 300nm
equipped with folding wings and a nose section optimized for minimum radar return. If the launch Speed: 0.80M (0.146nm/s)
aircraft is equipped with an AN/AWW-13 datalink pod then it can provide man-in-the-loop Profile: NOE
guidance to the missile. It is carried by the F-15SA and F/A-18E. Warhead: 450kg
Type: Land/Sea attack Total weight: 1,300kg
Range: 170nm RCS: 0.05m2
Speed: 0.70M (0.128nm/s)
Profile: NOE
Warhead: 900kg
Total weight: 676kg
1.2.3.2.2 Bombs
RCS: 0.05m2 To be filled in with detail later
2k
SPEAR 1k
The Select Precision Effects At Range (SPEAR) is derived from the Hellfire/Brimstone anti-tank 500#
missile. It is fitted with a small turbojet engine and a high aspect ratio wing kit. It can be carried on SDBI
a four-pack SDB style pallet or a specialized triple-ejector rack designed for LO. This system is used SDBII
by the Typhoon and F-35B. JSOW
Type: Land/Sea attack AASM
Range: 76nm The AASM HAMMER family is superficially similar to the Paveway family of laser guided bombs in
Speed: 0.90M (0.154nm/s) that a guidance and control unit are fitted to a dumb bomb. What makes the HAMMER unique is
Profile: Loft the addition of a small rocket booster. The system is used by the Rafale.
Warhead: 20kg Range: 55km?
Total weight: 100kg
RCS: 0.1m2
1.2.3.3 Surface-to-Air Weapons
AGM-154ER
The Joint Stand-Off Weapon-Extended Range (JSOW-ER) is a JSOW glide bomb that uses INS and IIR
for guidance and homing with an added turbojet engine to increase range. This system is used by 1.2.3.3.1 S-400
the F/A-18E. To be filled in with detail later
Type: Land/Sea attack Detection distance, 600km assume 3m^2 (430km for 1m^2 listed) for RLS “Niobium” S and UHF
Range: 300nm band
Speed: 0.80M (0.146nm/s) For 91N6E 390km 4m^2 , targeting range S band
Profile: NOE 92N6E 400km
Warhead: 300kg Range against aero, 400km
Total weight: 600kg 40N6 400km
RCS: 0.05m2 48N6DM/E3 250km
9M96/E2 120km

1.3 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.
1.3.1 Wing Loading
Wing Loading is a measure of aircraft weight per unit area of wing and is often used to compare
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.
1.3.2 Thrust to Weight
Thrust to Weight is a measure of the combined engines uninstalled sea-level static thrust divided
by the weight of the aircraft and is often used to compare 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 breathing normally. 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.
1.3.3 Stability
Stability comes in two basic forms, Static and Dynamic. Static Stability is the tendency of an
aircraft’s nose to pitch down under normal flight conditions without any load on the pitch control
surfaces. 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 with the 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
statically 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. 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. A statically stable aircraft that uses canards instead of horizontal tails gains these benefits as
well.
The second form of stability is Dynamic Stability. This is the reaction to gusts, or small changes in
angle of attack. An aircraft with positive dynamic stability will naturally reduce AoA if no action is
taken by the pilot. An aircraft with negative dynamic stability will begin increasing AoA. Both
stability factors vary with AoA.
The F-15SA is a plane that has neutral static stability and positive dynamic stability. A TR3 or Rafale
have positive static stability and negative dynamic stability, The F-22 is a plane with negative static
and dynamic stability. Without FBW controls it would be uncontrollable. All aircraft in this
comparison have FBW controls and can be considered to have no negative trim drag effects when
subsonic.
 examine turning ability below corner velocity. At the lowest speeds there are controllability issues
1.3.4 Drag Area
but that is outside the scope of this review. Weight for wing loading and lift loading will be clean at
So just as we have seen how stability can have positive or negative impacts on aircraft performance
a 20% fuel fraction (20% of total weight is fuel).
we shall now also look at airframe drag. Drag always has a negative impact. The primary factors
Aircraft Wing Area Wing Loading Lift Area Lift Loading
for drag are the raw surface area and shaping. More surface gives more skin friction but this is
F-15SA 608 76.1 997 46.4
mitigated on aircraft designed for large degrees of radar stealth as the required surface tolerances
F-16V 300 84.2 330-501 80.2-50.4
result in a dramatically smoother surface. Shaping based drag can be intersections between
F/A-18E 500 78.8 975 40.4
surfaces or antennae sticking up from the surface and even the angle at which a surface meets the
TR3
airflow. Again, airframe drag is found using the Idle Descent charts where available, elsewise found
Rafale M
with wind tunnel data or experimentally matching the benchmark specifications. Drag Area will be
F-22A 840 64.5 2016 26.9
the Zero-Lift Drag Coefficient multiplied by the reference wing area and represents the flat plate
F-35A 460 79.1 874 41.6
area in square feet of the clean aircraft (no CFTs). Weights for T/W ratio will be clean at a 20% fuel
F-35B 460 87.8 874 46.2
fraction (20% of total weight is fuel).
F-35C 620 70.2 1302 33.4
Subsonic Transonic Supersonic Installed Su-35S 668 75.9 1236 41.0
Aircraft Base T/W
Drag Area Drag Area Drag Area T/W
Note: CLmax values for F-35 series taken from analysis data implying values of 1.91 and 2.1 for the
F-15SA 11.69 28.29 25.72 1.38 1.08
A/B and C respectively based on calculations of lift enhancing effects. A value of 2.4 was used for
F-16V TBD the F-22A based on the statement it could execute a 750 foot radius turn at low level.
F/A-18E TBD
TR3 TBD
Rafale M TBD
F-22A TBD
F-35A TBD
F-35B TBD
F-35C TBD
Su-35S 12.01 23.78 21.62 1.26 1.02

