To read something and to understand something are two different worlds for someone. Whatever I do post of details, such a person is unable or at best unwilling to understand.
For the benefit of the others from the official website of Sukhoi about the Su-24MK:

Maximum flight speed at sea level (without external ordnance and stores), km/h 1,315
Max Mach (without external ordnance and stores) 1.35

Airspeed for Mach 1 at seal level in standard conditions (15°C) is 661 kt or
1224 km/h. Max clean for the Su-24MK at sea level is 1315 km/h or Mach 1,07. The highest nominal speed of Mach 1,35 (clean!) is reached at height.
The speed of Sound is 573 kt at 36090 feet or 1061 km/h at 11000 m (Tropopause)
Max Mach number clean for the Su-24MK is Mach 1,35 or 1432 km/h.
Below the link to verify my data:
http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su24mk/lth/

With some weapons-load the Su-24MK is in the subsonic or lower transsonic speed-range at all. So that is no setback, when the optimum attack-dash is ~600 kt and cruise/march below 500 kt. We keep in mind, that range/endurance is a severe limiting factor for a striker at low level, at least when it has to go with Tj like the Su-24MK. So the cold logic of Sukhoi is correct, when some fanboys got upset about that for funny reasons. It is their problem to deal with outdated Cold War claims. They do not realize, that the F-111 did fly similar missions at similar speeds too. The main difference is, that the Tf does allow longer range/endurance from every kg/l of fuel carried from the start.

Yeah sukhoi claims a mach speed of 1400km/h that is correct, it is around mach 1.35 is not Mach 1.6 that was my mistake, however the Ukranian air force claims two different speeds, one is Mach 1.35 and the other is 2240km/h why the Ukranian air force claims two speeds? are they fan boys? we can call fan boys ourselves because you have never been a Su-24 technician or pilot have you?

Also the Ukrainian air force claims two different ranges one is 2080km and the other 3800km why they have those distances?

Possible explanation a mistake a typo or another possibility different conditions and different limits, the MiG-23 can each Mach 2.5 however the operational speed is mach 2,35.

It does not make sense to do so.
For the benefit of the others,
The present jet-engines are in need of subsonic air (Mach 0,4 till Mach 0,7) to create thrust. No severe problem, when subsonic, but critical, when it has to be slow down from faster or supersonic air in the inlet. You need both at the same time, slower and still smooth air for your engine, no distorsion f.e.! There are many ways to achieve that, when it comes to supersonic inlets. For supersonic flight, the inlet-design is more important for thrust, than the engine itself.
At subsonic the inlet gives 12% thrust (netto), the engine 82% and outlet 6%. At high supersonic the inlet gives 63% thrust (netto), the engine a mere 8% and the outlet 29%.
The secret of the F-111 to reach up to Mach 2,5, despite “lower” installed thrust compared to the Su-24 is related to that. Not of practical value in military missions, but an excellent example, what can be achieved by an effective propulsion system and related performances.

I see you were very specific you have given so specific facts about the inlet of the Su-24 such as graphs, charts and accurate data about the inlet performance in several flight envelopes

yea very specific, Sens please do not try to cheat me, the Su-24 and F-111 both were designed with a Max speed of Mach 2.4 speed, the Su-24 had a multishock vg ramp in a racked and angled inlet nacelle of rectangular cross section ala MiG-23 or Tu-22M that makes an oblique shock wave.

The inlet up to what i understand lost its multishock VG ramp and only left a ramp that still has the ability of making an oblique shockwave to disaccelerate the airflow to subsonic speed but lacks a multishock VG ramp to keep the shockwave ahead of the inlet lip and out of the inlet duct at higher supersonic speeds. in few words it still can make a shockwave but its design is not as effective to keep the shockwave ahead of the inlet lip as one with a VG ramp such as the early Su-24s.

the VG ramp allows a wider range of speeds since it can create several shockwaves and reduce the air flow from higher supersonic speeds to subsonic speeds at different speeds.

the F-16 has a similar inlet and the F-18 too, they still have a ramp but not a VG ramp to generate oblique shockwaves.

Up to what degree the ramp slows down the air flow for a proper air flow to feed the engine well i do not know and since you do not present me with schematics of the operation of the Su-24`s inlet at Mach 2 without a ramp well i do not know what to think.

Sukhoi says they max operational speed is 1.6, the Ukranian air force says Mach 2 and the f-16 has also a relatively small ramp ahead of the lower lip on the straight part of the D shape inlet.http://www.air-and-space.com/20051021%20AFFTC%20Museum.htm

The F-111 has a different inlet it has a Mirage III or SR-71 style inlet with a conical spike fore and aft within the engine nacelle, to keep the supersonic shock wave just in front of the inlet however depending on the F-111 variant some variants exhibit also a vertical ramp with a semi circular conical spike, the Su-24 had a multishock vg ramp in a racked and angled inlet nacelle of rectangular cross section ala MiG-23, Tu-22M or Su-15 that makes an oblique shock wave.
This approach simplified the construction of the intakes and permitted the use of variable ramps to control the airflow into the engine.

