Apparently, the B-52 didn’t have the means to find naval targets on her own, until recently:
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/transforming-a-b-52-into-a-maritime-patrol-plane-1003488b345a
http://www.afrc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123415848

Since the Tu-22 is the only dedicated anti-shipping bomber, it’s probably the best.

I think a MiG-31 successor would still be a twin seater and have a drag chute.
Also your fuselage is slimmer, but for more range, speed, maybe internal weapons, I think it will grow.

Targeting pod = poor mans recce pod.
OK, thats somewhat exaggerated but you get the point, they can be used for reconnaissance. Considering the RAF have the RAPTOR pod though, I second mrmalayas question why they don’t use the more capable system.

Edit: one reason might be the LITENING pod uses ROVER data link, RAPTOR doesn’t. But that’s just my guess.

but SDB II and SPEAR III weight alot less than SDB I
SDB I = 285 lb
SDB II = 204 lb
SPEAR III = 176.37 lb
so weight wouldnt be a big problem

That’s still 1146lbs for 4 SDB II.
Has the SPEAR 3 design been finalised yet? Also I think it uses its own quad rack not the 330lbs BRU-61. Anyway, if the need arises to carry that many weapons, I guess they will figure out a way to carry 2*4 on a single station. I would prefer that Gripen sextuple rack though for a slightly more realistic 6 bombs per station.

Big drop tank = Huge drag, and it is said that up to 25% of fuel in the big drop tank is wasted because of its drag, which means that 2,250 L fuel in the big drop tank may just be roughly equal to 1,687.5 L internal fuel.

The modern CFT, on the other hand, has much less drag compared with the traditional drop tank:

The rule of thumb is more like one third to 50% of fuel in drop tanks is wasted. Depends very much on mission profile.

CFTs are much better indeed: F-16C-52 manual gives the same basic drag index for a clean jet vs a CFT equipped jet. Subsonic of course, from your link: “However, at supersonic speed, the drag is increased proportionally to the increase in speed. When fitted with CFT the aircraft retains almost the full handling qualities, flight limits, and signature.” So CFTs are more fashionable for bombers, drop tanks for fighters.

Rolls Royce intensifies their campaign for EJ200 toward Korean manufacturing the engine in conjunction for KFX program.

http://bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/bbs/view.html?b_bbs_id=10067&num=759

This website also provide more updated information on KFX program, including the cutaway Internal Bay design that I’ve posted before and other I posted below. For my understanding, ussualy their information more accurate on the development progress compared to others on line sources.

These missiles appear to be AIM-120A with the non-clipped fins. A mistake I assume because why would they bother? What does it say at the top of the weapon bay cutaway, are these bays supposed to house Mk84 bombs?

I don’t blame Malaysian Airlines for flying over a warzone. Because everyone (well almost) has been doing it and not just over Ukraine. I blame the system that made this kind of behavior acceptable and international standard. Just because nothing happened in the past doesn’t mean its a good idea.
How many SA-11 like systems were there in places like Afghanistan? Probably none, so we do it everywhere. What if your airliner runs into technical problems and has to descend to lower altitude? Rely on perfect training and fully working gear plus complete situational awareness of some mujahedin/pro russian Ukrainian rebel/etc? Sure thing. It’s a gamble that has worked until yesterday. But it has always been stupid, naive and/or arrogant. Just my two cents.