super hornet flanker comp australia 2007

7/28/2019 Super Hornet Flanker Comp Australia 2007

1/13

Last Updated: Sat Nov 24 03:53:13 UTC 2012

F/A-18E/F Super Hornet vs. Sukhoi FlankerDr Carlo Kopp, MIEEE, MAIAA, PEng

Originally published Defence Today Vol.6 No.1April/May 2007

Updated May, 2007.

2006, 2007 Carlo Kopp

Recent reports that the F/A-18F Super Hornet has been arbitrarily chosen as an interim fighterfor the RAAF have raised considerable interest in the capabilities of this evolved thirdgeneration fighter, relative to the Russian Flanker. This analysis will test t he Super Hornetagainst its most li kely opponent in the region, the Sukhoi Flanker.

The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

The Super Hornet is the follow-on to the 'Classic' Hornet, and is at this time flown only by the

converted by Web2PDFC onvert.com
http://www.web2pdfconvert.com/?ref=PDFhttp://www.web2pdfconvert.com/?ref=PDFhttp://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Funding.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/support.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Briefings.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/search.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/research.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/notams.html#TOPhttp://www.ausairpower.net/notices.html#TOPhttp://www.ausairpower.net/aph.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/apa-analyses.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Tech-Report-Index.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/login.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/links.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/technology.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/iw.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/isr-ncw.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/history.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/strategy.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/msls-bmd.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/sams-iads.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/rus-weps.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/region.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/media.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/apa-contrails.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/weps.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/dew-ebomb.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/aar-lift.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/bug.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/pig.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/pla-air-pwr.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/flanker.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/raptor.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/index.html


2/13

US Navy. It was blooded during Operation Southern Watch and used during the invasion ofIraq, primarily flown in battlefield interdiction and close air support roles, where it has provenmore effective than the 'Classic' Hornet. The Super Hornet i s what the 'Class ic' Hornet wasinitially intended to be, when the VFAX program which led to the F/A-18A/B was launchedduring the early 1970s. The aim was a multirole fighter to replace the A-4 Skyhawk, A-7Corsair II and the F-4 Phantom. Bureaucratic 'optimisation' resulted in the 'Classic' Hornet,rather than the F-15A sized VFAX as intended. The origins of the Super Hornet are in theperiod following the end of the Cold War, when collapsing budgets s aw the US Navy role awayfrom blue water sea control operations, to littoral 'gunboat diplomacy' in global trouble spots.Since 911 this has been the dominant role of the US Navy. With catastrophically decliningfunding the US Navy could not buy more F-14Ds, and needed something larger than the

'Classic' Hornet, which proved too small to be effective and demanding of aerial refuellingsupport. The intended replacement for the F-14, the Navy Advanced Tactical Fighte r, a 'swingwing' F-22 derivative, was too expensive for the downsized US Navy budget. The retirement ofthe A-6 Intruder and KA-6D tanker during this period further exacerbated the US Navy's woes.Legisla tion mandated a full fl yoff competition for a new fighter, and the Navy thus manoeuvredaround this by seeking a redesign of the existing 'Classic' Hornet .

The Super Hornet is substantially a new aircraft, which shares only limited structuralcommonality with the F/A-18A-D family of fighters. While the F/A-18E/F forward fuselage isderived from the F/A-18C design, the wing, centre and aft fuselage, tail surfaces andpowerplants are entirely new. The baseline avionic system is however largely derived from theF/A-18C, with planned growth through further evolved derivatives of the radar, EW and coreavionic systems, and entirely new systems where appropriate.

The designation F/A-18E/F reflects the fact that the aircraft is derived from the F/A-18A-D,even if it is a significantly larger airframe design - the program was implemented as anEngineering Change Proposal (ECP) to avoid a costly demonstration program and fly-off. A sideeffect of this idiosyncrasy in nomenclature is that the F/A-18E/F is frequently dismissed asjust another Hornet, yet the ai rcraft is very different in many respects.

From a design perspective, the most notable change in the Super Hornet is its size, designedaround an internal fuel (JP5) capacity of 14,700 lb, or 36% more than the F/A-18C/E. Thismost closely compares to the clean F-15C, which has around 10% less internal fuel than theSuper Hornet.