Get a book about aircraft (preferably one of those without pictures) and read it.
Static thrust has nothing to do with supersonic thrust, the only thing we can guess from it is the region. F-111, Tornado and Su-24 play in one league, but the F-16 is two leagues higher.
Flow distortion is no problem as long as we fly straight ahead, and actually only the early engines and the A-model was affected. No problem on the F version.

The key word is “pressure recovery factor”.
Recommendation: Copy&Paste into Google, see what you find.

Schorsch

Since the moment i said the inlet is the main factor to judge if the Su-24 can or can not reach Mach 2 i know even the basics to say the AL-21 needs pressure recovery, since the engine demands the less drag possible and a specific flow of air.

The F-16 as the Su-24 won`t fly Mach 2 at low altitude, so certainly they will fly at mach 2 at similar conditions and not at low altitude, the inlet design and the engine in the F-16 are flexible enough to accept the flow conditions in the inlet to work properly, the F-16 does not need a VG ramp inlet to work well, the Ukranian air force webpage and some other sources claim a speed of Mach 2, the same speed the F-16 can reach at 12000 meters of altitude and certainly besides the F-16`s inlet is of D shape and the Su-24 is of rectangular shape, they are not very different from each other creating shock waves to disaccelerate the air flow to subsonic speeds.

Besides military turbofans are low by pass ratio engines not very different from turbojets after all

Yefim Gordon’s Aerofax book has:

Su-24M
MTOW – 39700 kg
Empty – 22300 kg
Payload: 8000 kg
Leaves 9400 kg for fuel

Fuel is carried in three internal tanks
No. 1: 3220 L (some early series SU-24 had 2220 L)
No. 2: 2950 L
No. 3: 4890 L
Total: 11060 L x 0.785 = 8682 kg

Looks about right.

In 1975 they locked the inlets on the earlier Su-24 – this saved maintenance and 236 kg weight. Maximum speed was limited as a result.

Note the Sukhoi link: http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su24mk/lth/ says 11060 kg, but it also has:
11,200 kg engine thrust in full power (actually 7800 kg per engine)
111,200 kg afterburner thrust! (actually 11,200 kg per engine)

It seems the the ideal max operational speed is Mach 1.6, however the Ukranian air force claims it can reach close to Mach 2.

the F-16 has a fixed inlet and can reach Mach 2, the Su-24 has inlets designed originally with VG geometry ramps, perhaps some users still use the Su-24 to a top speed of Mach 2 because originally the Su-24 was desigend to reach Mach 2.4 then the need for VG inlets.

I think the Su-24 can reach Mach 2 with fixed geometry inlets but the manufacturer recommends a max operational speed of Mach 1.6 to extend the operational life of the Su-24, perhaps a user like the Ukranian air force pushes the Su-24 up to speed of Mach 2.

Do you speak russian?

What i say is for this particular interview. Can you give me a link to russian reports you talk about.

Pesho since i believe you speak russian can you translate this part correctly since i done it but probably it is posible i did not do it well

В обмен России пришлось отказаться от претензий по поводу копирования и запуска в производство образцов военной техники, которую китайцы производят по российской лицензии. Гендиректор компании «Сухой» Михаил Погосян убеждал журналистов, что новый китайский истребитель J11B вовсе не является аналогом российского Су-27, а просто на него похож. Не шла речь и о повышении пошлин на китайский импорт в Россию, хотя все последние годы он рос втрое быстрее, чем российский экспорт в Китай, и положительное сальдо в $5 млрд в 2003 году сменилось к 2007-му отрицательным в $8,5 млрд. Медведев назвал лишь общие цифры: $40 млрд товарооборота сейчас и $60 млрд к 2010 году или даже раньше.

The SFC has already been considered in my calculation, but the L/D ratio was presumed as similar.

Dear Sens:

The fuel capacity I used previously was 11883 liter (excharge to 9764kg)~almost .82kg/L

Now the key is a comparison of the size of AL-21 engine, if you see what I mean.:)

Frank there is a Su-24 variant that carries a lot of fuel, the is the Su-24 tanker version.

Полезная нагрузка: 9000 кг топлива this variant can carry a payload of 9000kg in fuel, it uses the Upaz air refueling system and two tanks of 3000 liters each, but still it has a max range of 2800km

http://www.airwar.ru/enc/craft/su24mt.html

http://worldweapon.ru/images/sam/su24/su24_23.jpg

Топливо
внутренние топливо, кг 9800
внутренние топливо, л 13000
ПТБ 4 х 1250 или 2 х 3000

the most interesting of all is thet Sukhoi data does not agree with most of russian webpages that claim 9800kg of internal fuel or 13000 liters

http://www.avia-su.ru/su24.php

That in mind, you are absolute correct. Otherwise it is a waste of time to do, when some do question physics even.
Sukhoi gives 30° till 60° related to weight for cruise. Minimum sweep of 16° is for take-off and landing only or a slow fly-over. It has a high-wing load to stay low and fast for some time, but has to be flown relative fast most of the time therefore.

