TU-22 Blinder/Backfire

[Malizia]

:coffee: Will China PLAF receive in the next days some TU-22 (MZ) Backfire and / or TU-142 Bear ?
What about the 4 Indian AF Backfires in leasing ?

[Gauntlet]

I havent heard that the PLAF have recieved either Backfires or Bears. AFAIK, its just a future option to give the PLAN a better AShW ability. Nothing has been decided.

On the other hand, I think the Indian Air Force do have leased 4 Backfire-Cs from Russia, and will most probarly decided in the near future to buy some of them.

[Sea Dog]

True. But I believe PLAAF officials did express some interest in the M variant of Tu-22.

[MIGleader]

:coffee: Will China PLAF receive in the next days some TU-22 (MZ) Backfire and / or TU-142 Bear ?
What about the 4 Indian AF Backfires in leasing ?

http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/groundattack/hx.asp
help your self

in the early 90s, china asked russia about buying backfires, but were rejected. after russia retired most of its backfires in 2004, the entire policy changed and the bomber is being promoted to china. wether china still wants it...who knows.

[Gauntlet]

in the early 90s, china asked russia about buying backfires, but were rejected. after russia retired most of its backfires in 2004, the entire policy changed and the bomber is being promoted to china. wether china still wants it...who knows.
Can you give me a soruce stating they have retired "most" of their Backfires...?

AFAIK, they retired many Bear-H's, and just something like 40 Backfire-C's...

[MIGleader]

Can you give me a soruce stating they have retired "most" of their Backfires...?

AFAIK, they retired many Bear-H's, and just something like 40 Backfire-C's...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/tu-22m-start.htm

[Gauntlet]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/tu-22m-start.htm

It doesnt say anywere on that site that they have retired "MOST OF THEIR" Backfires! It says that they would have a maximum of 300 strategic Backfires, and 200 Naval Backfires...I wouldnt exacly call that a small number considering the Russians economy...

[tphuang]

what difference does it make whether Russia is retiring all of their backfires or not? The point is that they along with the bears are being offered. Apparently, the offered planes are Tu-22M3 and Tu-95MS. I'm guessing the Russians aren't ready to offer the Tu-22M5s yet.

[MIGleader]

What?

It doesnt say anywere on that site that they have retired "MOST OF THEIR" Backfires! It says that they would have a maximum of 300 strategic Backfires, and 200 Naval Backfires...I wouldnt exacly call that a small number considering the Russians economy...



******

if china decided to buy tu-22m3s, it would recieve massive protests from taiwan, and might tip the balance on the 11 billion$ arms deal. the pla doesnt want this to happan. so it may wait till the arms issue cools down before making a buy.

[rommel]

go on this link and read the part for the Tu-22 http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/groundattack/hx.asp

[Red not Dead]

go on this link and read the part for the Tu-22 http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/groundattack/hx.asp
Well it says hundreds of advanced aircraft...including 40 TU22m3!

So lets take a look on the russian strategic inventory...

It had around 20 BJ (16?)

~145 Blinders (105 now?)

So what's the big deal?

[BLUEJACKET]

There were reports that Russia may sell TU-22s to China.

On 13 January 2005, the chief of the Russian Air Force, Vladimir Mikhailov, said that the Russian military could sell a number of Tu-22M3 and Tu-95 bomber aircraft to China. He confirmed that Russia would send Tu-22M3 to take part in the joint China-Russia military exercise in 2005, and Russia’s clear intention to sell the aircraft to China. It is not known if China is still interested in buying this aircraft.
This dramatic change may have been a direct result of the Russian Air Force’s decision in 2004 to retire hundreds of its advanced aircraft, including 40 new TU-22M3 bombers. The move by Moscow was seen as a cost-cutting effort to allow for future development of advanced aircraft. Nevertheless, with a max range of 4000km with refuelling, the bomber would have substantially upgraded the PLAAF’s coverage of the areas around Taiwan or the South China Sea. Though spare parts would become a problem, the mere possession of this system, let alone any production capability, would have constituted a substantial upgrade to the PLAAF.

http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/groundattack/hx.asp

How about the older variants of TU-22 Blinder?
The Tu-22 was originally intended as a supersonic replacement for the Tupolev Tu-16 bomber. ...The Tu-22 was upgraded in service with more powerful engines, in-flight refueling (for those aircraft that didn't have it initially), and better electronics. Tu-22s were exported to Iraq and Libya in the 1970s. At the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union there were 154 remaining in service, but none are now believed to be flying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu-22

[QUOTE]From 1965 on, all Blinder aircraft were equipped with an air refueling system, consisting of a refueling probe which folds into the fuselage when not in use. And beginning in 1965 the TU-22 fleet was re-equipped with more powerful RD-7M2 engines which allowed an increase in the maximum speed up to 1,600 km/h.