Sizing around a 36% greater internal fuel load than the F/A-18C, with the aim of retaining theestablished agility performance of the F/A-18C, resulted in a larger wing of 500 sqft area,against the 400 sqft area of the F/A-18C, a 25% increase. The consequent sizing changesresult in a 30,885 lb empty weight (31,500 lb basic weight) aircraft, a 30% increase against

the F/A-18C. Not surprisingly, the aircraft's empty weight is 8% greater than the F-15C,reflecting the structural realities of catapult launches and tailhook recoveries.

The larger F414 engine, a refanned and evolved F404 derivative, delivers 20,700 lb static SLthrust in a fterburner, which is around 8% less than the F100-PW-220 in the F-15C.

The simplest metric of the F/A-18E/F is that it is an F-15A-D sized F/A-18C derivative,optimised for the naval environment.

Size is where the similarity between the Super Hornet and Eagle end, since the Super Hornetis optimised aerodynamically around the F/A-18A-D configuration, with a focus on transonicmanoeuvre and load carrying performance, and carrier recovery characteristics. In terms of rawperformance, the Super Hornet is very similar to the F/A-18C, but provides significantly betterCAP endurance and operating radius by virtue of its larger wing and internal fuel load.

With three 480 USG drop tanks, full internal fuel, combat and reserve fuel allowances, 8 xAIM-120 AMRAAMs and 2 x AIM-9 Sidewinders, the aircraft has a point intercept radius cited inexcess of 650 NMI, with some assumptions made about expended missiles. This is radiusperformance in the class of the clean F-15C.Like the F/A-18A-D, the F/A-18E/F was designed from the outset for a dual role fighter bombermission environment. The enlarged wings have three hardpoints each, typically loaded with apair of 480 USG tanks inboard and weapons on the pair of outboard stations. The wingtipSidewinder rail is retained.

A notable aerodynamic feature is a significantly enlarged strake design over the baselineHornet, intended to improve vortex lifting characteristics in high AoA manoeuvre, and reducethe static stability margin to enhance pitching characteristics - Boeing cite pitch rates inexcess of 40 degrees per second.

Structurally the Super Hornet is built largely from aluminium alloys, with extensive use ofcarbon fibre composite skins in the wings, and titanium in several critical areas. The designload factor limit of 7.5G is identical to the F/A-18A-D, at an unspecified gross weight.

Unt il recently, Super Hornets were delivered with the Raytheon APG-73 radar, not unlike theF/A-18A/B HUG radar. Most recent deliveries s ee the new APG-79 Active Electronically Steered

http://www.web2pdfconvert.com/?ref=PDFhttp://www.web2pdfconvert.com/?ref=PDF


3/13

Array (AESA) radar fitted. The APG-79 is considered to have slightly better range performancethan the Joint st rike Fighte r's APG-81 AESA, but inferior to the F-22A's larger APG-77.

The Super Hornet is fi tted with a new AN/ALQ-124 Integrated Defensive Counte rmeasuressystem (IDECM) EWSP system, including the ALE-50 towed decoy, more capable than thelegacy package in US or RAAF 'Classic' Hornets. There is thus little commonality between theSuper Hornet and 'Class ic' Hornet variants .

Notes: O/B - seeker off-boresight acquisition angle; IRH - heatseeking, single or dual colour scanning seeker; SARH -semi-active radar homing seeker; DL - datalink for midcourse guidance corrections - either analogue or digital; IMU

- inertial package for midcourse guidance; Passive RF - passive radio frequency anti-radiation seeker; ARH - active

radar homing seeker; Acquisition Range is that at which the seeker can acquire its target; Kinematic Range is A-pole

or F-pole; Target G - max load factor of target vehicle; Launch G - max load factor of launch aircraft; APU -

Aviatsionnaya Puskovaya Ustanovka (rail launcher); AKU - Aviatsionnaya Katapultnaya Ustanovka (ejector); This is acurrent open source compilation based on manufacturers' and third party data therefore figures should be treated

with appropriate caution (Author).