1.3.5 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, wind tunnel data, Computational Fluid Dynamics study, or an
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 and F-35 are anomalies here in that they reduce their max angle of
attack as speed increases and as such their maximum value of CLmax changes. This study shows the
difference of the values for CLmax and Gmax 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
 2.1.1 Loaded Flight Configurations
2 Performance
So far this study has looked at the different physical aspects of a plane and the systems onboard. 2.1.1.1 F-15SA
These physical characteristics do not exist in a vacuum however. We will now look at a few
performance parameters for the planes in this study and how they compare with different Clean:
loadings. Wt: 41,900lb DI/DA: 0/11.7 WL/LL: 69.0/42.1 FF: 0.18
T/W: 0.49 (T-D)/W: 0.39 RCS: 25.1

2.1 Loaded Flight Envelopes Air: CFT, 2xAIM-9X, 6xAIM-120D, 2xWing pylons and 4xLaunchers, ATP, IRST21, 2 dropped EFTs, 5s
Flight Envelopes will be shown for aircraft in four configurations. The intent is to show the cannon ammunition.
degradation in performance of an aircraft loaded for different types of missions. Level Flight will Wt: 61,715lb DI/DA: 69/15.9 WL/LL: 101.5/61.9 FF: 0.30
show speed and altitude performance with different loadings, Turn will show Instantaneous and T/W: 0.34 (T-D)/W: 0.22 RCS:26.9
Sustained turn rates at 20,000ft altitude, and Acceleration will show 0.8-1.2M acceleration at
30,000ft. Ground: CFT, 2xAIM-9X, 2xAIM-120D, 2xHARM, 4xLJDAM, 4xWing pylons and launchers, ATP,
IRST21, 2 dropped EFTs, 5s cannon ammunition.
Clean will be an aircraft with no external stores or CFTs and 60% of internal fuel. Wt: 64,865lb DI/DA: 90/17.1 WL/LL: 107/65.1 FF: 0.28
T/W: 0.32 (T-D)/W: 0.19 RCS: 28.6
Air will be an aircraft loaded with a standard air-to-air loaded of radar and IR guided missiles as well
as any targeting pods, ECM pods, and pylons needed for dropped external tanks. Fuel states will Max: CFT, 1xEFT, 2xAIM-9X, 2xAIM-120D, 4xSDB I pallets, 4xSDB II pallets, 4xWing pylons and
represent 60% of take-off fuel or full internal fuel, whichever is less with any EFTs being dropped. launchers, ATP, IRST21, 5s cannon ammunition.
Wt: 70,437lb DI/DA: 147/20.5 WL/LL: 116/70.6 FF: 0.23
Ground will be an aircraft loaded with two radar guided and two IR guided missiles, two ranged T/W: 0.29 (T-D)/W: 0.12 RCS: 34.7
strike munitions for SEAD, at least four other air-to-ground munitions, targeting pods, ECM pods,
and any external tanks needed. Fuel states will represent 60% of take-off fuel with any EFTs being
dropped. Note that this will not represent the heaviest or highest drag bomb load able to be
2.1.1.2 Su-35S
carried and is instead designed to be roughly uniform across platforms. The Su-35S will be unique Clean:
in not matching this load as it is an adversarial aircraft only. Wt: 55,810lb DI/DA: 0/12.0 WL/LL: 83.7/45.2 FF: 0.27
T/W: 0.49 (T-D)/W: 0.40 RCS: 9
Max will be an aircraft loaded with two radar guided and two IR guided missiles, and the draggiest
combination of munitions and tanks that get the aircraft to gross weight. Fuel states will represent Air: 2xR-73, 2xR-77, 2xR27ET, 6xWing pylons and launchers, Khibiny ECM pods, 5s cannon
60% of take-off fuel. This is to show the maximum performance degradation possible. ammunition.
Wt: 59,709lb DI/DA: 60/16.0 WL/LL: 89.5/48.4 FF: 0.26
The following data points will be reviewed for each loading: T/W: 0.45 (T-D)/W: 0.33 RCS: 13.6
• Weight of the aircraft
• Drag Index/Drag Area Ground: 2xR-73, 2xR-77, 2xKh-59MK2, 6xWing pylons and launchers, Khibiny ECM pods, 5s
• Wing Loading/Lift Loading cannon ammunition.
• Fuel Fraction Wt: 63,032lb DI/DA: 85/21.7 WL/LL: 94.5/51.1 FF: 0.24
• Thrust to Weight ratio using installed engine thrust at 0.85M at 36,000ft T/W: 0.43 (T-D)/W: 0.22 RCS: 14.6
• Excess T/W ratio using installed engine thrust at 0.85M at 36,000ft
• Radar Cross Section Max: 2xR-73, 2xR-77, 2xKh-31, 2xKAB-250, 4xFAB-250, 10xWing pylons and launchers, Khibiny
ECM pods, 5s cannon ammunition.
Wt: 65,964b DI/DA: 145/21.7 WL/LL: 98.5/53.2 FF: 0.23
T/W: 0.41 (T-D)/W: 0.21 RCS: 17.8
2.1.2.2 Su-35S