The TU-22 bombers was intended to replace the TU-16, but due to its' poor performance it was deemed unsatisfactory. Carrying a similar payload to only a slightly greater range, the Tu-22 offered no real increase in capability. Its limited range was its main disadvantage, though the TU-22K only carried one missile whereas the TU-16 carried up to three. Unreliable and prone to accidents, the Blinder was not built in sufficient numbers to replace the aging Tu-16 Badgers, which remained in service well into the 1970s. Subseqeuntly, KB Tupolev sought to upgrade the TU-22 in the form of a new design [designated "106"] that was supposed to have a range of 6700km, a speed of 2,000km/h and new HK-6 engines. This effort eventually led to the development of the Tu-22M BACKFIRE.
The Tu-22 was used by the Soviet Union in the Afghanistan War, and served the Soviet Air Force, and Navy into the late 1980’s. Iraq received about 12 Blinders in 1973, while Libya received their 12 to 18 from 1977 to 1983. They were used by Iraq during in Iraq-Iran War, and by Libya during the conflicts in Sudan and Chad. A number of Blinders from each nation were lost to SAM’s of opposing nations. As of 2000, Ukraine remains the sole operator of the type, with the Libyan, and Iraqi aircraft thought to be unserviceable.
/QUOTE]
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/tu-22.htm

http://www.airwarfare.com/Sims/SFP/images/Tu-22.jpg

http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/tu-22/tu-22.htm

China could probably buy those still in storage and reverse engineer it, eventually building their own TU-22M. Any thoughts anyone?

[crobato]

But what's the point? The design is old and is built around turbojets. VG wing is passe and is notorious for servicing difficulties.

I think China is better off designing its own new medium range bomber. Don't know if its true if Xian is trying to make its own Su-34 like copy. Or make a redesigned JH-7 around WS-10A engines.

[BLUEJACKET]

But what's the point? The design is old and is built around turbojets. VG wing is passe and is notorious for servicing difficulties.

The TU-16 is also old, but still in NEW production in PRC!

[tphuang]

The TU-16 is also old, but still in NEW production in PRC!

it's much cheaper for PLA to get H-6, it doesn't have to buy Russians missiles, it can launch its own set of LACMs, AShMs and is not restricted by MTCR. Plus, you get new airframes.

[Finn McCool]

The TU-160 would be a much better purchase. A squadron or two of those would greatly increase China's ability to defend its reigonal waters. They present a real threat to a carrier or a powerful SAG (USN<cough>JMSDF<cough>;) ) if they are adeqately supported by fighters.

Of course, Russia does not seem eager to sell the TU-160 to anybody.

[crobato]

You can imagine how long these new airframes can last. The Tu-16s the Russians built in the sixties were still in service right up to the nineties, and retired mianly for budget reasons.

But do note that the Tu-16 is fixed wing. That's less headaches in the long run compared to variable wing designs.


Questions:

Will Tu-22M be more efficient than H-6 in loiter, range, avionics capacity, payload?

[bhramos]

hi anyway Tu-22m will even frighten the USN. this would be a great move of the PLAN.:D

[eecsmaster]

not really. Soviet Naval Aviation had, what? 2 regiments per carrier? They sure as hell weren't confident about their ability to penetrate the carrier defense screen.

[BLUEJACKET]

But do note that the Tu-16 is fixed wing. That's less headaches in the long run compared to variable wing designs.
Questions:
Will Tu-22M be more efficient than H-6 in loiter, range, avionics capacity, payload?
They don't have to make an exact copy of the TU-22M (aka TU-26). The wings could be non-variable, but having the engines at the wingroots rather than in the tail section. Tu-22M and H-6 are complimentary to each other: both can be refueled in the air and be utilized in the variety of roles. A supersonic missile carrier will give more options to commanders how to deal with enemy assets at sea, on land and in the air.
Here is an older tread on this topic-
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=279&highlight=tu-22

not really. Soviet Naval Aviation had, what? 2 regiments per carrier? They sure as hell weren't confident about their ability to penetrate the carrier defense screen.
Not just that, it was for redundancy- some bombers could be in maintenance, plus the more numbers meant more missiles launched.
Here is an older tread on this topic-
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=1125&highlight=bomber+carrier

The TU-160 would be a much better purchase. ...
Of course, Russia does not seem eager to sell the TU-160 to anybody.

That's the whole point! the Chinese have to do with less and my suggestion regarding Backfire has a point. In the Soviet navy's service they've proved their worth-

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/5sum90.html

http://www.suchoj.com/andere/Tu-22/images/Tu-22RD_23.jpg
http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/vvs/planes/tu22m3_006.jpg

[tphuang]

That's the whole point! the Chinese have to do with less and my suggestion regarding Backfire has a point. In the Soviet navy's service they've proved their worth-

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/5sum90.html

http://www.suchoj.com/andere/Tu-22/images/Tu-22RD_23.jpg
http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/vvs/planes/tu22m3_006.jpg
Why are you suggesting China buy all the used planes that Russians do not even want anymore?
It's clear that China does not feel the need for backfires and bears, you can post as many pictures as you want and it won't change the situation.

[BLUEJACKET]

Why are you suggesting China buy all the used planes that Russians do not even want anymore?
It's clear that China does not feel the need for backfires and bears, you can post as many pictures as you want and it won't change the situation.
No, buy a few of them and then modernize like those earlier MIGs & TUs.
India operates TU-142 and MIGs. China is well behind the Russian and it's natural for her to follow in their footsteps.
Unless you have access to their plans or read their mind, please don't speak for the Chinese as to for what they "don't feel need for".

