Wrong.
See my latest post.
Trust the engineers as they understand aircraft.

I trust the RAAF that flies the F-111

Weight 24,000kg basic, 51,846kg fully loaded

http://www.airforce.gov.au/aircraft/f111.htm

and sukhoi that built the aircraft

Takeoff weight:
– normal, kg 38,040
– maximum, kg 43,755

http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su24mk/lth/

The conditions are not the same from the start.
There are two main differences, when not comparing pears and apples.
10 tons of fuel inside a Su-24 do generate a range of 100% or whatever number in nm/km you like.
10 tons of fuel inside a F-111 do generate a range of 130 % or ……….
Even when we reduce that difference in SFC to 10% only, there is still a difference in favor of the F-111.
But that is all without the second main difference.
Before going to that, a small example may be a help for better understanding.
When your car has 150 hp/kW installed power and a truck has an engine of the “same” nominal 150 hp/kW too, but both have to haul a load of 15 tons at 80 km/h you will get an idea, that same hp but different torque make u huge difference.
In some sense, the airflow of an jet-engine is something similar like torque.
The TF30 is ~5500 kp in installed dry, when the AL21 is ~8000 kp in installed dry.
The engines in both aircraft are able to give that enough thrust to reach Mach 0,8 till Mach 0,9 in max military or dry with external load.

The difference in installed dry to do so is up to 45 % alone.

But that is not for free, every kp or kN in nominal thrust has to be payed by fuel measured in SFC, when in use.
Where ever you look first, you will find out easily, that there is a huge gap in range capability between the Su-24 and the F-111, related to the propulsion system alone.
Looking into some data only can be very misleading.
So under the most favorable conditions a F-111 can have two times the action radius of a Su-24 with the same weapon-load.
Compared to that yardstick, the Su-24 is close to the Tornado IDS by nearly double the size.
But besides that, it seems that the Su-24 did/does satisfy the needs of the Russian AF, because it was kept and worth an avionic upgrade for some of that till today and the near future, when its replacement, the Su-34 does suffer funding problems.

You allusion forget the F=MxA, the F-111 is heavier it needs to use the engine at higher power settings if it needs to fly at the same speed, You can say perhaps the F-111 has a better lift/drag ratio but also has heavier max take off.

in fact at any max weight you see a difference of 7000kg to 5000kg difference in the max take off of the Su-24 and F-111. that difference alone reflexes the difference in fuel tankage, the Su-24 never was tested to its max speed and only achieved slightly more than Mach 2.1 however the design was supposed to be able to reach mach 2.4 as part of the original requirements so you can not say it has worst lift drag ratio without real data

The main use/mission of both was/is the low-level strike at subsonic speed.
Whatever mission profile you choose, the Tf beats the Tj by a wide margin in fuel consumption.
When honest, you have no problem to give away, that there was no Russian Tf at hand, when the Su-24 was demanded.

man i am not saying the Al-21F3 was more economical simply at military power however the margin does not justify 30% more fuel consumption, considering them as pure engines both the TF-30-PW-100 and the Al-21F3 are more or less comparable, in cruise flight the Su-24 is at the most 12% or at least 7% more fuel thirsty and at Max afterburner the TF-30 will be 50% more fuel thirsty, however if you want to see the factors influening the USE OF AFTERBURNER consider then max weight and air drag.

The F-111 is a heavier aircraft and this will influence the use of the engine specially to achieve Mach 2.5, however the F-111 carries much more fuel, in fact several tons more fuel and the Su-24 has a slightly more fuel consumption so basically what ever “IF” the F-111 aerodynamics are less draggy than the Su-24 are upset by a heavier max take off, besides both aircraft fly similar flight profiles at low altitude and Mach 1.2, nevertheless the F-111 weighs slightly less than the Su-24 at empty weight

The same mistake as always. When each data given may be correct for itself, it does not mean that they are comparable in the same way. They are handpicked from a certain part of a performance envelope related to special test conditions. Not being too critical about that, because we may use that at hand, despite that knowledge to get an idea about the scope at least.
Official data about the AL-21F-3 are:
8000 kp dry and 0,9 sfc
11500 kp wet and 1,82 sfc
pressure ratio 14,75
TET 1400 K
Mass flow 104,5 kg/sec
Bypath ratio zero
= four main factors to judge engines
Three are related to sfc, when the mass is something about “torque” in the widest sense, just to give an idea about that.
By the way, the cruising sfc is higher than the max military, where the engine is at its peak.
Not going into differences about Tj and Tf, when it is like comparing an Otto-motor with a Diesel-motor, just to give a further idea.
Another important factor is, that many like to forget, that the engine is just one part of a propulsion-system, which does give the total output.