Air Combat in the Current Era

To make a comparison between the Super Hornet and Flanker, it i s necessary to explore thekind of air combat we will see in the region over coming years. Aerial combat between fightershas seen considerable evolution since the 1940s, driven in part by weapons technology, in part



4/13

by sensor technology and in part by airframe aerodynamic performance. The last two decadeshave seen two important trends.

The first is the ascendancy of Beyond Visual Range (BVR) combat, as advances in sensorshave permitted long range missile engagements with increasing confidence that the target isindeed a hostile.

The second trend has been the proliferation of extremely agile heatseeking missiles for closecombat, and associated Helmet Mounted Displays or Sights. The effectiveness and lethali ty offourth generation heatseeking missiles makes close combat with a situationally awareopponent a high risk game. Miss iles such as the AIM-9X, ASRAAM, Python 4 and 5, Iris T, R-73

and R-74 give no quarter, and with exceptional G capability, often aided by Thrust VectorControl (TVC), these missiles are almost impossible to defeat by manoeuvre. Increasinglysuch missiles are acquiring Focal Plane Array imaging seekers, supplanting the scanningseekers dominant for decades, making them virtually immune to flares and jammersdeveloped to defeat scanning seekers.

Whoever takes the first shot in a close in engagement mos t likely wins. Does this precludeclose combat in the future? Only in the minds of those observers who imagine that all futureaerial conflict will be highly assymetric, not unlike the Desert Storm, Allied Force and IraqiFreedom air campaigns.

Reality is somewhat different. In global terms, most modern fighter aircraft are today beingpurchased by nations in the Pacific-Rim and South Asian regions. These nations are mostlybuilding modern force structures for their air forces, including Airborne Early Warning and

Control (AEW&C) aircraft, tanker aircraft, passive electronic surveillance and intelligenceaircraft (Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance ISR), and most likely in coming years,stand off support jamming aircraft. Datalinking and networking is increasing available. TheUnited States, or US aligned nations will thus confront an environment which is at bestasymmetric in the quality of specific force structure components, but not asymmetric in forcestructure, like the air campaigns of the 1990s.

The dominance of BVR combat is contingent on having what amounts to 'informationsuperiority', or what is an asymmetric advantage in 'big picture' situational awareness. Onceboth sides operate AEW&C, passive ISR, networks and high power support jammers, the 'fogof war' yet again re-emerges, as sensors are degraded or blinded, networks and datalinksdegrade or drop out, and a clear picture of the battlespace is again difficult to acquire.

In this sense, the uncontested dominance of BVR combat will only last as long as it takes forthe key force multipliers to become more widely available to non US-aligned air forces. The

proliferation of 100 to 200 nautical mile range counter-ISR missiles like the Russian R-172,R-37 and Kh-31 variants add yet another variable to this mix. This is the future a ir combatenvironment, where information is the new high ground, and being where one is not expectedto be is increasingly valuable.

In comparing the Super Hornet and the Flanker, we must be mindful of the environment theywill operate in. The notion that these two types will be flown against each other in theasymmetric world of the 1990s is at best nave, at worst foolish.



5/13

The Su-30MKI and Su-35 use the thrust vectoring AL-31FU powerplant (Irkut)

Sukhoi Flanker vs the Super Hornet

In assessing the Flanker against the Super Hornet it is clear from the outset that theadvantage in firepower, speed, raw agility, range and manoeuvre performance goes t o the

Flanker. Given that operational Flankers span variants from B through H, and t ype designationsfrom Su-27S, through Su-30s to Su-35s, there are a wide range of configurations possible.

This has been further complicated by the Russian propensity to customise configurations forclients, and perform ongoing technology upgrades to operational variants. Another byproductof Russian marketing is that the labe l Su-30 spans an upgraded Su-27SKM (Su-30KI) up to theIndian Su-30MKI, which uses extens ive ly features demonstrated in the Su-37.

In terms of aerodynamic performance the Flanker sits broadly in the class of the F-15 family,with similar thrust / weight ratios at similar weights. The empty weight of Flanker variantsranges between 37,240 - 40,800 lb and inte rnal fuel capacities between 20,750 - 22,600 lb.