[tphuang]

No, buy a few of them and then modernize like those earlier MIGs & TUs.
India operates TU-142 and MIGs. China is well behind the Russian and it's natural for her to follow in their footsteps.
Unless you have access to their plans or read their mind, please don't speak for the Chinese as to for what they "don't feel need for".
hmm, they've been offered for a year and half. We haven't even heard about any snippet of interest from PLAAF. I think that's pretty clear evidence. In addition, Kanwa's Russian sources said that they haven't got any interest from China either.

China maybe behind the Russians, but that does not mean it needs everything Russian operates. China is not India.

[BLUEJACKET]

hmm, they've been offered for a year and half. We haven't even heard about any snippet of interest from PLAAF. I think that's pretty clear evidence. In addition, Kanwa's Russian sources said that they haven't got any interest from China either.
China maybe behind the Russians, but that does not mean it needs everything Russian operates. China is not India.
True, but can you provide a reference showing that TU-22s were offered and for how much? Maybe they're still negotiating or just bide their time before making an offer? India has something that China doesn't and vice versa, so I wouldn't use it as a factor. PRC doesn't need everything Russia had/has, but only what can be adopted for their own use. Many 3rd world nations bought and/or copied from US, USSR & France during the Cold War- and more often than not those weapon systems weren't idle.
Crobato says: China was offered Tu-22M3 as the Russians can't sell their Tu-160 which is their crown jewels, so the Tu-22M3 is the next best thing. However, that is also rejected. Ukraine is said to have destroyed their remaining fleet of Tu-22M3 and Tu-160, though I wondered what "destroyed" really means *wink* *wink*. Nonetheless, China does not appear to be interested on Tu-22M3, despite such aircraft was brought into the Sino-Russian exercises in August 2004 to show to officials.

How about M-4 / Mya-4 / 3M
Myasishchev 'Bison'?
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/m-4.htm
They could also be used in the space program
http://topgun.rin.ru/cgi-bin/units.pl?lng=eng&unit=2004
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myasishchev_M-4
I think the Russians will sooner sell them to the PLAAF than Tu-160s!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu-160
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/bomber/m4/m4_09.jpg

[crobato]

What I meant that China is probably more interested to extract data from the aircraft, studying their parts and so on, and perhaps even a flying plane or two for testing.

But not operationally put them in service. I don't think these aircraft are very serviceable.

[swimmerXC]

PSed?
http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/624/bomber102006axs6.jpg

[Jeff Head]

What I meant that China is probably more interested to extract data from the aircraft, studying their parts and so on, and perhaps even a flying plane or two for testing.

But not operationally put them in service. I don't think these aircraft are very serviceable.Well, if China obtained 40 TU-22M3 Backfires, and the missiles to go with them, that would be a significant development. Those aircraft are relatively new compared to any Blinders or earlier Backfires, are capable and modern aircraft with significant payload capabilities, and could pose a very signifcant threat to any naval vessel within the 2nd island chain.

Whether the Chinese would purchase them and then try and either maintain them or license build more is very questionable at this point...and whether they would (like with the Soviets) be a part of the PLAN, or be controlled by the PLAAF, is also an interesting question should it ever turn out that the PRC even obtains them. My point is simply that if they did, it would be a significant development.

[eecsmaster]

not PSed. This was taken during Peace Mission 05.

[BLUEJACKET]

...and whether they would (like with the Soviets) be a part of the PLAN, or be controlled by the PLAAF, is also an interesting question should it ever turn out that the PRC even obtains them.
They would most likely have them in both AF & Navy, just like the Russians. That picture above is on another tread and it's probably doctored.

[crobato]

The other pic is real. It was taken during the Sino-Russian exercise. The Russians bought a number of Tu-22M3s. In reality the exercise is actually more of a marketing show off to sell more weapons to China. The Tu-22M3 was there to show off in an attempt to garner sales. Nothing happened though.

There is a doctored version of this pic, where someone crudely added PLAAF insignia in the plane's tail.

Sorry folks. Tu-22M3s with the PLAAF sounds nice for nationalistic buffs, yesteryear plane buffs, Russian plane buffs, and China threat buffs, but it ain't going to happen.

[BLUEJACKET]

Sorry folks. Tu-22M3s with the PLAAF sounds nice for nationalistic buffs, yesteryear plane buffs, Russian plane buffs, and China threat buffs, but it ain't going to happen.
-Never say "never"! For whatever reason, they may decide to buy them- if not now, then later: by that time the price will be lower!

[Jeff Head]

The other pic is real. It was taken during the Sino-Russian exercise. The Russians bought a number of Tu-22M3s. In reality the exercise is actually more of a marketing show off to sell more weapons to China. The Tu-22M3 was there to show off in an attempt to garner sales. Nothing happened though.

There is a doctored version of this pic, where someone crudely added PLAAF insignia in the plane's tail.