2.1.2 Level Flight

2.1.2.1 F-15SA

2.1.3 Turn at 20,000ft

2.1.3.1 F-15SA
 2.1.3.2 Su-35S 2.1.4.2 Su-35S

2.1.4 Acceleration 0.8-1.2M @30,000ft

2.1.4.1 F-15SA
 2.2.2 Combat Turns
2.2 Applied Performance Combat aircraft do not sit at one speed and G location during a turn. The amount of pull used by
The above information makes for some reasonable comparisons. What it does not do, however, is the pilot varies with the situational need. Here all aircraft will be shown in an Air configuration, as
account for how things change dynamically during flight. The below performance will account for described previously. Bingo fuel is described as a fuel state of three times the reserves remaining.
changes in speed and altitude.
Minimum reposition time will measure time to recover initial energy state following 180 turn
starting at max range speed and altitude. This will often be performed at best sustained rate.
2.2.1 Rutowski Push
Not all aircraft will start their accelerations from 0.8M and 30,000ft. We will look at acceleration Minimum time to get the nose on target. For comparison an Su-35 with an Air configuration will
from Max End speed and altitude with an Air configuration, as described in Loaded Flight Envelopes be set up for a classic “3-9” pass from 0.5nm into a two-circle fight starting at 50nm conditions
above. All aircraft will unload to as much as 15 degrees nose down, provided they have the vertical from the Rutowski push. Maximum G and AoA will be available as whoever gets the missile shot
space available, and accelerate to their supersonic best rate of climb. At this point they then climb off first has the best chance to survive. The turn will begin with maximum G and CLmax with any
back up to 40,000ft while accelerating to best forward speed, unless a placard limit is reached in additional AoA, if available, to be used only when it will allow the shot to be taken. Once the shot
which case the aircraft will resume climbing, until a fuel remaining state equal to three times the is taken the turn will end to allow speed to build back up. Turn will end after 60 seconds, with the
reserves are met. best difference in time between firing solutions and ability to recover energy being scored.
The following data will be recorded: Time to 50nm, Time remaining at current fuel flow, Altitude at Altitude will be traded for turn energy or position as needed. As the F-15SA is the baseline, each
50nm, Speed at 50nm. Altitude and Speed will have a “+” annotation at the end to show if it they second better or worse will be a point and each 1e5 ft2/s2 better or worse will be a point.
are still increasing, for reference only.
Minimum radius turn. This is when a pilot needs to cash in their chips. The initial pull will be as
aggressive as possible to CLmax AoA and speed and altitude will rapidly bleed off. Setup will also be
2.2.1.1 F-15SA Air configured aircraft after the Rutowski as far as load and fuel only. For comparison, an Su-35
• Time to 50nm: 238s (10pts) with an Air configuration will be set up as an escort mission (.85M @ 36,000ft) that went south
• Time remaining: 8.2min (10pts) from a 0.5nm beam position. Turn will end after 15 seconds.
• Altitude at 50nm: 50,187ft+ (15pts)