At this t ime al l production Flankers are flying with variants o f the Saturn/Salyut Al-31F, whichdeliver static sea level thrust ratings in the 27 klb to 32 klb class, depending on the variant.This engine is comparable to the latest P&W F100 and GE F110 series engines, outperformingthe smaller F404 series. In terms of supersonic speed, supersonic and subsonic accelerationand climb performance, the Super Hornet cannot compete with any Flanker variant.

High speed turning performance, where thrust limited, a lso goes to the Flanker, as doessupersonic manoeuvre performance. The Super Hornet is severely handicapped by its lowercombat thrust/weight ratio, and hybrid wing planform. It is worth observing that high alphatrim drag and pitch rates of the canard equipped Flanker variants, such as the Su-33 and Su-30MKI, will be superior to the versions without canards.



6/13

Where the Super Hornet is apt to be more competitive against the Flanker is in the near stalllow speed high alpha flight regimes, where the Super Hornet's strakes and wing work well and

advanced flight controls perform superbly. This is however not a regime favoured by combatpilots and thus not of s ignificance in an assessment of combat potential.

The big gain in coming years for the Flanker in relative performance come with the new Al-41Fengine, Russia's F119, now in Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP). The Al-41F delivers up to 40klb class sea level static thrust, and high altitude dry thrust ratings to power the defunctsupercruising MFI (Multi-Role Fighte r).

Al-41FU supercruise powerplant.



7/13

The Russians have been flying derated 33 klb Al-41Fs in a Su-27S since 2004. With Al-41Fengines installed the Flanker's robust margin in kinematic performance against the Super

Hornet grows considerably in all regimes of flight it provides the Flanker with 'F-22-like' rawagility and performance. With wing sweep, planform, forebody shaping and inlets built forMach 2+ dash, a clean Flanker with Al-41Fs should supercruise effectively. A supercruisingFlanker with TVC nozzles, ie AL-41FU, can use downward TVC to offset supersonic trim dragand thus achieve lower fuel burn in this regime.

However, its supersonic energy bleed performance may not measure up to the refined designof the newer supercruise optimised designs, such as the F-22 or MFI. The bigger issue for theFlanker in supercruise is the drag of external stores, which will compromise it decisivelyagainst an optimsied design in supersonic combat.

The fix for this limitation is a centreline tunnel conformal weapons pod for the R-74 and R-77family AAMs. If and when reports of such a design emerge, we can be certain that Sukhoi areplanning to play the supercruise game in earnest.

In terms of combat radius performance the Flanker outperforms the Super Hornet, even withthe latter carrying external tanks. There is no substitute for clean internal fuel. The Flanker'sradar aperture is twice the size of the Hornet family apertures, due to the larger nose crosssection.



8/13

The APG-79 provides comparable range performance to the JSF APG-81, making it inferior to the F-22A's APG-77, but

better than in service Flanker radars.

The most capable radar in an operational Flanker is the NIIP N-011M BARS, a hybrid passive ESA design using a

backplane feed and a range of transmitter tubes with varying peak power ratings. The hybird design providesequally good receiver sensitivity to Western AESA designs (Irkut).



9/13

The space feed passive array presents an opportunity for Flanker users to gain AESA like power and agility using

legacy transmitter technology (Author)

In terms of radar capabilities, existing Flankers are equipped mostly with variants of N-001,comparable to early F-15 APG-63s. The Su-35 carries the N-011, closer to a late model APG-63/70, and the Su-30MKI the NIIP N-011M BARS which is a hybrid phased array closest intechnology to the much smaller RBE2 in the Rafale. The BARS can be supplied with a range ofTravelling Wave Tube (TWT) power ratings, but cannot compete with the Super Hornet's liquidcooled APG-79 AESA.

The new Pero N-001 antenna upgrade package, using a space feed reflective passive phasedarray, is apt to have much better peak power handling potential to the BARS, in a muchcheaper design, but is yet to enter production. The PLA is reported to have been evaluatingone fo two prototypes. A major concern is that a low loss waveguide feed suitable for veryhigh peak and average power levels is easily integrated in a space feed arrangement of thistype, and thus a peak power rating exceeding that of the APG-79 is not that difficult to effect,TWT performance permitting. Cooling is not an issue in an airframe the size of the Flanker.