Sorry folks. Tu-22M3s with the PLAAF sounds nice for nationalistic buffs, yesteryear plane buffs, Russian plane buffs, and China threat buffs, but it ain't going to happen.I do not think it is going to neccessarily happen either...but the m3s still have significant capability and would be a regional threat if purchased and deployed.

The SU-27s the PLAAF is flying are also somewhat outdated...but they are just the same very capable aircraft and in numbers, armed with modern weapons, pose a significant challenge to any adversary.

The Backfires would be the same in that regard, and particularly as a maritime strike aircraft, with modern long range ASMS, they could not be ignored.

[crobato]

Ancient stuff can be revived if it's a good and timeless in design. Recently China started making Tu-16s and An-12s again as the H-6 and Y-8. But not all old stuff is good.

One of the problems is the maintenance of the variable wing. Russian jets are not known for serviceability, reliability and technical support. Add something complex like this, and you risk buying a lot of white elephants.

Then the Tu-22M3s being offered are all second hand. PLA don't like buying hand me downs unless its something they want to take apart and study. There is doubt that Russia could build new Tu-22M3s from scratch because of parts that may need to be sourced from former Soviet republics---they could not fulfill the IL-76 order already, and had problems making the new Sovremannies before.

The Su-27 maybe dated design but when the Chinese bought them, the particular airframes are brand new. China is making brand new Su-27s. The H-6s are brand new. So are the Y-8s.

Trying to sell used aircraft isn't going to work. The only way I think China will fly the Tu-22M3 in PLAAF colors is either when the Russians could manufacture them brand new, or license them to China to manufacture them brand new.

[silverster]

not PSed. This was taken during Peace Mission 05.

they called a military exercise what?

[eecsmaster]

can you not read? Mind you, the entire exercise was billed as an "anti-terrorism" exercise.

[BLUEJACKET]

Then the Tu-22M3s being offered are all second hand. PLA don't like buying hand me downs unless its something they want to take apart and study. There is doubt that Russia could build new Tu-22M3s from scratch because of parts that may need to be sourced from former Soviet republics...Trying to sell used aircraft isn't going to work. The only way I think China will fly the Tu-22M3 in PLAAF colors is either when the Russians could manufacture them brand new, or license them to China to manufacture them brand new.
That's probably why they haven't signed on the dotted line! The H-6s/SU-30MKK could make up for them in the meantime, but aren't there any TU-22s with low flight hours left?

[crobato]

Combination of Su-30, JH-7 and H-6 is enough for China's needs now. I would like to add that a supersonic strike bomber isn't exactly what the PLAN needs. Rather, it is a high loiter plane that could search, patrol and engage naval targets autonomously.

In that sense, an H-6/Tu-16 fits those needs better than any Tu-22 variant. Tu-94 would be best if they can control the noise of the contrarotating propellers, and I must add tha Russia also showed and demonstrated Tu-94s during the Peace Mission exercise.

[BLUEJACKET]

Tu-94 would be best if they can control the noise of the contrarotating propellers, and I must add tha Russia also showed and demonstrated Tu-94s during the Peace Mission exercise.
Did you mean TU-95?

[photo pds]

This is a big thret for the us navy in the future if Russian sell it to Chana.:china:

[BLUEJACKET]

What is to prevent China to send a submarine with divers to the Indian Ocean
and bring samples/pictures of the crashed B-1B bomber back for reverse engineering?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-1_Lancer#Crashes_and_malfunctions

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2001/n12122001_200112122.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/images/b-1b-bank.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-1b_gallery.htm

[bd popeye]

BLUEJACKET sez;
What is to prevent China to send a submarine with divers to the Indian Ocean
and bring samples/pictures of the crashed B-1B bomber back for reverse engineering?

When ditching an aircraft like that one or any one with classified material/equipment onboard certian proceedures are followed by the crew prior to ditching to disable or destroy classified material/equipment.

If the PLAN did send a sub out to find the aircraft first off they would have to find it. Then recover what ever they could if indeed they did find it. Therein lyes the problem. Finding it. And if they did find it what would hey discover? What sort of condition would it be in after 5 years? The US knows where the aircraft is located. Don't you think the US would have disabled it or destroyed the aircraft by now?

[BLUEJACKET]

If the PLAN did send a sub out to find the aircraft first off they would have to find it. Then recover what ever they could if indeed they did find it. Therein lyes the problem. Finding it. And if they did find it what would they discover? What sort of condition would it be in after 5 years? The US knows where the aircraft is located. Don't you think the US would have disabled it or destroyed the aircraft by now?
If they want it bad enough, eventually they'll find it- the Chinese are famous for their patience! The Titanic and other famous wrecks were found in even more remote places.
They may have blown it up on the bottom, but even that would leave some pieces/fragments for exploitation. Something is better than nothing! The US recovered a Soviet bomber from a swamp in Africa some years ago- granted that wasn't from the Ocean's bottom but still- it wasn't in pristine condition then either!
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/systems/dvic162.jpg

[crobato]

The USN will probably blow it up by depth charges or demolition teams long before any PLAN sub could come and retrieve it.

[bd popeye]

The USN will probably blow it up by depth charges or demolition teams long before any PLAN sub could come and retrieve it.

