Russia is often an incredibly conservative country, of course the lack of technology plays a role also. When you walk through Monino you realize how small most of the Soviet designs were. The Yak-25 is pretty much a minimum-size/volume design for its requirements. And not “integrated”. Radar – Pilots – Tanks – Tail, all serial. Highly swept wing to compensate for the lack of area ruling, two engines Me262 style under the wing. As a bomber interceptor it didn’t have to be a hotrod. And in the later incarnations as bomber, the internal bomb bay was perfect for that one nuclear bomb it was supposed to deliver.

That is the point: the Yak-28 is a useful engine riveted to the minimum airframe to get it all together. Zero innovation.
It did its job, but that’s about it.
A Starfighter could do the same job (delivering a single bomb over a 500nm radius).

In the late 1950ies Soviet Russia didn’t have any alternatives. The MiG-21 was too small to do the fighter-bomber or interceptor, and the Suchoi 7/9/11 wasn’t really good for it, either. It needed the Suchoi 15 (which was sold as a derivative of the -11 for political reasons) to finally have a real interceptor design. Then came the MiG-25 (an initially very limited design).

The Yak-28 couldn’t …
… do any worthwhile conventional mission
… do any fighter work (the F-105 was at least a bit able)

It lacked aerodynamic design, any kind of (no high-lift, no area-rule, no advanced wing concepts like delta). The Yak is the best example of how limited Soviet aviation was in the late 50ies, early 60ies.

Side note: in the same year – 1958 – as the Yak-28 took off for the first time the F-4 made its maiden flight, a design able to do any mission the Yak could ever do, but muuuuuuch better.

If we consider the actual combat use of the AA-10 especialy in conflicts over Afrca used by SU-27 and MiG-29 flown by Soviet merceneary pilots, thean the Aim-7M was a way better missiles, as it achied a 40% hit rate during Desert Storm, a percentage the AA-10 could not even dream off.

And using semi-active radar homing missiles in a fighter versus fighter combat is a luxury one can rarely afford. The opponent will recognize when he gets locked, and probably wave off. To successfully engage one needs to lock when the other guy cannot escape any more.

SARH-missiles and the necessary radar equipment were pretty much wasted weight in a European daylight scenario.

…

The wording plus the frequent use of bold combined with the general lack of proper spelling indicates that quoted user is our old friend MiG-23MLD, which makes any direct answer pointless.

I think Su-34 + KS-172 could be a splendid AWAC killer.

Only one issue: how does the launch platform know where the AWACS is?
Maybe they walk to their toilet (which the might Suchoi has), turn on their iPad, lock into the local on-board WLAN (another feature of the Suchoi) and check http://www.flightradar24.com .

Apart from that, if I launch my non-existing Wunder-Missile from a Suchoi 34 or an F-4 Phantom is rather secondary. Both could carry it, it weights less than a ton.

Yes agreed, the F-15E could very well hold its own.
The F-15E is a great striker, which history shows.
But against units like Su-35S it would not hold its own.

I don’t think high assets like the Su-34 are left alone without escort regarding any mission where it could face F-15/16 etc etc.

If one need a stand-off bomber or something closer to CAS, the Su-34 wins hand down any given day.

The Suchoi 34 is heavier and has probably better payload-range. That’s it. For most missions these capabilities are not asked for. Going unescorted into a heavily defended airspace would mean a difficult mission for both aircraft, which they cannot fight successfully without support.
Both are today “second wave” aircraft, going in after stealthy aircraft, UAVs or cruise missiles have degraded the air defense.

Thx everyone for your answers…….!

Next question….
Wouldn´t this airframe be a perfect platform for a new Wild Weasel type, hence the available space within the airframe and the performance datas??

EF-18G is the new “Wild Weasel”. A true “Wild Weasel” would today be a perfect job for a remote controlled UAV. Flying low & fast can still be a useful addition to any WW-aircraft, both types do not really master this task.

I would pick an F-15E over an Suchoi 34. The mission normalley requires to carry 2 heavy devices over a distance. The F-15E can do that very good. The Suchoi offers additional capability and may be of advantage for larger payloads.
What really makes the F-15E attractive: take away the CFTs, the targeting pods and the heavy fuselage pylons and you have a fully capable air defence fighter.

– weight
– passenger acceptance
– usefullness: most crashes don’t happen with a 30 seconds prior notice.

In most cases the ejection would either be too late or unnecessary, causing huge number of fatalities. 1-5% of all ejections are not successful (pilot dead), makes one granted kill per 100 people.

Yes for ALL jet/turbine engines! As already posted % throttle is not very commonly used but when it is, 0% throttle is idle & 100% throttle is max dry/military with afterburner ‘throttle/power’ given as AB1, AB2, AB3…

Assuming a linear corrilation between throttle & RPM…

But the important fact is that 0% throttle is idle power, not zero power (aka engine off) & 100% throttle is max dry/military power, not max afterburner power.

& @ scorpion82

pfcem is right here. There is the flight mechnaic perspective, where throttle and thrust are linearly connected and 0% (or degrees, or whatever) give no thrust to the aircraft (but still compensate for the engines drag, which is substantial).

Today a nice guy named FADEC senses the throttle position, and depending on Mach number, altitude and temperature translates this into an N2/N1 or EPR. Engineers try to make the thrust proportional to throttle position, although thrust is not linear connected to N1. EPR is rather linear connected to thrust, therefore traditionally used by some manufacturers (P&W).

Between IDLE N1 and 100% N1, one can roughly say:
N1 ~ THR^2

~ means proportional

It’d be interesting to know how long Blackbird stay on afterburner, or Foxhound, of Foxbat, or Concorde for that matter, or….[insert]

Blackbird: for the time it had fuel. The A12/SR71 didn’t use a traditional afterburner concept, the engine layout cannot be compared to today’s engines. The price to pay was a jaw-dropping subsonic SFC.

Foxbat: afterburner probably as long as it has gas, which wasn’t for long usually.

Concorde: the Concorde didn’t use its afterburner for cruise flight. So it could do Paris-NY. The Tu-144 required reheat, and it couldn’t fly a useful mission.