NIIP and Phazotron are known to have been working on an AESA design, and given theaperture s ize of the Flanker, an AESA radar in the power-aperture rating class of the F-22'sAPG-77 is a dist inct poss ibility for a post 2010 Flanker. The only issue fo r the Russian radarhouses will be the availability of Gallium Arsenide HEMT (High Electron Mobility Transistor)transistors for the radar modules. Compared to the Super Hornet's APG-79, a Flanker sizedAESA even with inferior radar module performance can match the power-aperture rating andthus range of t he APG-79.

May/June 2007 Update Block - Irbis E Hybrid Phased Array

The baseline N011M radar uses a vertically polarised 0.9 metre diameter aperture hybridphased array, with individual per element receive path low noise amplifiers delivering anoise figure cited at 3 dB, similar to an AESA. Three receiver channels are used, onepresumably for sidelobe blanking and ECCM. The EGSP-6A transmitter uses a single ChelnokTravelling Wave Tube, available in variants with peak power ratings between 4 and 7kiloWatts, and CW illumination at 1 kW. Cited detection range for a closing target (HighPRF) is up to 76 NMI, for a receding target up to 50 NMI. The phased array can electronicallysteer the mainlobe through +/-70 degrees in azimuth and +/-40 degrees in elevation. Thewhole array can be further steered mechanically. Polarisation can be switched by 90 degreesfor surface search modes.



10/13

NIIP Irbis E Prototypes (above, below)

NIIP Irbis E Components (above)

The follow on to the BARS is the new Irbis-E (Snow Leopard) hybrid phased array, in

development s ince 2004 and planned for the Su-35 block upgrade, and as a block upgrade ornew build radar for other Flanker variants. The Irbis-E is an evolution of the BARS design,but significantly more powerful. While the hybrid phased array antenna is retained, thenoise figure is slightly worse at 3.5 dB, but the receiver has four rather than three discretechannels. The biggest change is in the EGSP-27 transmitter, where the single 7 kiloWattpeak power rated Chelnok TWT is replaced with a pair of 10 kiloWatt peak power ratedChelnok tubes, ganged to provide a total peak power rating of 20 kiloWatts. The radar iscited at an average power rating of 5 kiloWatts, with 2 kiloWatts CW rating for illumination.NIIP claim twice the bandwidth and improved frequency agility over the BARS, and betterECCM capability. The Irbis-E has new Solo-35.01 digital signal processor hardware and Solo-35.02 data processor, but retains receiver hardware, the master oscillator and exciter of theBARS. A prototype has been in flight test since late 2005.

The performance increase in the Irbis-E is commensurate with the increased transmitterrating, and NIIP claim a detection range for a closing 3 square metre coaltitude target of190 - 215 NMI (350-400 km), and the ability to detect a closing 0.01 square metre target at~50 NMI (90 km). In Track While Scan (TWS) mode the radar can handle 30 targetssimultaneously, and provide guidance for two simultaneous shots using a semi-activemissile like the R-27 series, or eight simultaneous shots using an active missile like theRVV-AE/R-77 or ramjet RVV-AE-PD/R-77M. The Irbis-E was clearly designed to support theramjet RVV-AE-PD/R-77M missile in BVR combat against reduced signature Western fighterslike the Block II Su er Hornet or Eurofi hter T hoon. Curiousl , NIIP do not claim su eriorit



11/13

over the F-22A's APG-77 AESA, yet t heir cited performance figures exceed the public (and nodoubt heavily sanitised) range figures fo r the APG-77.

The existing N011M series lacks a Low Probability of Intercept capability, in part due toantenna bandwidth limits and in part due to processor limitations. This is likely to changeover the coming decade, with the Irbis-E, as customers demand an ability to defeat ordegrade Western ESM equipment and the technology to do this becomes more accessible.

The N012 tail warning radar has been reported to be part of the Su-30MKI suite and isoffered as a retrofit to other models.