0,686 to 0,9 does not look much.
The difference is ~31%
The use of an AB is limited to a few minutes at best, when in dry they go for hours.
It is not the first time you read that.

man do not tell me seudo technicalities
what an aircraft spends in fuel is what an aircraft spends in fuel independently of its aerodynamics or other factors, you are biasly forgeting the fuel carrried, you can not even prove me that both the F-111 and Su-24 carry the same amount of fuel when flying their max ranges, prove they carry the same amount of fuel and the Su-24 has 30% less range then, but you can not, you go in circles because if you prove the Su-24 has the same amount of fuel and has 30% less range then you are right but the reality is not like that, flying at military power both aircraft are more or less comparable even despite the AL-21F3 will spend around 12%-7% more fuel

Both aircraft were designed with VG wings to reduce drag and the Su-24 has very narrow inlets, while the F-111 has very sharp radome and very long wing gloves, the 30% difference in range is mostly fuel carriage capacity, the F-111 was desigend with more fuel capacity and slightly less fuel thirsty engines at military power, however the F-111 at ful afterburner and max speed will spend more fuel even despite it flies at Mach 2.5 and has VG inlet system, so basicly the F-111 is also a low speed mach 1.2 interdictor fighter not very different than the Su-24

There is no demand from me to post any pix, to prove how many fuel that Su-24 or F-111 carry. All data I just used from yours. That’s ok, you quote them quite well.

But the keypoint here as you posted the gap of fuel consumption between Aardvark’s engine and Fencer’s engine is only 11%. The 11% is a very data to display what the difference between Turbine jet and Turbinfan is.

I will shut up if you also prove the range of Aardvark only larger than Fencer 11% or even 15% for VG inlet used. But Here is 30% in addition to data of fuel carried by Su-24 with 2x2400kg EFT under this condition are more than F-111 almost 20%.

I have to point out that range data on internet always go mess if we scrutinize them
Here we saw some data of combat radius are much more acceptable even convert them roughly to be range, which will still be less than F-111’s.

The range on Czech web 3600km I saw somewhere appeared auther have done speculation on this.

On the other hand, with the wing could be swinged, warload of Aardvark won’t be more than Fencer too many, do you believe? :diablo:

Man you are free to believe what ever you wish, i have proved to you with the Sukhoi webpage and the Australian air force webpage the range, i have proved to you the Fencer only will carry three fuel tanks and the F-111 will carry six, i have prove to you the F-111 has swiveling hardpoints, i have prove it to you the Su-24`s Al-21 is only 7% more fuel thirsty than the TF-30, if you want to see things that the russian sources which are far far more reliable for Russian aircraft even the own manufacture of the Su-24 is up to you.

the pictures you uploaded are not concerned to what we are suspecting.

It’s almost unbelieveable that ferry range of Su-24 STILL is less than F-111’s range without external tank so much. I read what you post very carefully.

carefully enough that 4000km is a range with merely internal fuel.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f111_8.html
The density per gallon of JP-8 is 6.652 pound/gallon or 3.02kg if you multiply that by 5032=15196.4kg that is if it is JP-8 other fuels have different densities and density is temperature related.

now 7443 gallons equal 22477.86 kg of internal and external fuel

However this is only true if the Australian F-111 do carry only 7443 gallons of fuel and do not carry more since the 7443 gallons is a information based upon aircraft weighing 45000kg

http://www.steelsoldiers.com/index.php?module=pagesetter&type=file&func=get&tid=3&fid=file&pid=49

However what you do not want to see is basicly that the AL-21F has a SFC of 0.8 kg/kgf/h not far from engines like the Al-31 or even R-133
AL-21F specific fuel fraction

удельный расход топлива – 1.86 и 0.86 кг/(кгс-ч) (0.19 и 0.09 кг/(Н-ч)) соответственно; минимальный удельный расход топлива – 0.76 кг/(кгс-ч) (0.08 кг/(Н-ч)).
specific fuel comsuption – 1.86 and 0.86 kg / (kg/hr) (0.19 and 0.09 kg / ( N/hr)), respectively; minimum specific fuel comsuption 0.76 kg / (kg/hr) (0.08 kg / (N/hr)).

