Originally posted by Bhairav
Matt,Blackjack is the NATO codename for the Tupolev Tu-160 bomber. They’re Mach-2 capable, high-altitude planes, high value targets, which are almost certain to have high-quality fighter escort, eg. the Flanker and the Fulcrum. I doubt any Chinese MiG clones would be able to shoot one down :p

Why would they need an escort at all 🙂 ? A Blackjack would nuke 12 strategic targets from 3,000km away with it’s 12 Kh-55SM ALCMs, no need to even enter enemy airspace in most cases; especially if the neighbor was on the border.

Originally posted by flex297
Errr, very little… Except for the fins and fuselage airframe which comes out of the same construction.

MiG-29Ks had twin CRTs in the cockpit and N010 Zhuk radar. These things have already been replaced with M2

Incorrect. The ‘new’ MiG-29K is almost exactly the same aircraft as the ‘production’ MiG-29M2 (which the prototype is not- the prototype is a modified MiG-29M prototype)- the MiG-29K/KUB and MiG-29M1/M2 will be virtually the same aircraft, except that the M1/M2 will not have a braking parachute, not an arrester hook- they will both have the folding wings of the MiG-29K, for example.

M2 project was done on a shoestring budget. Still have to qualify weapons to drop with the airframe. That takes some money. All the article says is they went out and funded some munitions. Didn’t say what kind. A design requirement is one thing. Captive carry, and flying the weapons and dropping them ( and getting results ) is another.

I’m sure many weapons have been carried on the MiG-29M and MiG-29K (and there are pics around to prove it)- that should cut down significantly on expenses, considering the similarities.

Originally posted by SD-10
What you mean by specification not remarkable? I put the

specification of YJ-83/C-803 and you should put some

specification of Exocet or Harpoon and don’t put any Russian

because they don’t work. The specification of YJ-12 is

unknown.

What the hell are you talking about? What Russian “because they don’t work?” Are you smoking some sort of narcotic?

Originally posted by Arthur
Having been in both (although the A50 was the prototype and in a really poor state), i have to say that while the E-3’s internal finish is definately better, the wider and higher cabin of the A-50 definately has it’s merits. There is more room to stretch yourself for some time during a long mission, and you don’t have to be a dwarf to reach your position either in a MAINSTAY.

I don’t understand how you guys could think the A-50 is ‘cramped’ inside. Ever even been inside the cargo bay of an Il-76 and compared it with the cabin of a 707? Please.

I personally didn’t say it was cramped- but what I did hear was that there’s a lack of amenities.

Originally posted by Distiller
Brits had those wonderful names like Gauntlet and Fury. Or maybe something Australian like Wirraway or Woomera or Boomerang (after all, coming back ain’t no bad thing for a fighter).

Meh. I’m Aussie and they don’t have any appeal for me.

I still think tacking a II onto an old name would be the best bet.

REPEATS:

NO CATS. Only GRUMMAN aircraft are named after cats.