It’s still on the to-do list, unfortunately.

So why couldnt have they modified the Su-27 airframe for this job from the beggining? It could’ve been a single plane to escort bombers since ithad a long range and it could’ve too tackled otehr bombers and cruise missiles?

Because when the T10 project was launched, there was no need for a striker with the FA. The Su-24 was still perfectly adequate in the doctrine of the day which required a terrain-following aircraft with swing-wings. In fact, the Su-27’s wing makes it less than ideal for low-flying attack missions.

And why couldnt the f-14 settle that requirement?

Because it was Grumman, and the USAF didn’t do Grumman.

I seriously do not like how USSR built 3 twin engined heavy interceptors. Ok somehow I understand the Mig-29 and Su-27 but what was the need for the Mig-31 when the Su-27 could’ve been modified with it’s radar and AAMs and other goodies, to become like the F-14 in the same way.

Different roles: the MiG-31 is a dedicated interceptor, the Su-27 is a heavy air superiority fighter. The differences between these tasks is big enough to warrant these two types, especially (again) during the time both were thought out.

Didn’t India get some?

Also, how many Tu-22M3s are still in service? Both Long Range and Naval Aviation.

In total 127 are reported to be active, 99 should be in some sort of storage.

Back to the original question:

Useless aircraft:

-1- The B-1B bomber (although hindsight has a lot to do with this). It never really had the payload and range to be a true bombtruck, but for a stand-off missile launcher it had all sorts of useless gizmos. Besides, using the B-1 as a bombtruck is pretty lame if you consider the fact that it was in fact built as a one-mission aircraft so no thought seems to have been given to reloading the Bone.

-2- All subsonic interceptors from the 1950s, especially the rocket-armed ones. Cool as they might have been, there simply was no chance in hell for an F-94C or F-89 to intercept a high-flying Tu-16 or Il-28, let alone shoot it down.

-3- The C-130J. Trying to fit the obese Army of One into the same size fuselage as used by the Defenders of the Free World in the 1950s is just silly. As rightfully ridiculed as the A400M program is, i won’t be surprised all that much if the USAF starts seriously considering that piece of Eurotrash when it realises somewhere in the next decade that those fy-1964 C-130E’s are getting really, really old…

-4- The Myasishchev M4/3M. Cool, but totally useless compared to the Tu-95. Given the tanker role out of mercy, like some other useless aircraft i can think of.

Stupid decisions:
-1- The Valiant/Victor/Vulcan trio. Again, these were whoa cool aircraft but three similar-sized aircraft for the same role in a (relatively) small airforce like the RAF was pure waste. Especially if you consider the pathetic state of the RAF’s air defense/interceptors from the 1950s onward.

-2- Disbanding of the Sukhoi OKB by Stalin in 1949. The original Su-17 could easily have been the world’s first supersonic fighter.

-3- Like Duncan Sandy’s 1957 White Paper, the Khrushchev missile doctrine from the following year. Cancelled and/or limited a lot of interesting aviation projects in the Soviet Union.

-4- No final credit from the Dutch government for Fokker (yeah, i know, that’s government support but all countries do that) when it was trying to overcome the development cost of both the F50 and F100 series of aircraft. Embraer jumped into the gap left by the F100 with their ERJ135/145 series, while i think the F50 series would have provided a more economical utility platform than all those current transport-spinoffs you see nowadays. I admit being totally biased on this one.

Some more myths:
The Yak-38 was only capable of vertical takeoff, not STOL
Wrong, with the lift engines running and the exhaust nozzles rotated some 45deg, the Forger could make a ‘running start’. Like on the Harrier, STOL takeoffs meant that a bigger payload could be taken up.

The Su-25 is a copied Northrop A-9
Wrong, the Su-25 grew out of the SPB and LSSh studies from the late 1960s, well before the A-9 was presented. Size- and configuration wise, the SPB/LSSh looked more like single-seat Alpha Jets (not presented back then either) than the later A-9.

Tu-22 Blinder and Tu-22M Backfire missile carriers were foremost aimed against US carrier battle groups
Wrong, their main role was to attack land targets as most of these aircraft went to the DA, not the AVMF (the Navy actually never got any Tu-22K missile carriers). The Navy Backfires were far more concerned with attacking convoys and harbours.

And then there were of course the Bomber and Missile Gaps.