I’ve said that data Sukhoj web given are very WRONG.

I must knew that EW of electric combat a/c generally bigger than other variant version.

F-111 and Su-24 have similar EW EXCEPT EF-111.

It is possible but remember the Su-24 has also variants and some are lighter or heavier,

These modifications resulted in an increase of empty weight from 46,172 pounds for the F-111A to 55,275 pounds for the EF-111A. However, since the EF-111A carried no weapons, its maximum takeoff weight was only 88,848 pounds as compared with 98,850 pounds for the F-111A. The Pratt & Whitney TF30-P-3 turbofans of the F-111A were retained.

MiG:

This paragraph may tell you why, if internal fuel wouldn’t be reduced, I couldn’t image why EW of the EF-111A surprisingly jump 20%!!

Specifications of the EF-111A Raven:

Two Pratt & Whitney TF30-P-3 turbofans, 10,750 lb.s.t. dry, 18,500 lb.s.t. with afterburning. Maximum speed: 1377 mph at 40,000 feet. Initial climb rate 11,000 feet per minute. Service ceiling 45,000 feet. Normal range 929 miles. Dimensions: wingspan 63 feet 0 inches (maximum), 31 feet 11 1/2 inches (minimum), length 76 feet 0 inches, height 20 feet 0 inches, wing area 525 square feet. Weights: 55,275 pounds empty, 70,000 pounds loaded, 88,948 pounds maximum takeoff.
The normal range which means no EFTs carried is 1495km. quite believeable.

I do agree, the EF-111 has an empty weight higher than the Su-24 but also a MTOW weight higher than a Su-24 according the Ukranian, Belarussian and most of sources except Sukhoi`s webpage, nevertheless The EF-111 must be even heavier than a Su-24 carrying two fuel tanks even if we use the Sukhoi`s data, nevertheless both aircraft are in the 40 tones range, probably the Su-24 in the range of 39000kg and the EF-111 in the range of 40000kg so even if the EF-111 has slightly more drag it has slightly better SFC and the Su-24 is slightly lighter .

If we consider that both aircraft have similar drag since the difference in range is not so high the Su-24 has a range of 2775km according to Sukhoi and the EF-111 something like 3150km this show the F-111 is not super economical but just slightly more economical and this is the closest aproximation to a real equivalency of both SFCs in real operations

Why to use these two airplanes? well because very likely both aircraft have similar fuel capacity see the EF-111 will carry at least 15000kg of fuel and the Su-24 very likely will carry around 16000kg of fuel according to Sukhoi or around 14500kg according to the Ukranian air force and Yefim Gordon, since the EF-111 can carry too two external fuel tanks

actually I find the two seater Typhoon more attractive than the single seater ones..and the twin seater Rafales are very attractive too..and the twin seater Gripen is not at all ugly ! if anything, its the twin seater Jaguar, and the twin seater MiG-29UB which are the two most ugly two seaters combat fighters around..the MiG-35 looks a lot better than the MiG-29UB, but still, the smaller radome makes it look a lot less attractive than the MiG-29KUB which otherwise looks similar.

I love the Jaguar twinseater and also the T-2, however my favorite fighter in that category is the F-1
http://pagesperso-orange.fr/aeromil-yf/jaguar.htm

http://tbirds.hp.infoseek.co.jp/nyuta1_e.html

Franc here you have an excellent site for Su-24 pictures some are very contemporary pictures taken recently, these are from current russian air force Su-24s

http://forums.airforce.ru/showthread.php?t=911

MiG:
The 17883 liter fuel for the Su-24 is believeable, whereas over 19000liter fuel for the Su-24 could be conceived as 3 EFTs carried.
The mistake made by Sens mas a cause de your confusion.
Some concepts of dynamic increment will make clear for you:
presume
△EFTs is an increment for Su-24 EFT added more
△Rs is an increment of range for Su-24 accompany with more EFTs added.
△EFTf is an increment for F-111 EFT added more
△Rf is an increment of range for F-111 accompany with more EFTs added.
Then real thuth is △Rf/△EFTf >> △Rs/△EFTs (EFT >2)
Indubitably, because the basic number of internal fuel for the F-111 has already been much more than Su-24, so it was possible that range for the Su-24 with a couple of standard EFTs would be still less than F-111 only carry internal fuel a little bit. But they are almost same at this time. otherwise, if the F-111 carry two EFTs,which won’t enlarge 1/3 more range for itself, how can it take 1/3 more range compare with Su-24 which two 3000liter EFTs has already been loaded? Remember each EFT for Su-24 almost 1/4 bigger than F-111’s.

