This is all lovely data, but for starters it’s for the F/A-18E rather than the F. The F holds about 900lb less fuel due to space taken up by the second seat - or about 40-50NM combat radius.
Sure, but data is better than people making up whatever facts they want, and the numbers are significantly closer than people are imagining even with the F.
Second, while the F-35C does indeed carry more internal fuel, it has more parasite and lift induced drag. This is because the bigger wing and reinforced structure have empty weights about 5000lb heavier than the F-35A - one only needs to look at the acceleration figures to understand the performance impact. The additional drag tends to offset the additional fuel.
Having seen all the aircraft in this discussion in real operations at some point in a past life, if I may, I can give you some insight into how different real world flying is compared to numbers you see online:
1) The F-35C weighs 5,000 pounds more (16% more than the F-35A) but has 50% more wing area. It more than offsets the weight gain. The F-35C can actually outclimb the F-35A to high altitudes from sea level despite the A beating it in time to climb to lower altitudes - the F-35A is the one that struggles with additional weight and altitude and requires higher throttle settings at higher altitudes. The endurance and range in real world usage is notably different especially where the planes can be flown to be most efficient (high 30s to low 40s is most efficient for range, which is again where airlines like to fly, and the C does a better job there than the A)
2) Look up a drag curve. Induced drag dominates at low airspeeds, parasitic drag dominates at high airspeeds. The bigger wing's induced drag is not the factor at high airspeeds - and the effect of bigger and thicker wings only really show up at the transonic region. Moreover, you forget that the two jets do not fly at the same angles of attack due to this - the A model, with the disproportionately smaller wings for its weight than the C, actually flies at higher angles of attack for the same airspeeds and thus has more induced drag at most of the airspeeds the jets spend the majority of their time in (and fun fact: on approach, despite approaching 20-30 knots slower, the C flies a lower angle of attack than the A). The B, being nearly as heavy as the C, but with the wings of the A, struggles even more - hence why the B is frequently derided by military aviators for its very poor real world range and endurance and not what gets bandied around from acquisition documents and marketing.
3) Speaking of which, since the C has bigger wings, it actually holds turns better than the A despite the worse thrust/weight ratio. This is not just in a turning engagement, but when you are doing real world flying, you aren't just holding straight and level indefinitely. You are probably doing turns over some area to stay within an operating area, border, or other airspace control schema - and the C doesn't need to come up on the throttle as much as the A to maintain turns at optimal endurance altitudes (which are again in the 30s) because its wings generate more lift and can hold a turn better without needing throttle. This all results in notably better endurance in real usage.
4) Acceleration figures being quoted for acceleration in the transonic region, which is largely avoided because of how inefficient it is. They have essentially identical max range and max endurance speeds - and people rarely spend much time in the transonic region. I have to ask: do people here really think these max range and endurance numbers are achieved by flying inefficiently? Any time range/endurance are a factor, pilots fly efficient until they need to go tactical - and tactical acceleration doesn't happen often in real life for a number of reason because even in a fight, you still have to manage your fuel or you won't be sticking around long to actually fight.
And I think everyone would be surprised how irrelevant a 0.9-1.2 Mach acceleration number being quoted is. Both the A and C flight manuals state that the quickest and most efficient way to accelerate through the transonic region is to trade altitude for airspeed while in MAX. Guess who - because it can consistently fly higher more efficiently - actually does this more efficiently? A plane that can consistently hang out in the low 40s versus 30s is going to accelerate more efficiently than the one starting lower and trying to do it level (and it's harder once you get into the 20s in part because you run into q limits and also the increased drag from the thicker atmosphere, so you don't want to descend too low).
Again, real world operational usage is very different from single acquisition numbers being marketed and extrapolated to the entire flight regime, which is a significantly more complex and multi-variable
What does this mean in practise, as employed by the RAAF? The F-35A has a larger combat radius, or more loiter time at the same range than the F/A-18F and especially the E/A-18G.
Surprisingly not necessarily true, especially since range and endurance are not the same thing. Even if we ignore the discussion earlier about the effects of the small wings on the A for its weight, which create a surprising amount of induced drag since the jet tends to cruise at a higher angle of attack than a lot of other airframes and means its struggles with payloads at altitude where even the F/A-18F and EA-18G - oft derided for drag - can do fine with, the F/A-18F and EA-18G - being Navy aircraft - if nothing else, were built with an implicit requirement for endurance (to make no mention of the difference in TSFC between the F414 and F135s). Even with real external payloads, they actually burn similar or less fuel (pounds per minute) at max endurance than a clean and empty F-35A. The biggest reason for the difference for range is that the A cruises at max range airspeeds at 20-50 KCAS faster than the F/A-18 (depending on altitude) - which means it get somewhere quicker for the same time aloft - but actual overall endurance tends to be worse for the same amounts of fuel, and the F and G tend to carry one or two EFTs which brings them to similar or higher endurance than the A.
You can ask some B fliers - who despite having similar internal fuel as an F or G - how often they can get a a 2.0 hour sortie even if they tried flying max endurance throughout in a clean and empty B - whereas an F or G, even with internal fuel only and all the external pylons, will never struggle to get to a 2.0 hour sortie at max endurance.