• Speed at 50nm: 1.400M (15pts)
• Total Score (50pts) 2.2.2.1 F-15SA
• Notes: Initial conditions were 0.84M at 39,000ft. Fuel used was 4,425lb. • Minimum reposition time: 60.0s (15pts)
o Initial Conditions
• 0.85M
2.2.1.2 Su-35S • 39,000ft
• Time to 50nm: 225s (11pts) • Minimum Nose on Target: -0.2s (10pts)
• Time remaining: 3.1min (4pts) • Specific Energy Recovered after shot: 1e5 ft2/s2 (10pts)
• Altitude at 50nm: 40,000ft (12pts) o Having a higher altitude and a 30 degree advantage in off-boresight
• Speed at 50nm: 1.757M+ (19pts) capability is not enough to ensure that the heavier F-15SA is able to edge out
• Total Score (45pts) the Flanker, which starts out faster and with 10 degrees more available AoA,
• Notes: Initial conditions were 0.76M at 37,000ft. Fuel used was 3,607lb. in the two-circle fight.
• Average Minimum Radius: 3,735ft (15pts)
o The F-15SA is falling through 34,250ft while 39 degrees nose down with
speed stabilized at .452M, 40 AoA, and 2.1G for a final 2,840ft radius and just
shy of 9.0 degrees per second turn.
• Total Score (50pts)
 2.2.2.2 Su-35S
• Minimum reposition time: 41.4s (22pts)
o Initial Conditions
• 0.75M
• 38,000ft
• Minimum Nose on Target: 0s by default (10pts)
• Specific Energy Recovered after shot: 3e5 ft2/s2 (12pts)
o The high available thrust at altitude allows the Flanker to recover energy
quickly.
• Average Minimum Radius: 3,211ft (17pts)
o The Su-35S is falling through 35,500ft while 21 degrees nose down with
speed stabilized at .469M, 24AoA, and 2.6G for a final 2,310ft radius and
around 11.3 degrees per second turn.
• Total Score (61pts)
 Tracked: 137nm/41nm (7pts)
RWR range: 186nm (9pts)
2.3 Systems Performance Total Score: (23pts)
This section will focus on the summation of what the Systems do to allow Blue air to counter Red
forces. We will look at relative detection and tracking distances. While the Su-35S is the Red Air
target for this analysis it will be included for comparison purposes. Detection and Tracking 2.3.3 Targeting of Ground Forces
distances will be Unjammed/Jammed to show the difference, but Jammed will be scored. This will look at the ability of the sensors to detect and track a ground vehicle with an RCS of
500m^2 to represent an S-400 battery or radar site. Ground targets will be assumed to have 35dB
of receive noise.
2.3.1 Detection of Aerial threats
This will look at the ability of the sensor suite to overcome the defenses of the sensors onboard an
Su-35S with an Air loadout. 2.3.3.1 F-15SA
Detection: 89nm RF, 40nm IR (10pts)
Track: 69nm RF, 40nm IR (10pts)
2.3.1.1 F-15SA Total Score: (20pts)
Detection: 200nm(inst limit)/113nm (10pts)
Tracking: 200nm(inst limit)/88nm (10pts)
Su-35S RWR range: 147nm 2.3.3.1 Su-35S
Total Score: (20pts) Detection: 71 nm RF, 16.3nm IR (8pts)
Track: 55nm RF, 16.3nm IR (8pts)
Total Score: (16pts)
2.3.1.1 Su-35S
Detection: 176nm/ 53nm (5pts)
Tracking: 137nm/41nm (5pts)
Su-35S RWR range: 186nm 2.3.4 SAM Threat Avoidance
Total Score: (10pts) This will look at the ability of the defensive suite to deny an S-400 system the ability to detect and
track the Blue force striker in a Ground or Max loadout, whichever has the more comprehensive A-
G load.

