Both are supersonic tactical bombers, the second developed on the basis of a high performance fighter, with much better awareness and general A2A performance.
Not strictly true... the Su-24 can carry air to air missiles but strictly as a self defence measure. The Su-34 are fully multirole and could easily be used as an interceptor for some missions... certainly it could carry rather more AAMs than any other Russian aircraft and its inflight refuelled endurance is also unequalled...
In a sense you could argue that the Su-57 is the Su-34s replacement but it is so specialised and expensive they will be used together.... much the same that the Su-35 and Su-57 will be used together too.
None of them is a dedicated fighter and would be at a disadvantage facing one, that is why the air combat capability on those is considered for self defence mainly.
Even America can't afford a dedicated fighter (F-15C)... Typhoon is a dedicated fighter because it has no air to ground capacity yet... but all aircraft are becoming multirole... even the MiG-31 got multirole capabilities in the BM model.
Not sure what you try to prove, since I am not denying that other aircraft than pure fighter can be used for AD.
But you are... you are saying the S-70 can't shoot down enemy planes because it lacks speed and manouverability and all the features that would make it a FIGHTER.
I am arguing that it is a multirole drone that operates with FIGHTERS and part of its role will be to launch air to air missiles at incoming threats... making them force multipliers and also fighters because the definition of a fighter is a plane that is dedicated to shooting down other aircraft... fighter is a definition that includes interceptors and dogfighters.
When battling another plane it actually does,
In most cases kills are achieved in situations where the target pilot did not know they were under attack till it was too late for them to do anything to defend themselves... how is acceleration and manouver important in that regard?
Most HATO interceptions involve a big AWACS aircraft detecting enemy aircraft and directing friendly aircraft to sneak up behind them and fire on them from behind and without warning... what sort of manouver and acceleration is critical in that situation?
Manouver and acceleration is nice but if it was critical the MiG-23 would be the most potent fighter of its generation.
it depends on how fast and high it can go that it will be in conditions to launch first, and the supersonic high altitude manoeuvrability determines whether it can disengage in time or be hit. This is a duel, not duck shooting, and you need to be aware of what the other side can do.
If it becomes a duel you fucked up. This is supposed to be duck shooting.
If their missiles reach longer because they are flying faster and higher and they can determine the engagement dynamics because of superior manoeuvrability and kinematics, odds are that you will get killed.
So they did really well in the Vietnam war because small light nimble fighters that were slower and less powerful than the bigger heavier Phantoms with missiles with vastly superior flight range actually didn't do too bad at all.
More than operational Okhotnik, for sure.
What is Meteors effective range against stealthy targets?
There are quite a few new AAM programs in development in the West too. You cannot make your future fleet survivability dependent on whether US makes a missile that matches the R-37, because it is perfectly doable and could easily fit the bays of the F-35. For planes like F-15EX, carrying many of those would be trivial.
R-37M is a real thing in operational service, and a heavier longer ranged replacement has been developed specifically for internal weapon bay carriage... when they made the S-70 they knew about the new missile they were making for internal carriage... why would they not make it compatible...
Who gives a shit what the west does, that is not a reason not to deploy a new long range missile on every platform they can.
Extreme long range gives them the option to launch but is no assurance of a kill.
The new multi warhead missiles they are developing too will be another factor as well.
They take the oxygen from the air and therefore have big advantages in terms of range.
They lose lots of the advantages by needing intakes and exhausts and air flow management structures that leaves a lot of empty space inside their structure, and limiting their top speed to a similar speed to rockets also limits their performance too.
NEZ of a Meteor is said to be at least twice as big as that of a rocket propelled missile.
That is actually not true. The new R-77M with its three stage rocket motor with high energy launch and low energy drag compensation cruise motor and then a terminal attack rocket motor that can be started as the missile approaches the target should give it a large NEZ range too because with TVC and the rocket motor operating during the terminal phase its ability to manouver should be dramatically improved over just using conventional control surfaces and being unpoowered.
It is not obvious to calculate which missile is better, depending on the engagement configuration.
A powered missile has better performance even without TVC, but greatly more so with a running motor and TVC is a huge advantage and can be for either type of missile as I mentioned.
For a scramjet powered missile the increased speed gives rather less chance to evade or even realise it is under attack...
The MiG-31 has much smaller wings and flies higher. IIRC it was 18 km for the Okhotnik, which is a lot, but nevertheless the same as MiG-29 or Su-27. Typhoon, F-15 and 5G fighters fly higher, and interceptors even higher.
The key is not the altitude or the speed, but the low RCS and being closer to the target that is distracted by the Su-57 or other fighter operating with it.
In much the same way that an Su-30M was supposed to use its larger superior radar to scan for targets while smaller lighter MiG-29s would be operating closer to the target waiting for target data to be provided to them on which targets to attack so the platform operating closer can operate in silent mode but still engage targets.
Obviously the low RCS of the S-70 counts in its favour and it is more expendable too.
As a summary: the Okhotnik can be used for AD, but that the Su-57 has its back is not a mere coincidence
Have you given it this permission or does it need proof in writing from its mommy?
I forgot to mention above that a good part of the missile's energy is spent pushing it through the transonic area of its flight envelope, that is serious reason why fighters spend very valuable fuel resources in the A/B needed for dashing before launching.
Yes, in my boys big book of battles I read page after page of air to air clashes in the Falklands war and the Middle East and south east asia about fighters leaving dogfights to climb and accelerate to super sonic speeds to launch their missiles at enemy target aircraft.
Most of the time in real combat they didn't open fire at BVR because they needed positive ID, and they were carrying short range missiles only anyway.
None of the fighter aircraft in the Falklands war had BVR AAMs.
The fuel in an air to air missile is fixed burning... if you launch from low altitude most air to air missiles have dramatically shorter flight ranges and fly directly at the target.
It is only a few dedicated long range missiles that climb and fly a lofted trajectory to increase range... (R-27E missiles and R-33 and R-37 for instance).
With dual pulse engine, rocket missiles can do better for cheaper by keeping the last trust for the final engagement.
New missiles have three rocket motor phases with the last phase able to be fired when it is deemed most useful... the equivalent of being able to conserve ramjet fuel for the terminal phase of the attack.
Ramjet also uses fuel to heat the air and once it run out of fuel it will go ballistic but the entry of the ramjet will create lot of drag and it's range in ballistic mode will be much smaller than that of a rocket missile.
No moving blades or disks in a ramjet so the air could be allowed to flow through but you are right, drag should be higher with no fuel being burned.