My point exactly. thank you crobato for that response. If any of the wreckage is still intact it would be more than likely of little use to anyone.

Aaahhhh The USN quit using depth charges a real long time ago.

The US recovered a Soviet bomber from a swamp in Africa some years ago- granted that wasn't from the Ocean's bottom but still- it wasn't in pristine condition then either!


Coulda, shoulda, woulda..ain't gonna happen. Not in this demension. Maybe in yours Bluejacket.. Trust me on this..the crew had time to bailout. That also means they had time to render useless any technology that could fall into a potential enemies hands...that's how those things work in this demension. If the aircrew did not destroy anything an EOD was soon dispacthed to the area and destroyed the aircraft.

[chicket9]

The H-6 is a good platform, but I think currently it consumes too much fuel all too quickly. As much ECM as you put on that thing, it will still be highly vulnerable to other fighters and SAM.

H-6 can't really outrun missiles or intercepting aircraft after expending its missiles.

A supersonic bomber can reach its target quicker, have more chances at penetrating outer air defenses of an enemy vessel, fire its missiles, and speed back to base before more missiles/aircraft can intercept it.

China does not need Tu-22M3s though.

What China needs is either a B-2 stealth bomber variant, something based on Tu-160 Blackjack technology (yes a huge plane, but long range, designed to be comparable to B-1B, and surprisingly more stealthy than the Tu-22), and if China ever could...a B-1B copy!

Something that can carry missiles in quantity (say, 4 rounds, rather than just 2), over longer range (at least be able to attack incoming CVBGs well outside the Taiwan Strait), and faster than H-6 of course.

Another suggestion is a long range UAV...at this rate, with WZ-2000 and CAC's long range UAV development projects, we could see a subsonic long range recon UAV by 2020 that could perform MPA missions as far as Japan, and perhaps be easily convertable to fire one or two AShMs. Such a UAV, though large (like the Global Hawk), it is undoubtedly stealthy.

[BLUEJACKET]

My point exactly. thank you crobato for that response. If any of the wreckage is still intact it would be more than likely of little use to anyone. .. If the aircrew did not destroy anything an EOD was soon dispacthed to the area and destroyed the aircraft.
I saw an article in the Navy Times after that crash that said "the Navy may salvage it,... [even though] normaly such aircraft are written off'. Since then, I haven't heard either way. Even microscopic fragments may give clues of the manufacturing process, materials used, etc. I admit that it would be impossible to reverse engineer anything out of littlle pieces, but nonetheless some valuable/usable info. could be extracted from them. After the Serbs shot down F-117 the wreckage was shipped to Russia for analysis.
Senior Russian aerospace officials admitted that they are testing new SAM missiles against the F-117 that was shot down by Serb forces in 1999. The Russians admitted that the F-117 was being used to test new anti-stealth technology and advanced missiles designed to shoot down U.S. aircraft. Russian researchers are testing components of a new air defense system against the F-117 remains.
The Russian anti-stealth tests include radio frequency seekers from surface-to-air missiles and proximity fuses for missile warheads. Russian missile makers Antey Industrial Corp. and the Almaz Central Design Bureau are using the F-117 and modified Russian-made stealth aircraft to test components for the next generation of Russian Surface to Air Missiles (SAMs).
Almaz engineers claim its S-300PMU-2 system can locate and destroy stealth targets up to 60 miles away. Almaz is currently trying to sell the S-300PMU-2 to China.

http://www.softwar.net/rfed.html

http://www.afa.org/magazine/June2001/0601stealth.asp

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj02/sum02/lambeth.html

If SU-34 is as good as advertized, it could take on some (if not all) of TU-22M missions. PLAAF doesn't need an intercontinental strategic bomber- they've got ICBMs, IRBMs & AL/SLCMs. What is the cost-benefit ratio here? For all intents and purposes, missiles are cheaper than airplanes, their crews & bases!
In addition to trains/truck launchers, PLAAF could probably adopt cargo airlifters to carry/launch ICBMs like the USAF had done in trials-

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/lgm-30_1.htm

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975adds.conf.....K

Among the possible cadidates are IL-76 variants and AN-124 that China may buy later.

http://alpary.net/il76-spec2.html

http://members.liwest.at/gerys/antonov.htm

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=197

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=2499

[bd popeye]

After the Serbs shot down F-117 the wreckage was shipped to Russia for analysis.

And where is that Russian steath "reversed engineered" fighter? You said it yourself... it would be virtually impossibble to do.

The USAF is retiring the entire fleet of F-117's.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123030185

The F-22 is in service.:) .All the testing the Russians have done with these now obsolete componets may well be a waste of time.

[adeptitus]

As a remote possibility, the USAF's decision to retire the F-117 might be based on intelligence data that shows the aircraft's stealth capability has been compromised. The F-117 is a stealth bomber that relies on its ability to remain unseen. Once that ability is lost, the aircraft's value in future battlefield is greatly reduced.