2.3.2 Aerial Detection Avoidance

This will look at the ability of the defensive suite to deny an Su-35S the ability to detect and track 2.3.4.1 F-15SA
the Blue force strike fighter in an Air configuration. Detected: 325nm(inst limit)/103nm (10pts)
Tracked: 325nm(inst limit)/80nm (10pts)
RWR range: 298nm (10pts)
2.3.2.1 F-15SA Total Score: (30pts)
Detected: 209nm/31nm (10pts)
Tracked: 162nm/24nm (10pts)
RWR range: 205nm (10pts) 2.3.4.1 Su-35S
Total Score: (30pts) Detected: 325nm(inst limit)/148nm (7pts)
Tracked: 325nm(inst limit)/115nm (7pts)
RWR range: 149nm (5pts)
2.3.2.1 Su-35S Total Score: (19pts)
Detected: 176nm/53nm (7pts)

2.4 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.
For analyses involving missile shots, no aircraft will take evasive action. Instead Blue and Red
forces will “joust” toward the pass relying on onboard defensive systems to protect them. Pk for
each shot will be calculated and the total end event odds calculated. A missiles Pk will equal the
rated value if the missile reached the target at or above corner velocity. The missiles Pk will
decrease in accordance with G available at intercept against maximum G possible. This will account
for potential evasive maneuvers.
The Su-35 will not be graded in this section as it only exists as an adversary.
2.4.1 Interception
This is a common mission for assets on Air Sovereignty missions in the air-to-air configuration. The
purpose of this mission is to rapidly close to visual range with an unknown aircraft detected by
early warning assets 300nm out enroute to penetrate notional airspace, 25nm from “base”. A
period of 5 minutes will be spent on the ground as QRA spools up for takeoff. The targets will be
Su-35S in Ground configuration traveling at 7.85nm/minute. The Interceptors will need to be able
to ID the carriage of the Kh-59MK2 missiles. The Kh-59MK2s will be considered fired if the Su-35S
reaches 150nm from base. Items for score will be as follows.
• Distance from base that threat is identified. Gives indication of time available to plan a
course of action. 150nm will be 25 points. 1 point per nm difference.
• Distance from base the threat is intercepted. Gives indication of when visual show of
force can be provided. 150nm will be 25 points. 5 points per nm difference.
2.4.1.1 F-15SA
• Distance from base threat is VID’ed 175nm (50pts)
• Distance from base threat is intercepted. 155nm (50pts)
• Even with a 1.40M limit imposed by the CFT stores and a staggering 73,000lb take-off
weight the F-15SA is able to climb to maximum forward speed at 35,000ft in just under
four minutes after take off. Climbing at just under 1.4M, the F-15SA reaches almost
44,000ft before emptying the two wing tanks. Once they are jettisoned, the Eagle
quickly reaches its absolute ceiling for the speed of 1.391M of 47,000ft, from which
point it begins to drift upward as fuel is burned off. By the time the Su-35S is
intercepted the F-15SA is 154nm from base and still has 12,400lb of usable fuel during a
potential fight. The Su-35S only has 5,800lb of usable fuel for a potential fight.
• Total (100pts)
2.4.2 CAP
This is a common mission set for an air-to-air configured strike fighter. The purpose of the mission
is to project a persistent presence with which to defend other Blue assets from aerial assault. Due
to Interception of Su-35S with Kh-59MK2 missiles, CAP is being established 150nm from base.
Aircraft in CAP will detect incoming Air configured Su-35S and will initiate a Rutowski Push with a
speed target of max climb rate to the ceiling altitude. If CAP altitude is less than that for best
forward speed then a profile climb to combat ceiling will be performed prior to the push maneuver.
The CAP aircraft configuration will be Air except that any external fuel tanks will be retained until
empty or the Rutowski push begins, whichever is later. Once the Su-35 detects the CAP aircraft
they will also initiate a Rutowski Push but from best range conditions instead of max endurance
conditions.
Once tracking and max range missile parameters (1.0M final missile speed) are met then missile
shots will be taken. Missiles will be fired in pairs 5 seconds apart. Follow-up missiles will not be
fired until after the previous shot pair is resolved. Per doctrine, the Su-35S will fire an R-27ET after
each R-77-1 when able. All remaining BVR missiles will be fired 5nm prior to the merge. Each shot
will have a calculated pK based on the basic missile pK, the closure rate at the last second, the
dynamic pressure on the missile relative to dynamic pressure needed for best turn, and any ECM or
droppable CM available.
No evasive maneuvers will be considered in this analysis. In general, evasive maneuvers will
increase the odds of surviving a given shot at the cost of being more vulnerable to followup shots
and increasing the difficulty in getting a shot off. The BVR portion will be treated as a missile joust
to showcase system effectiveness and magazine depth.
Once merged, WVR missile and gun shots will be taken “simultaneously” to emphasize how lethal
WVR combat is. Missile shot pK will be based on the basic missile pK, relative total energy at the
merge, relative max trimmed AoA, relative Max Off-Boresight capability, and relative Lift Loading.