The IDECM EWSP suite on the Super Hornet is more advanced than the EWSP suites on olderFlanker variants. Defens ive systems include a Radar Warning Receiver, mostly variants of the

SPO-32 / L150 Pastel digital receiver carried. Newer Flankers however carry the podded wingtipmounted KNIRTI SPS-171 / L005S Sorbtsiya-S mid/high band defensive jammer, this systembeing an evolution of a jammer developed for the Backfire C. The Sorbtsiya-S, unlike mostWestern jamming pods, is designed to operate in pairs and uses forward and aft lookingsteerable wideband phased arrays to maximise jamming effect. It is worth observing that theSorbtsiya is clearly built to provide cross-eye jamming modes against monopulse threats, andthe wideband mainlobe steering capability provided by the phased array permits best possibleutilisation of available jamming power. A graded dielectric lens is employed. Russiancontractors have been using Digital RF Memory (DRFM) technology, which is of the samegeneration as Super Hornet EWSP. The Super Hornet does not have any compelling advantagein EWSP capability.

Computing capability in operational Flankers is mostly provided by legacy Russian hardware,but with some COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) processors now appearing in radar upgrades

and missile seekers. While this is an area where the Sukhois are barely competitive againstthe current Super Hornet, it is the easiest of all of the performance gaps for the Russians toclose.

In summary, the Flanker outperforms the Super Hornet decisively in aerodynamic performance.What advantage the Super Hornet now has in the APG-79 radar will vanish in coming years asRussian AESAs emerge. The one area in which the Flanker currently trails the Super Hornet is



12/13

in radar signature (stealth) performance. The Super Hornet has inlet geometry shaping, inlettunnel S-bends, and an AESA shroud all of which reduce its forward sector signature wellbelow that o f the Flanker.

In the short term, this is an advantage the Super Hornet retains, with the caveat that externalstores put hard limits on signature improvement for the Super Hornet. However, Russ ianresearchers have done some excellent work over the last decade in absorbent materials andlaminate techniques for radar signature reduction, which offer the potential for the Flanker toachieve s imilar signature reduction to the F/A-18E/F. If funded, a reduced s ignature Flanker isfeasible in the next half decade.

In conclusion, the Flanker in all current variants kinematically outclasses the Super Hornet inall high performance flight regimes. The only near term advantage the latest Super Hornetshave over legacy Flanker variants is in the APG-79 AESA and radar signature reductionfeatures, an advantage which will not last long given highly active ongoing Russiandevelopment effort in these areas. The supercruising Al-41F engine will further widen theperformance gap in favour of the Flanker. What this means i s tha t post 2010 the Super Hornetis uncompetitive against advanced Flankers in BVR combat, as it is now uncompetitive in closecombat.

KnAAPO/Sukhoi Su-27SKM Multirole Flanker Prototype. Further images.

Artwork, graphic design, layout and text 2004 - 2012 Carlo Kopp; Text 2004 - 2012 Peter Goon; All rights

reserved.Recommended browsers. Contact webmaster. Site navigation hints. Current hot topics.

Site Update Status: $Revision: 1.728 $ Site History:Notices and Updates/ NLA Pandora Archive

Hotel near Lockheed

hoteldenvertech.com

Platinum Award Winning Hotel, Free Hot Breakfast, WIFI, Spa, Buss Svcs

http://www.ausairpower.net/compatibility.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/support.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/navigation.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/media.html#Hot_Topicshttp://www.web2pdfconvert.com/?ref=PDFhttp://www.web2pdfconvert.com/?ref=PDFhttp://www.ausairpower.net/pandora.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/notices.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/media.html#Hot_Topicshttp://www.ausairpower.net/navigation.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/support.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/compatibility.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/aph.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/apa-analyses.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Tech-Report-Index.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/login.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/links.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/technology.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/iw.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/isr-ncw.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/history.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/strategy.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/msls-bmd.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/sams-iads.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/rus-weps.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/region.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/media.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/apa-contrails.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/weps.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/dew-ebomb.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/aar-lift.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/bug.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/pig.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/pla-air-pwr.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/flanker.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/raptor.htmlhttp://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker-Imagery.html#KnAAPOSukhoi_Su-27SKM_Flanker_B_Mod.1


13/13

Save Page as PDF Tweet 2 Follow @APA_Updates
http://savepageaspdf%28%29/

super hornet flanker comp australia 2007

Documents