As far as I know the Tu-22 is no longer in production. The PLAAF is not likely to import used/refurb aircraft from Russia. If China were to ever import bombers or fighter-bombers from Russia, it'd have to be "new". I think the Su-34 is far more likely than the Tu-22, while Russia is not likely to export its best long-range bombers like the Tu-160 to China.

[Jeff Head]

What is to prevent China to send a submarine with divers to the Indian Ocean
and bring samples/pictures of the crashed B-1B bomber back for reverse engineering?I'll give you three very good things that will prevent it:

1)US Military recovery efforts. The US indicated it would try and recover it and then things went very quiet after that...what might that tell us?

2) US military EOD efforts, meaning if it wasn't recovered then it's been completely demolished.

3) and finally, there's the US Navy.

Thanks in advance.

[IDonT]

The US did recover a crash F-14 from the ocean floor to prevent the Russians from getting it in the mid 1970's.

The US also recovered a sunken Russian SSN on the Pacific floor.

These happen 30 years ago. The US will have no problem getting a B-1

[BLUEJACKET]

The US did recover a crash F-14 from the ocean floor to prevent the Russians from getting it in the mid 1970's.
The US also recovered a sunken Russian SSN on the Pacific floor.

It was SSK, not SSN, and by most accounts only the bow section was recovered.

http://w3.the-kgb.com/dante/military/mission.html

http://www.amazon.com/matter-risk-incredible-Explorer-submarine/dp/0394424328/sr=1-2/qid=1162752924/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/002-2477952-1116061?ie=UTF8&s=books

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/weapons/q0268.shtml

I won't discount the possibility that some foreign submarine(s) already checked that B-1 wreck, before and if it was recovered by the US. Would the USN assign an SSN and/or surface ship to guard it for years 24/7 after blowing it up? I doubt it. Do you think if a Russian or Chinese bomber went down over the ocean the US wouldn't attempt to do the same if only to get some intel? In any case, there is enough open source info. on it and TU-22 to put the puzzle together even having only small pieces of it.

http://www.historicaviation.com/historicaviation/product_info.po?ID=10508&product=Art&category=military&subcategory=Modern%2520Bombers

http://www.military.cibmedia.com/main-photo-tr.asp?idgroup=post&offset=25&id=SX-W19

http://www.amazon.com/Boeing-North-American-Lancer-Warbird/dp/1580070124

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-1b.htm

http://www.flankerman.fsnet.co.uk/modl_tu-22.html

http://airwar.ru/other/draw/tu22m3.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M#Specifications_.28Tu-22M3_.27Backfire-C.27.29

In mid-1993, China approached Russia concerning the sale of a number of Tu-22M Backfire strike aircraft to replace its aging H-6 Badger bomber fleet. No other weapon system has caused as much concern as did China's efforts to obtain the long-range Tu-22M Backfire bomber. With a a dual use unrefueled range of 4000km, this purchase alone would have substantially upgraded Chinese air coverage of the area around Taiwan or the South China Sea. Though spare parts would become a problem, the mere possession of this system, let alone any production capability, would have constituted a substantial upgrade to the Chinese Air Force.
However, reports that China actually purchased four of the 4 Tu-22M [Tu-26] long-range BACKFIRE bombers proved unfounded. The deal apparently foundered due to Russian concerns that the sale of such an advanced aircraft would alter the military balance in the area. Following Russia's rejection to sell any Tu-22M BACKFIRE bombers to China, it remains to be seen whether and how the PLAAF will replace its obsolescent strategic bomber force.
Before the 2000 summit of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Jiang Zemin, a Russian arms export official noted that Russia, after signing of a new friendship treaty, might permit the sale of systems such as the BACKFIRE to China. Following Russia's lease of four BACKFIRES to India, a transfer to China becomes increasingly plausible.
For the PLANAF, even a modest number of BACKFIRES, would add a new capability against American carrier battle groups beyond that of the FLANKER. Its usefulness would depend on Russia's willingness to sell long-range supersonic anti-shipping missiles, such as the 300-mile-range Kh-22.
On 28 June 2004 a Hong Kong television website reported that China had formalized plans to acquire Russian Backfire supersonic long-range bombers. The report was on Hong Kong's Feng Huang Wang WWW-Text in Chinese, the web site of pro-Beijing Hong Kong broadcaster Phoenix Satellite Television Holdings Ltd. The Hong Kong newspaper Cheng Pao reported that a resolution passed at the 10th CPC party congress of the PLA Air Force in May 2004, included conclusions on the strategic positioning of China's air force. The air force should be a strategic air force, capable of operations in all aerial territories [quan kong jiang zuo zhan] and long-range response. The news sources said long-range bombers constitute the biggest technical obstacle China will face in building a strategic air force. Indigenous development and the import of Russian Backfire supersonic long-range bombers are "already put on the agenda."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/tu-22m.htm

http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.5/pub_detail.asp

If that deal never happens, the Ukrainians may sell some of their own- if they haven't already! For reverse engineering you only need a few - the Soviets copied the B-29 that became TU-4 after 4 of them were interned during WWII.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/ukraine/tu-22m.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu-4