These are the aspects that effect the ease of putting the weapons system on target. These are the
aspects that effect the ability to manage remaining energy after the missile shots. Gun shot pK will
be determined by the basic pK/second of the cannon, relative total energy at the merge, relative
Wing Loading, and relative excess thrust over weight at .85M @ 36,000ft as a turning fight will drop
in speed and altitude. Equal numbers of CAP and Su-35s will be assumed for the purpose of
counting missiles.
Items for score will be as follows:
• Endurance at Max Endurance flight speeds and altitude a while maintaining a 150nm
radius.
• Distance from base that first blue missile strikes red air.
• A score combining the weighted end-event outcome percentages, based on missile shot
Pk.
o Aggressor destroyed, CAP survives (+132*probability)
 o Aggressor survives, CAP survives (+66*probability) • T:397s First AIM-120D pair reaches the Su-35S. The Khibiny tries to jam the onboard
o Aggressor destroyed, CAP destroyed (+33*probability) radar of the AMRAAM and deploy chaff but this is resisted by the 2-way datalink to the
o Aggressor survives, CAP destroyed (+0*probability) more sophisticated APG-63(v)3. The effect of this is that each missiles pK is reduced
o Probability events are the cumulative, decreasing, probability that any from 78% to 42%. The overall pK of the two shots is 66%. The Eagle pilot fires a second
outcome occurs. With each potential missile hit the odds of the next launch AIM-120D salvo and the Flanker pilot fires an R-77 and an R-27ET. Irbis-E reacquires the
decrease. F-15SA at just under 42nm, but it not able to generate a firing solution.
While Max Endurance flight regimes are generally too slow and too high for best maneuvering • T:421s The Irbis-E locks the F-15SA in narrow FoV mode from 32.4nm. The Flanker
performance this is mitigated by the fact that the extra altitude can allow for a rapid increase in pilot fires one R-77 and one R-27ET from 1.62M at 50,000ft.
speed. • T:443s The second AMRAAM salvo reaches the Su-35S with the same overall effects
as the first salvo. The F-15SA flying at 1.4M at 51,300ft fires a third salvo of AIM-120Ds.
• T:457s The first salvo from the Flanker reaches the Eagle with each missile having a
2.4.2.1 F-15SA nominal pK of 73%. The EPAAWS is able to reduce the pK of the R-77 to 20% through
• Endurance: 214min (30pts) jamming and chaff but is unable to effect the R-27ET. Flares drop the pK of the R-27ET
• Range of Engage: 270nm (30pts) to 55%. The overall pK of the salvo is 64%. The Su-35S flying 1.65M at 50,020ft fires a
• Engagement Score: 100 (40pts) second mixed salvo. Range is 11nm by the time the last missile is fired.
o Aggressor destroyed, CAP survives: 71.2% • T:467s The third AMRAAM salvo reaches the Su-35S with the same effect as the
o Aggressor survives, CAP survives: 0.0% previous salvos A few seconds later the second salvo from the flanker reaches the F-
o Aggressor destroyed, CAP destroyed: 19.1% 15SA with the same overall effects as the first salvo.
o Aggressor survives, CAP destroyed: 9.7% • T:488s Merged. At current speeds and altitudes both aircraft have several minutes
• T:0 Irbis-E gets first look of F-15SA from 209nm. This is beyond the range of the of time in afterburner before needing to RTB. Both are equipped with two missiles and
RWR function of the EPAAWS due to the large RCS of the Eagle. Flanker pilot begins roughly five seconds of cannon ammo. Probability of both aircraft surviving to the
Rutowski push from his cruise condition of 0.84M at 38,500ft. merge is roughly 0.5%. Probability of both aircraft surviving the merge is under one in
• T:25s EPAAWS detects Irbis-E transmissions and begins jamming. F-15SA pilot ten thousand.
aware of direction of incoming Flanker. Merge Table F-15SA Su-35S
• T:43s APG-63(v)3 detects the Su-35S from a range of 200nm, the display limit of Afterburner time 14.0 min 8.8 min
the radar. The radar already has a weapons grade track but the range exceeds the Total Specific Energy 2.57 Mft2/s2 2.93 Mft2/s2
effective missile range. Eagle pilot beigns Rutowski push from .85M at 37,000ft. Max Trimmed AoA 40 degrees 50 degrees
• T:105s Eagle pilot drops the empty EFTs while climbing back up through 32,500ft Max Off-Boresight 90 degrees 60 degrees
after diving to reach 1.3M Wing Loading 94.3 lb/ft2 83.4 lb/ft2
• T:173s At 147nm distance, the Khibiny system is able to detect the transmissions of Lift Loading 57.5 lb/ft2 45.1 lb/ft2
the APG-63(v)3 and begins jamming. (T-D)/W 0.85M@36kft 0.25 0.38
• T:250s APG-63(v)3 reacquires Su-35S at 113nm, but is not able to generate a firing Missile/Cannon shots (pK) 2/5 (73%/4%) 2/5 (55%/10%)
solution.
•
• T:304s APG-63(v)3 reacquires lock on Su-35S at 88nm. At this time the F-15SA is
• Total (100pts)
flying 1.40M at 49,320ft and the Su-35S is flying 1.50M at 50,390ft. The Eagle pilot fires
• Discussion: The large RCS of the Eagle allows early detection by the Flanker, but the
the first pair of AIM-120Ds as the combined closure speed of 2.9M and high altitude
combination of powerful radar and EW means the F-15SA pilot enjoys a comfortable
puts this comfortably within launch parameters.