Certainly, if the F-111 carries four 2270 L EFTs, its range possibly be large enough, but meanwhile, warload on F-111 under this situation won’t be reach 3 tone as well as the Su-24.
The war-load for each pylons underwing was also maximum warload for F-111’s pylon each I ever saw.
So, our stand is if warloads was equivalent, there would be no more EFTs for enlarging the range of the F-111, because no more pylons provided.

BTW,Would you please post all of Slavonian web concerning Su-24 specifications follow.

Well Franc it depends in what is the real SFC and range, i think and you can see, that in reality the AL-21 indeed is spends more fuel at its max SFC at military power since its max SFC at military power is 0.86kgf/kg/h however it is not 30% since the TF-30 has a SFC of 0.67 but at lower thrust.

The Sens concept is this TF-30 SFC is 0.67 and the AL-21 is 0.86, by logic the ratio is 0.67:0.86 is 1.28:1, so efectively the AL-21 is at its max military SFC 30% more fuel thirsty, however this would be true only if the TF-30 has the same thrust at its max military power, if the TF-30 gets its thrust at 79KN already is using afterburner, so its SFC is higher than 0.67 for sure, if the Al-21 has a thrust of 66KN then its SFC is lower than 0.86 very likely 0.76 in cruise regime

Now how can we explain the claimed difference in range, the EF-111 has a shorter range and has a MTOW in the class of a Su-24

Specifications StatsCentral

Model General Dynamics / Grumman EF-111A Raven

Length 76.02 ft | 23.17 m

Width 62.99 ft | 19.20 m

Height 20.01 ft | 6.10 m

Engine(s) 2 x Pratt & Whitney TF30-P-3 (later TF30-P-9) turbofan engines with afterburner delivering 20,840lbf of thrust.

Empty Weight 55,274 lbs | 25,072 kg

MTOW 89,001 lbs | 40,370 kg

Max Speed 1,855 mph | 2,985 km/h | 1,612 kts

Max Range 2,000 miles | 3,218 km

Ceiling 44,997 ft | 13,715 m | 8.5 miles

Climb Rate 11,000 ft/min (3,353 m/min)

Hardpoints 2

Armament OPTIONAL:
2 x AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missile
2 x 600 gallon external fuel tanks

Accommodations 2

Operators the United States of America

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=277

So as you can see the EF-111 is not very different to an Su-24 in range and it weighs more or less the same

Specifications (EF-111A unless noted)
Data from The Great Book of Modern Warplanes [7]

General characteristics

Crew: Two (Pilot and Electronic Warfare Officer)
Length: 76.0 ft (23.17 m)
Wingspan: 63.0 ft spread, 32.0 ft swept (19.2 m / 9.74 m)
Height: 20.0 ft (6.1 m)
Wing area: 657.4 ft² spread, 525 ft² swept (61.07 m² / 48.77 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 64-210.68 root, NACA 64-209.80 tip (F-111F)
Empty weight: 55,275 lb (25,072 kg)
Loaded weight: 70,000 lb[8] (31,751 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 89,000 lb (40,370 kg)
Powerplant: 2× Initially Pratt & Whitney TF30-P-3, later upgraded to TF30-P-9 turbofans with afterburner, 20,840 lbf (TF30-P-9) (92.7 kN (TF30-P-9)) each
*Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0186 (F-111D)
Drag area: 9.36 ft² (0.87 m²) (F-111D)
Aspect ratio: 7.56 unswept; 1.95 fully swept. (F-111D)
Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 2.5, (1,650 mph) (above 30,000 ft for all F-111) (2,985 km/h (F-111))
Range: 2,000 miles[9] (1,740 nautical miles)
Service ceiling 45,000 ft[8] (13,715 m)
Rate of climb: 11,000 ft/min[8] (3,353 m/min)
Thrust/weight: 0.598
Lift-to-drag ratio: 15.8 (F-111)
Armament

No normal armament, possibly 2xAIM-9 Sidewinder
2×600 gal fuel tanks possible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EF-111A_Raven#Specifications_.28EF-111A_unless_noted.29

General characteristics
Primary function Electronic countermeasures support
Contractor Grumman Aerospace Corp.
Power plant Two Pratt & Whitney TF-30-P-109 engines
Thrust 2x 18,502 lb 2x 82.32 kN
Length 76 ft 23.16 m
Height 20 ft 6.10 m
Wingspan minimum 63 ft 19.20 m
maximum 32 ft 9.74 m
Wingarea (min. wings ext.) 525 sq ft 48.77 sq m
Max. speed 1,587 mph 2,554 km/h
Initial climb rate 551 ft/s 168 m/s
Ceiling 45,000 ft 13,715 m
Max. takeoff weight 89,000 lb 40,050 kg
Range 1,430 miles 2,300 km
Sensors AN/ALQ-99E jamming subsystem
Unit cost $35 million
Crew Two (pilot and electronics warfare officer)
Date deployed June1981
Inventory Active force, 29; ANG, 0; Reserve:

http://www.military.cz/usa/air/in_service/aircraft/ef111/ef111_en.htm

something on the lighter and uglier side :dev2:

Rafale B

Typhoon Two seater

Gripen B/D/Demo

MiG-35

Definitively the Rafale is not ugly

The Rafale is beautiful as any jet aircraft built in France (well most of them) i can not say the same about the Russian aircraft which many are definitively ugly such as the twin seaters variants of the Su-7, Su-9, Su-15, even the MiG-23UB.

In beauty constests the French always win in what refers Dassault fighters

Its not established that pure delta configs have higher instant turn rates—Gripen, Rafale and Typhoon has higher instant turn rates over the Mirage 2000, all three planes at least over 30 degrees per second.

A pure delta config has its elevons closer to the center of gravity or better yet the fulcrum point of the plane. If you understand the mechanics of lever action, the closer you are to the fulcrum point, the greater the effort or in this case, control authority exerted to lift the other side of the lever, which in this case, is the nose to pitch.

With this in mind, you can start to understand why some tailed configurations like the F-22, try to extend the tail planes as far away from the plane’s fulcrum. You want the least amount of control authority to exert the same force to turn the aircraft on the same degree, or the same amount of control authority to turn the aircraft on a higher degree. Being efficient on this is a major factor in maneuverability. This is the reason why tailed configurations have an inherent advantage on maneuverability. The Soviets knew this early and hence why they junked the pure delta configuration early and went to the tailed delta. Note the way the MiG-21’s tailplanes extend backward, and it isn’t just for sweeping.

If the control surfaces is more efficient producing the same amount of authority thanks to lever action, the control surfaces can trim less to produce the same amount of authority and turn. That means less drag, and less drag means better sustained rates. That’s one reason pure deltas don’t have good sustained rates and have a high energy bleed on turns.

Canards offer a variation to the control authority issue by providing a second lifting force on the other side of the lever which complements the downward force from the elevons on the other side. So you have two forces acting simultaneously. And because of this too, the required trim for all four surfaces amounts to a lower degree than if you have two large control surfaces as the elevons. This produces less drag on the sustained turn.

Canards differ from cranks or LERX because they are _variable_ which means they can adjust dynamically to the changes in the downstream vortices using an air flow sensor downstream.

The canard has also drawbacks among them the fact they also affect the wing flow dynamics and not always this means this will benefit the aircraft, also they increase buffeting and in some types of wings they even might reduce the benefits by moving the center of lift and affecting stability.

true in some conditions they might help and increase agility.

The Tailplane as you have said needs to be farther away from the center of gravity but this is not always the case farther back it will reduce the effects and benefits the wing`s down wash might have on the taiplane, same is with canards, the Rafale has very close the canards to the wing to benefit the wing.

a moving canard also affects the center of lift sometimes it might benefit but some times it won`t, also canards sometimes increase drag and reduce lift, this constraints force the canard to be relatively small and in some cases ineffective

No aircraft is perfect in fact any configuration is a compromise.
The advantages of the canards are lower landing speed and higher ITRs, but usually their STR are not as high since the delta wing generates very powerful vortices that can burst quit easily, they have excellent AoA behavior then they have good ITRs but their vortices usually burst quit easily, contrary to a less swept outer wing section of a LERXed wing.

The LERX and tailplane configuration also has benefits, and it does not affect the wings aerodynamics since the tailplane is behind the wing and still has extra lift ahead of the wing`s center of lift thanks to teh LERX, for the Russians it was the best configuration and the Su-35BM already deleted the canards; the LCA deleted them too becasue it allows a smaller fighter with less drang and more range (consider the LCA is too light it needs to have longer range since it won`t carry a lot of fuel)

Modern Attack Aircraft – Mike Spick

Some further data from: Modern Fighters and Attack Aircraft – Barry C. Wheeler

range with max internal fuel
(A/D) 3165 miles (5093 km)
(F) 2925 miles (4707 km)
(EF) 2484 miles (3998 km)

Sens

This information is what i have in one of my books the 7000 galons of total fuel is not in a aircraft carrying 6 external fuel tanks, in fact it carries only 4 external fuel tanks it means the 6 tanks are much more than 7000 galons however to be honest the book also says the range with four external fuel tanks and two nuclear bombs is 4150nm around 7500km, the max weight for the FB-111 is 54 tones, more than 10 tones than a Su-24.

Now if this information is true then the FB-111 indeed is a really very long range bomber