As I stated earlier, IMO the PLAAF doesn't need a dedicated intercontinental strategic bomber- the TU-22M can fulfill that role with the help of IL-78/H-6 tankers!
The original design has been modified several times and further modifications are likely to be made to upgrade aircraft performance. The BACKFIRE is a long-range aircraft capable of performing nuclear strike, conventional attack, anti-ship and reconnaissance missions. Its low-level penetration features make it a more survivable system than its predecessors. The BACKFIRE has sufficient range/radius capabilities for it to be employed effectively against the contiguous United States on high-altitude subsonic missions. Its low-altitude supersonic dash capabilities make it a formidable weapon in support of military operations in Europe and Asia as well. The BACKFIRE can be equipped with a probe to permit inflight refueling; this would further increase its range and radius capabilities.

http://www.fas.org/irp/dia/product/smp_84_ch2.htm


http://www.webalice.it/imc2004/img_bombers/TU-22/range.gif

Or better yet, deploy them to Venezuela and you get 2 birds killed with one stone- that nation gets extra protection and China gets extra strategic deterrence!

http://www.ausairpower.net/Tu-22M-3-IN-PLAAF.png
Recent reports indicate that India will soon deploy the Tu-22M-3 Backfire, armed with the potent Mach 2+ 200 NMI range Kh-22M/AS-4 Kitchen cruise missile, while it is completing a major upgrade to the Port Blair runway in the Andamans. China has to date not responded publicly, but given its recent disagreement with the US over the EP-3C Aries collision and subsequent US arms sale to Taiwan, the odds of a Chinese Backfire buy look increasingly stronger with time.

http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-F-111-Supercruise-2001.html

And where is that Russian steath "reversed engineered" fighter? You said it yourself... it would be virtually impossibble to do.

The USAF is retiring the entire fleet of F-117's.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123030185

The F-22 is in service.:) .All the testing the Russians have done with these now obsolete componets may well be a waste of time.

Maybe not!
Russia Using F-117 Wreckage for Anti-Stealth

Senior Russian aerospace officials admitted that the F-117 was being used to test new anti-stealth technology and advanced missiles designed to shoot down U.S. aircraft. Russian researchers are testing components of a new air defense system against the F-117 remains.
The Russian anti-stealth tests include radio frequency seekers from surface-to-air missiles and proximity fuses for missile warheads.
In addition, a small number of Russian tactical aircraft have been modified with low-observable stealth technology in order to conduct airborne tests against the new air defense systems.
Russian missile makers Antey Industrial Corp. and the Almaz Central Design Bureau are using the F-117 and modified Russian-made stealth aircraft to test components for the next generation of Russian Surface to Air Missiles (SAMs).

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/12/140853.shtml

[bd popeye]

BLUEJACKET the US recovered portions of a Soviet Golf-II Class SSBN with the Glomar Explorer in 1974. Some important componets were recovered.

http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/jennifer.htm

Glomar Explorer went to sea on June 20, 1974, found the sub, and began to bring a portion of it to the surface. The Soviets watched the "deep-sea mining" operation with interest, but did not attempt to thwart it. An accident during the lifting operation caused the fragile hulk to break apart, resulting in the loss of a critical portion of the submarine, its nuclear missles and crypto codes. However, according to other accounts, material recovered included three nuclear missles, two nuclear torpedoes, the ship's code machine, and various code books.

There is a PBS program on the whole recovery with actual film of the whole event. I've seen the program more than once.

You know most of the stuff you post is just not going to happen. Not in this demension. The Russians or Chinese are not going to deploy any bombers to Venezuela. That would create an international incident of Cuban missile crisis proportions.

Get real dude!

[BLUEJACKET]

[B][COLOR="Blue"]You know most of the stuff you post is just not going to happen. Not in this demension. The Russians or Chinese are not going to deploy any bombers to Venezuela. That would create an international incident of Cuban missile crisis proportions.
Get real dude!
I'm just being fasticious- after all the US keeps/deploys warplanes in ROK, Japan, and on Guam- not to mention USN carriers in E. Asian waters, right in China's backyard!
I knew you would compare it to the Cuban missile crisis- it was only over after the US missiles in Turkey were withdrawn as well as those Soviet ones in Cuba! And actualy, a lot of what I suggested/guessed can be found in the articles written by others-as in the cases of F-117 and TU-22. In case anyone missed this one, here is the entire article:
Late in June 2004, Hong Kong media revealed that in a resolution recently passed at the PLA-AF's internal session of the 10th Congress of the Communist Party of China, the PLA-AF would seek to become a “strategic air force.”[1] Acquiring the Russian Tu-22M-3 Backfire was noted as vital to this unprecedented policy change.


