None. The T-60S was superceded by the T-54 design 😀

The Tu-160 already features some RCS reduction. Look down the intakes of an operational BLACKJACK at Engels and you’ll see a lot of RAM coating, for one. And more efficient engines? I understand the desire for new technology and more TBO and whatnot, but the NK-321 is a pretty damn good engine already. The BLACKJACK already has extremely long legs thanks to those engines.

Cheers SOC, I forgot about that. Personally I would like to see a version of the T-54 design (not that we realy know what it looks like) with a pair of NK-321’s. I dont care if it isnt practical it would be cool and thats all that counts!:D

To give you an idea of how good the NK-321 is I took the following from

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-062-DFRC.html

“The newer Kuznetsov NK-321 turbofan engines, rated at more than 55,000 pounds thrust in full afterburner, give the aircraft a maximum cruising speed above Mach 2.3 (about 1,550 mph). These engines also give the Tu-144LL a greatly improved range of about 3,500 nautical miles (4,040 statute miles/6,500 km). Before being upgraded to the “LL” configuration, the Tu-144D was powered by four Koliesov RD-36-51 turbojets which gave it a maximum cruising speed of Mach 2.15 (2.15 times the speed of sound or approximately 1,450 mph) at 59,000 feet altitude. It had a maximum range of less than 2,500 miles and an absolute ceiling of 62,000 feet.”

Basically its an impressive engine.;)

Assuming this is not BS, I wonder how much of this new R&D involves dusting down the plans for the Sukhoi T-60S?;)

Possibly the minor detail of no Challenger tank, either Mk1 or Mk2 has been lost or breached in combat until now, same with the Warrior. Correct they survived, but I doubt very much the driver is happy at loosing his legs though. Bex

Does not make the Challenger ‘invulnerable’, just lucky.

Incidently a british soldier died in a fire fight in Iraq today.

The Challenger was never ‘invulnerable’. No tank is. The Americans have lost a number of Abrams to IED’s in Iraq. Frequently they drive over a buried artillery shell that is then exploded. No tank can survive that.

Its what might be termed self evident , The gun controls put in place mean there will never be another massacre by a “nut” legally using the banned types of firearm , it could be no other way unless the ban was lifted , ergo the gun control measures were effective.It is now a matter for the justice system to do something about the illegal firearms issue.

So what you are saying is that as a result of the handgun people can no longer legally break the law?:rolleyes:

Basically people are no longer able to use legal handguns to commit crime, however they are perfectly free to commit crime will illegal handguns.:rolleyes:

Oh how I hoped he’d have flipped the record by now but he’s still waxing on about the non-prevented massacre that hasn’t actually happened yet. Yawn, yawn, yawnity yawn !!! 😀 :rolleyes:

So you can prove a negative can you?:rolleyes:

Well, we’ve got the problem that the vector of the AASM must be clearly in the range of the S-300 missiles, but on the other hand, destroying an AASM with a S-300 is clearly an overkill.

On the other hand destroying a Rafale with an S-300/400 is not overkill.;)