There was a story which mes told out what was your logic:
A man went to post office to send a mail. server told him his mail is overweight so he should buy more stamps and affix those stamps on envelop. The man ask back: Isn’t more stamps will overweight more?
If there was no misinterpretation, I can understood why you like that man who sent mail in that story thought more fuel carried that oppressed engine working under infaust condition .

:p The more stamps, the more overweight, so the more fuel carried, the more fuel consumption will be in any different flight profile. 😎 I am not laughing at you but even we ratiocinate among your logic, the consequence will rebut yourself: if the range or engine work will be unbenefited from more fuel carried, WHY the range of Fencer is so much less than Aardvark, or put in reverse word, why the range of Aardvark go ahead of Fencer so many??

Now the problem is still here.

I am getting serious doubt on your willingness to understand, even though Sens now has arrived at very basic level.

F-111:
NTOW is 37.6t
OEW is 21.6t
Internal fuel is given with 5040 gallons, makes 5040*3.8*0.8 = 15.3t fuel.
That gives a useful payload of 700kg (=2x B61 nuclear bomb).
Aircraft is clean.
Fuel fraction is .41 (that is close to a B747)

Su-24:
NTOW is 38t
OEW is 22.3t
Internal fuel is 11.1t
Add 2x2000kg and you have 15.1t.
Useful payload is 600kg, or two nuclear bombs.
Fuel fraction is .4.
Aircraft is not clean (~+20-30% drag)
SFC +25% (conservative)

Fuel Flow = SFC * Glide Ratio * Weight
Now, we assume for the F-111:
SFC = 1 (fictional value)*
Glide Ratio = 1/10 (fictional value)
Avg Weight = 29.6t
Fuel Flow: 3.0t/h

In case of the Su-24:
SFC = 1.25
Glide Ratio = 1/8 (20% more drag)
Avg Weight = 30.2t
Fuel Flow: 4.7t/h (50% more than F-111)

So, after roughly 5 hours the F-111 is out of fuel, while the Suchoi radios Bingo after a little over three. At an average ground speed of 900km/h the F-111 has 4500 km behind it and the Suchoi 24 is somewhere at 2830km.

Somebody might be tempted to doubt some numbers, however, I will only respond to people who take the effort and show me that a 20% less fuel efficient engine and a 20% draggier aircraft can come out somewhere close to the aircraft being clean and more fuel efficient.

—————-
The values for SFC and glide ratio are taken just as they look good and you can make by hand.
However, 1 for SFC and 10 for glide ratio is not that far of reality.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-111
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su-24
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f111_1.html

In some countries the average citizen only has 5 or 6 years of schooling, while in others is 12 years of school and by coincidence the nations that have an average of 12 years of school for each citizen have won more nobel prizes and have an aircraft industry more developed education is the fact that devides that

Fun fact: the nation that wins by far most Nobel Prizes has a school system that is considered crap even by the majority of its habitants.

When honest, you have no problem to give away, that there was no Russian Tf at hand, when the Su-24 was demanded.

At least no afterburning TFs.
Still a mistery to me why they didn’t retrofit the RD-33 or a derivative of that engine.

Although these forums contain lots of white noise, I like the moderator’s attitude towards it. Most people, even those people I nearly never agree with, have some interesting points to share. On the other hand, my ignore list will soon greet its tenth member (3 of them have already posted here).
Anyways, I think most white noise is produced in topics covering Chinese/Indian/Russian aviation. I don’t know why.

I remember some very useful and resourceful discussions, too.

Sometimes reasonably correct English language would be nice. People, there are two SHIFT keys on your keyboard, and all those funny sentence marks.,-?!””

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?

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=76441&highlight=F-111+Su-24&page=3
Read only the posts of Sens.
The Suchoi 24 uses turbojet engines which have a significant SFC penalty in the intended Mach/altitude region. Very strange although that they didn’t fit in a turbo-fan later. The F-111 uses the TF30, which isn’t known for reliability but its good SFC.

The difference in range is still rather surprising. However, those figures are often not comparable as the details are unknown (flight profile, speed, reserves). On a normal ferry mission empty tanks are not dropped. In that case, taking them at all is a doubtful decision for a ferry flight (heavy on take-off, 400kg extra weight all through the flight and ~10 to 20% more drag for only 40% more fuel).

When they find out, that the single fin solution will do for the mission of the Vigilante.
The Russians did find out, that the twin fin was in need for the mission of the MiG-25.
But here some similarities do end, because in that days, the engines at hand did dictate the size of an aircraft mostly.

What both had in common in that years was not the agility of each aircraft, just the stability for safe operation.

Correct:
The MiG-25 got its twin fins for lateral stability at high supersonic speeds.
For the F-15 it was rather used for increased stability at high angle of attack.
Twin fins were used on WW2 bombers, nothing revolutionary to use them on fighters.

I have the feeling that the Russians sometimes cut the conceptual phase short by using the American designs as starting point.
Good example is the Su-24, which resembles a TSR.2 and a F-111 from the aerodynamic configuration.

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?

BTW, dont confuse it with the B-2, since this is more an FBW auto-control handling design than a aerodynamyc/inertial unstable one

Why do we have to move the CoG?
I guess no bomber could match the supersonic range no the Concorde.

I quote myself:

Why wasn’t it flown beyond Mach 3? I guess because the technical specifications did not allow it (the Russian otherwise never missed to set a record if possible). I guess the first and only prototype wasn’t even intended to do so. In order to build such an aircraft with so little experience, one has to do extended risk reduction. All Russian manufacturers did it with prototyping, they relied more on prototypes. Unlike American industry the first prototypes hardly achieved the overall performance (reason may be the contractual logic of the USAF, where the initial aircraft need to demonstrate the required performance). They Russian often initially build testbeds, carefully used them to gain experience. Not a bad approach, just a different, more time consuming often (not always) and more costly.
You can see similar approaches on most MiG and Suchoi aircraft, the Buran and other. Some American and European aircraft programs also saw prototypes that didn’t match the performance of the intended aircraft (see EAP, or the many X-programs of the 50s). Also the XB-70 was a prototype from the onset and with this fact in mind that it wouldn’t see service, many issues that plague an intended operational design could be evaded.
Taking a risk-reduction prototype as prove that they were unable to reach that performance in general is flawed logic, proving the opposite is equally flawed.

Fact is that the Russians realized – as the Americans – that a Mach 3 bomber is not worth the cost. They apparently realized that later, but I guess they continued the T-100 because it used technology that needed to be validated. The T-100 was apparently the first FBW aircraft of the Russians.
Likewise the Americans: they used the XB-70 to validate technology.

Note that Tupolev continued with work on the Tu-160, an aircraft that surely uses FBW-technology and I guess a Tupolev engineer would assure us the important role the T-1000 experience played for this program.

Validating the Mach 3 performance target was of limited importance. No further use for it.