You values might be correct but still contradict the values given by Yefim Gordon, airwar.ru and Airbase.ru, basicly we are all guessing, so do not be so sure to affirm the Su-24 carries 22000 liters and give other specualation as how aerodynamic is the Su-24, in reality all our specualations can fit our guessings if we want but all of this is highly hypothetical and therefore wrong even your specualation the Su-24 carris more than 20000 liters in fuel

Let’s keep them simply, unified all of units to liter.

2271 liters is the capacity of each external fuel tank F-111 could carry.
19112 liters is the internal fuel capacity F-111 carried

11883 liters is the internal fuel capacity carried by Su-24
3000 liters is the capacity that each external fuel tanks under wing glove of Su-24 contains

so we have those data fella:
Su-24 had internal fuel + external fuel = 11883 + 3000 * 2 = 17883 liters
F-111 got merely internal fuel 19112 liters, which still be greater than 17883 to 19112-17883=1229liters (about900-950kg)

please pay attetion to such little 1229 liters fuel won’t cause so many gap of range between F-111 and Su-24, if the fuel consumption of engines these two jets fitted are similar. Noticed we had the 0.8 of Aardvark vs 0.76 of Fencer or 0.67 of Aardvark vs 0.76 of Fencer.

If all of other conditions are same, then 1229/19112, we got 0.064 which means, the F-111’s range will only be longer than Su-24 6.4%.

If the SFC of engine F-111 used is 0.8, then [0.8-0.76]/0.8=0.05=5%, this will almost counteract the most of 6.4% longer range F-111 originally had. But if we used 0.67, then the advantage of range F-111 gained will be enlarged to 12%+6.4%=18.4%

The 18.4% is very much closer to the real gap of range 23%. The 23% come from [4700km -3600km]/4700km, if you insist the range of F-111 merely with internal fuel is 4700km. Where the rest 4.6% goes? I give it to the drag Su-24’s external fuel tanks brought. If you guys insist the range of F-111 will be 5777km, I would also like to accept this data, then we will get 36.8% of advantage. 36.8-18.4=18.4 which will satisfied somebody who insist the drag coefficient external fuel tanks brought will be 20%. I think 18.4% is more reasonable for the EFT’s drag coefficient.

Now we’ve done, each aspect can accept. The range of Su-24 even with two EFTs only reach 2/3 of F-111 can do with internal fuel only.
If we presumed both F-111 and Su-24 without external fuel tank, then 2775km range of Su-24 is reliable, so under this condition, then range of Su-24 will be only half range of F-111. 1/3 will be absolutely unacceptable.

Franc

I will be absolutedly honest with you, sukhoi qoutes a max internal fuel capacity of 11100kg see

Максимальный запас топлива во внутренних баках, кг 11100
Maximum internal fuel, kg 11,100
they do not mention how many liters it really carries internally a guessing as Sens said is close to 14000 liters, the Su-24 can carry three fuel tanks, however Sukhoi quotes a ferry range with only two fuel tanks
Ferry flight range with 2xPTB-3000 external fuel tanks, km:
– with PTB external fuel tanks dropped 2,775

http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su24mk/lth/
the vast majority of Russian sources and books i have say the Su-24 has an internal capability of around 9000 liters

see Запас топлива, л 11700
http://aviaros.narod.ru/su-24m.htm

Топливо
внутренние топливо, л 9800
ПТБ, л до 6610

see airwar ru quotes around 15000 liters

http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bomber/su24mk.html

however Airbase.ru goes along with Sukhoi a quotes a fuel weight of 16000kg

Массы и нагрузки
Су-24 Су-24М
Масса, кг пустого 22320 22300
топлива 16440 16440
максимальная взлётная 39700

http://airbase.ru/hangar/planes/russia/su/su-24/
However i have read also that the Russians were aware of the fact the F-111 has a much longer range but this was unimportant since the Russians had a different military doctrine.

in my opinion the Su-24 might have an engine with a real SFC of 0.76 as quoted by the russian sources however its lift and LD ratio limit the aircraft and it uses the engines in different ways the F-111 does, and as sadly it might sound for a fan of the Su-24 like i am it is true what Sens and Schorsch are saying, the general performance of the Su-24 makes it spend much more fuel.

In fact i just read that the Russians were aware of that short coming of the Su-24 and they wanted to build the Su-24MM with an AL-31 however the inlets were so narrow and they did not allow enough air for the engine

Но АЛ-31Ф отличался намного большим расходом воздуха через компрессор, и для них пришлось сделать третий воздухозаборник над фюзеляжем, выглядевший довольно необычно. За это Су-24ММ на фирме получил прозвище “мертворожденный монстр”, которое оказалось пророческим – вскоре и эта программа была прекращена. На этот раз в пользу ударных модификаций одного из самых удачных самолетов ОКБ – Су-27.
But the AL-31F differed too much and had a larger flow of air through the compressor, and they had to make a third airlet over the fuselage, which looked quite unusual. For this, Su-24MM at the firm received the nickname “still-born monster”, which proved prophetic – and soon the programme was discontinued in favor of a modification one of the most successful aircraft Su-27 (the SU-27IB).

http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bomber/su24m.html