margin on the first shot, so much so that “first-kill” may occur prior to the Su-35S
• T:374s OLS-35 detects the supersonic F-15SA at a range of 55nm but is unable to
engaging at all. The ECM/ECCM advantage of the Eagle also means its radar guided
generate a firing solution due to the 11nm limitation of the laser. Irbis-E begins narrow
missile shots enjoy a significant pK advantage, but in the end this is largely mitigated by
FoV search
the Russian doctrine for firing radar and IR missile pairs. In this situation, the R-27ET has
 the highest individual missile pK as it is immune to RF jamming and no fighter aircraft as soon as it crosses the radar horizon. This allows it to be undetected until 101nm. Once the F-
carries DIRCM. 15SA is within 78nm it is fired upon with one 40N6 missile and one 48N6 missile. However the
AGM-88E has a range of 80nm allowing the F-15SA to fire from outside the engagement range of
the S-400. Continued jamming by the EPAAWS reduces the detection range of the HARM to 47nm.
2.4.3 Deep Strike With a speed of 0.343nm/s the HARM will be exposed for 137s. With four 9M96 being fired in pairs
Strike back on S-400 site. S-400 will engage when able on both aircraft (with two 40N6 and two at each of four AGM-88Es the individual odds of success for the 9M96 pairs are 65% with total odds
48N6 per plane) and munitions (four 9M96 per munition). Fuel tanks will be dropped once empty that any given HARM is destroyed at 88%. Assuming each HARM has its own pK of 78%, this means
for flight planning and all air-to-ground munitions will be planned to be dropped. Strike package the SEAD mission only has a 32.1% chance of success. If the F-15SAs continue to press on to strike
will be two ship.. Items for score will be as follows: the target they will be fired upon by two salvos that each consist of a 40N6 and a 48N6. The total
• Max flight radius - Assumes all Air-Ground munitions are spent during combat and odds of a given plane surviving through to strike the target directly in the event of SEAD failure is
three minutes afterburner use at combat altitude 29.5%. Taken together with the odds of SEAD success, the SEAD failure outcomes are as follows:
• Degrees of sustained turn – three minutes maintaining constant speed 5.9% odds both planes make it to the target, 28.2% one or the other plane makes it to the target,
• Max launch range – Max range of munition from launch conditions 33.7% odds neither makes it to the target.
• Min safe launch range – Range at which S-400 can lock the attacking aircraft
• SEAD Odds of Success – based on ability of SEAD munitions to get through to the target
• Total mission Odds of Success – Sum of SEAD odds of success plus odds one or both
aircraft make it to the target in the event of SEAD failure.
2.4.4 CAS
The primary role of airpower is to help the troops on the ground. In no mission is that more
apparent than that of Close Air Support. The “stack” will be assumed to be 300nm from the base
2.4.3.1 F-15SA with final RTB distance equal to 350nm. For fuel purposes planes will have been in the stack for 30
For the Deep Strike mission the F-15SA will be using two HARM missiles for SEAD and four 500ln minutes at Max End before getting the call, at which point they will accelerate in full Mil power to
LJDAMs to strike ground targets. It will have the following stats when in the combat phase. 15,000ft toward the target area. Time on station will be at 15,000ft at .7M. Items for score will be
as follows:
Deep Strike: CFT, 2xEFT (dropped), 2xAIM-9X, 2xAIM-120D, 2xHARM (fired), 4xLJDAM, 4xWing • Reaction time to a call for support 50 miles away
pylons and launchers, ATP, IRST21, 5s cannon ammunition, 0.83M @ 37,000ft. • Max time on station after having spent 30 minutes in the stack. Assumes all munitions
Wt: 60,577lb DI/DA: 86/16.9 WL/LL: 99.6/60.8 FF: 0.26 are dropped
T/W: 0.31 (T-D)/W: 0.19 RCS: 27.9 • Number of munitions available for strike.
o Droppable
• Max flight radius: 908nm (25pts) ▪ ToF
• Degrees of turn: 639o (10pts) o Forward Firing
• Max launch range: 80nm (10pts) • Max time between munitions. The lower this number the harder it is for the CAS
• Min safe launch range: 78nm (10pts) aircraft to be able to hit max ToS and release all munitions.
• SEAD Odds of Success: 32.1% (20pts)
• Mission Odds of Success: 66.3% (25pts) 2.4.4.1 F-15SA
o Total (100pts)
For the CAS mission the F-15SA will have a total of eight pallets of SDBs and 5 seconds of cannon
Based on the differential data for the F110 vs the F100 the already impressive range of a Strike fire. Once on station the F-15SA will have the following stats.
Eagle is enhanced by the F-15SA. The RCS of the F-15SA means the S-400 system can detect it from Wt: 66,303lb DI/DA: 132/19.7 WL/LL: 109/66.5 FF: 0.18
a theoretical distance of 445nm, beyond the instrumentation limit of the system of 325nm. This T/W: 0.59 (T-D)/W: 0.44 RCS: 34.6
detection range is further reduced by the radar horizon of 252nm for the ingress altitude. 252nm is
within the RWR/ECM range of the EPAAWS of 298nm, meaning the F-15SA is able to jam the S-400 • Reaction time: 5.4min (25pts)
 • Max ToS: 36.9min (30pts)
• Number of munitions: 37 (30pts)
o SDB: 32
▪ ToF 24sec
o M61A1: 5sec
• Max time between munitions: 60sec (15pts)
o Total (100pts)