source http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bomber/su24.html

http://www.airwar.ru/enc/engines/al-21f.html
Удельный расход топлива:, (кг/ч)/Н 0.088 SFC kg//h/N 0.088

for the Al-31

Расход топлива в экономичном режиме, кг/Н-год 0.069/Specific fuel comsuption in economical regime kg/h/N 0.069
Расход топлива , кг/Н-год 3.96 SFC kg/h/N 3.96
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/engines/al31f.html

here is for the TF-30-100

Удельный расход топлива:, (кг/ч)/кгс
на форсаже 2.450
в режиме полного газа 0.686
Specific fuel consumption: (kg / h) / kgf
at full afterburner 2.450
full military power 0.686
In fact not very different from the Al-21F

http://www.airwar.ru/enc/engines/tf30p100.html

Технические харктеристики
АЛ-21Ф-1 АЛ-21Ф-3
Удельный расход топлива, кг/кгс·ч.:
на форсажном режиме 1,90 1,86
на крейсерском режиме 0,72 0,76
Technichal characteristics of the AL-21F-1 and AL-21G-3

SFC at full afterburner 1.90 1.86 kg/kgf/h
SFC at cruise regime 0.76 0.76 kg/kgf/h

sourcehttp://aviaros.narod.ru/al-21f.htm
after you see this you came to the conclusion the F-111 at 51800kg is carrying more fuel than 7443 gallons simply because the SFC are not so different they do not justify a 40% difference but at the most a 10% difference in SFC between the AL-21F and the TF-30

since for the AL-21F is удельный расход топлива – 1.86 и 0.86 кг/(кгс-ч) (0.19 и 0.09 кг/(Н-ч)) соответственно; минимальный удельный расход топлива – 0.76 кг/(кгс-ч) (0.08 кг/(Н-ч)). and for the TF-30 is Удельный расход топлива:, (кг/ч)/кгс на форсаже 2.450 в режиме полного газа 0.686 Specific fuel consumption: (kg / h) / kgf at full afterburner 2.450 and at full military power 0.686

TF-30 0.68 kg/kgf/h and for AL-21 0.76 kg/kgf/h in fact the difference is only 11%,

You are denying a fact the F-111 and SU-24 get their max ranges with external fuel tanks and their engines are relatively more or les comparable, you can continue excusing the Su-24, the Su-24 carries only less fuel and has a relatively more fuel thirsty engines, but the main reason why it has less range is simply it carries less fuel, the pictrues are related and shows you a fact The Su-24 only can carry three external fuel tanks while the F-111 will use six fuel tanks that is the reality and you can not get better pictures to probe your points that the ones i have posted that prove the Su-24 carries less fuel

well,

That data from Sukhoj web is the most doubtable. Let’s see:
with two dropped external tank, Su-24’s range only is 2775km.
with no external tank, F-111’s range could reach 4000km

the internal fuel Aardvark contains is approxi 14tons
whereas Fencer contains internal fuel approxi 11tons, plus two external tank will be 16tons approximately.

two more tons fuel carried cause less 70% range? is this reasonable? unless the fuel consumption of engine Su-24 used is 50% higher than F-111’s? is it possible? who can help to check the fuel consumption?

Franc

you are simply not reading well the data i provided to you.

The Su-24 carries first less fuel internally, carries a lighter warload and its engines are slightly i would say marginally more fuel thirsty.

The main isssue are not the engines but the fuel capacity

Ok, lets take the Concord, lets move it CoG, and lets turn it into a over sized M2000 or rafale….so it can replace the Tu-160?

Any report about any attempt?

The Mirage IV was an aircraft like that but in a much smaller size, you can turn the Concord into a bomber, in fact the earlier V bombers Vulcan have a similar concept

http://www.skycontrol.net/history/the-end-of-the-beginning-for-vulcan-xh558/

However the Tu-160 and B-1B are better simply the Variable geometry wings gives better take off controlability and also very fast speed, so definitively the Tu-160 and B-1B have better aerodynamic compromises for a large bomber in terms of economy and control, specially since the Tu-160 has fuselage blending

in fact the american SST aircraft had VG wings it was a B-1B for commercial airliners and not the USAF

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-367/f107.htm

http://www.testpilot.ru/usa/boeing/733/b733.htm

The Concord delta wing was selected simply because it was lighter and cheaper to develop and put into production, the VG wing has also drawbacks mainly extra weight and higher costs, but as a proof the B-1 was better 100 B-1Bs were built and more thyan 30 Tu-160 have been built but the concord never reached those numbers an irony of how a technical marvel was destroyed by civilian complaigns.

also the concord had a very round fuselage cross section of very small diameter increasing the costs of carrying people, a blended wing body boeing aircraft was later was considered for lower speeds but never reached prototype stage and the Boeing 787 was chosen instead