2.5 Total Scores

A summation of all the scores such that the overall ability of an aircraft to perform strike and
fighter roles in a high threat environment.

2.5.1 F-15SA
• Applied Performance (100pts)
o Rutowski Push (50pts)
o Combat Turns (50pts)
• Systems Performance (100pts)
o Detection of Aerial Threats (20pts)
o Avoidance of Aerial Threats (30pts)
o Detection of SAM Threat (20pts)
o Avoidance of SAM Threat (30pts)
• Mission Performance (400pts)
o Interception (100pts)
o CAP (100pts)
o Deep Strike (100pts)
o CAS (100pts)

2.5.2 Su-35S
• Applied Performance (106pts)
o Rutowski Push (45pts)
o Combat Turns (61pts)
• Systems Performance (68pts)
o Detection of Aerial Threats (10pts)
o Avoidance of Aerial Threats (23pts)
o Detection of SAM Threat (16pts)
o Avoidance of SAM Threat (19pts)

3 Model Validity
The study will be done using an excel model for aircraft performance. The model will be calibrated
by using available data. The reason for using the model instead of Flight Manuals, where available,
is that the model allows calculated performances not covered in the FMs, such as super-sonic
climbs, Rutowski pushovers, and loadouts not implicitly specified (a common issue on
McDD/Boeing fighters).
Model validity will review the accuracy of the model by measuring the standard deviation of the
calculated data points vs the expected results. Additionally, the more data points will increase the
confidence. Confidence will be calculated as 1-(1/[#datapoints]^0.5). For each set of data, the
deviation will be subtracted from the confidence value for a set validity. The average of all set
validities will equal the total model validity.
3.1 F-15SA
The F-15E-1 provides a wealth of information including several parameters to use as a basis of
comparison for the model of a F100-PW-229 powered F-15E. The validity reviewed here will be for
a -229 powered F-15E. Minor adjustments are made to the thrust profile to account for the F110-
GE-129 as used in the report, but no validation material is available. OWS will not be considered
for simplicity. The A-G load referenced is twelve Mk82s, four AAMs, LANTIRN, CFT, and centerline
fuel tank
3.1.1 Fuel Burn
Speed, altitude, and fuel flow for both Max Endurance and Max Range were calculated by the
model and calibrated against the flight manual but were then adjusted per the HAF F-16 manual to
account for the difference between the F100 and the F110 fuel burn performance. Two
configurations were used for calibration, A-G at 68,400lb and clean at 43,600lb, for a total of twelve
data points.
The model factors involved are the subsonic form drag model, weapon drag model, drag
divergence Mach number model, induced drag model, and the TSFC model. Deviation cannot be
calculated so will be conservatively assumed to be 5% at 71.1% confidence for 67.5% validity.
3.1.2 Lift and e
The CL alpha curve and the Oswald’s efficiency factor were taken from or calculated from NASA
wind tunnel data. This was used to generate the lift model and the induced drag model that uses
twelve data point parameters. Deviation cannot be calculated so will conservatively assumed to be
5% at 71.1% confidence for 66.1% validity.
3.1.3 Thrust and Drag
Many aspects of derived performance were used to generate the thrust and drag models.
Sustained G turn rate at 20,000ft was calculated by the model and calibrated against the flight
manual. The A-G configuration was used at 62,000lb, for a total of nine data points.
The flight envelope in both afterburning and military flight was calculated by the model and
calibrated against the flight manual for the A-G configuration at 62,000lb and the clean
configuration at 40,000lb for a total of ninety-three data points.
The level flight acceleration at 40,000ft was calculated by the model and calibrated against the
flight manual for the A-G configuration at 68,400lb and the clean configuration at 43,600lb for a
total of twenty-five data points.
The model factors involved are subsonic form drag model, weapon drag model, drag divergence
Mach model, wave drag model, induced drag model, and thrust at speed and altitude. Deviation
cannot be calculated so will be conservatively assumed to be 5% at 91.1% confidence for 86.1%
validity.
3.1.4 Total validity
The total validity for the F-15 performance model is 73.2%
3.2 Su-35S
Little public information is available on the envelope and performance of the Su-35.
3.2.1 Fuel Burn
The only available data is a cruise range of 1,940nm and a ferry range of 2,430nm. This
amounts to two data points. The model factors involved are the subsonic form drag model,
weapon drag model, drag divergence Mach number model, induced drag model, and the TSFC
model. Deviation is 0.4% at 29.3% confidence for 28.9% validity.
3.2.2 Lift and e
The CL alpha curve has been calculated from data in the Su-27 flight manual. A generic
Oswald’s efficiency factor model was used. The result is only six data points are available.
Deviation cannot be calculated so will be conservatively assumed to be 5% at 59.2% confidence for
54.2% validity.
3.2.3 Thrust and Drag
Listed top speed at low level, top speed at altitude, and service ceiling are the only data points
available for deriving a flight envelope. A low level acceleration spec is also available to help derive
wave drag. All in all there are nine data points available to derive thrust and drag models.
Deviation cannot be calculated so will conservatively be assumed to be 5% at 66.7% confidence for
61.7% validity.

3.2.4 Total Validity

The total validity of the Su-35S model is 48.3%