Tupolev Tu-22M3 strike bomber. Picture taken during the 2001 Moscow Airshow. Credit: RD Fisher
The media report also stressed that acquiring long-range bombers would be the main challenge. The Backfire was cited repeatedly. This report, unlike many out of Hong Kong, was replete with citations of characteristic CPC language and is remarkably detailed, covering issues of training, doctrine and force structure.[2]

The large-scale build-up in PLA-AF capabilities over the last decade has been and is clear evidence of several fundamental changes in strategic thinking. A large measure of the investment was put into long-range assets. The Su-27SK, Su-30MKK, Su-30MK2, A-50 AWACS, H-6U tankers and Il-78MKK tankers—to name a few examples—are all designed to achieve control of the air and strike capability of beyond 1,000 nautical miles. Until now there has been no stated doctrinal shift in the role of the PLA-AF, which historically was intended to defend Chinese airspace and support PLA land armies and the PLA-N in combat. The 10th CPC Congress announcement does more than formalize the change in the PLA-AF role. It also sets the PLA-AF apart from Army and Navy forces as a service with a unique and independent role—an important shift given the historical early Soviet-like doctrinal basis in PLA-AF thinking. Given these circumstances, there is every reason to regard the 10th Congress report to be accurate. If so, the implications are far reaching.

Recent reports that the chief of the PLA-AF has been elevated to the CMC level of the command heirarchy strongly support this evidence of a deep doctrinal shift in PLA thinking and an increasingly important role for the PLA-AF.

China first attempted to acquire Backfires during the first round of Russian equipment acquisitions after the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia at that time was still uncertain about its future global position and courted Western investment on a large scale. Russian reports claimed the rejection was the result of intensive Japanese and U.S. lobbying.

Much has changed since then: China has become Russia’s largest export client for weapons; Western investment in Russia has dried up; Russia’s relationship with the United States cooled off since the Iraq War; and the Russian Air Force still faces serious funding difficulties. Most of its Backfire fleet is grounded for lack of funds: it cannot afford needed upgrades. India was to lease four Backfires, so an export precedent has been set. The Russians have encouraged competition between India and China, reflected in tit-for-tat acquisitions of Su-30MK, R-77, 3M-54/3M-14E missiles, A-50 AWACS, Il-78 tankers and submarines.

The political and strategic impediments to the mid-1990s Backfire export are now gone. The Sukhoi exports to China and India are, for Rosoboronexport and Tupolev, a prime example of decades of support and upgrade funding. By limiting the weapons package on Backfires targeted for export to China and not fitting internal fuel system plumbing for aerial refuelling probes, Russia can truthfully argue that it is exporting a regional rather than a strategic weapon.[3]

In practical terms it is now inevitable that China will eventually acquire Backfires. The only issue will be how soon, how many and with what weapons package and upgrades.

China has strong strategic incentives to deploy the Backfire. For one, it is competing with India for strategic primacy on the Asian mainland, and several squadrons of Backfires add significant potency to China's position. Closer to home, simmering tensions with Taiwan put a high premium on assets capable of deterring U.S. Navy CVB Gs.

It is reasonable to surmise that increasing tensions over Taiwan have intensified interservice competition for funding in the PLA. The Backfire, which would be instrumental in deterring U.S. CVBGs and blockading Taiwanese shipping lanes, is a good and affordable near-term choice for the PLA-AF, given the monies long earmarked for PLA-N submarines and aircraft carriers. Acquiring the Backfire would also strengthen Beijing’s hand against Washington’s. The United States is now restructuring its PacRim forces by increasing more responsive air and naval power at the expense of ground forces. Deploying the Backfire would effectively frustrate—that is, counterbalance—this U.S. effort.

The likely PLA-AF units to first receive Backfires would be those elements of the 8th (merged with the 48th), 10th and 36th Bomber Divisions, flying the oldest H-6 Badgers in the fleet. The displaced Badgers could be converted to H-6U tankers and assigned to the 2nd and 9th Bomber Divisions, or used as reserve airframes for remaining Badger squadrons. Should a firm Backfire sale be concluded in the next two years, a credible Initial Operational Capability could be achieved around 2010.

Sizing up the Tupolev Tu-22M-3 Backfire C


In 2002 a curious picture of a Tu-22M3 and a Chinese Xian JH-7 fighter bomber appeared on several Chinese military related web pages. There is no available explanation for the picture and it does not appear to be a fake. If a true photo then it may indicate that a Russian Tu-22M3 visited a Chinese airbase, and can be taken as a possible indication of continued Chinese interest in purchasing the Russian bomber.
The latest variant of the Backfire is the third-generation Tu-22M-3 Backfire C model, which remained in production until 1993.[4]

This is a major evolution from the Backfire B, and includes some use of titanium to further reduce weight. The effort was led by the Tupolev Bureau's Deputy Chief Designer Boris E Levanovich.[5]

The weapons suite for the Backfire C reflects its late Cold War Soviet tasking. The primary weapon for Aviatsiya Voenno-Morskovo Flota Backfires were antishipping, antiradiation and nuclear variants of the Raduga Kh-22/AS-4 Kitchen. Antiradiation and nuclear variants were also carried by Dal'naya Aviatsia Backfire C aircraft as defence suppression weapons. Mixes of one, two or three of these capable missiles can be carried.[6]

The bomb bay can also be fitted with a rotary launcher for six Kh-15/AS-16 Kickback defense suppression missiles, a Soviet analogue to the U.S. AGM-69 SRAM. Four rounds can be carried externally, for a total of ten weapons.

Like U.S. heavy bombers in the era predating precision bombs, the Backfire C can also carry a large payload of dumb bombs. External beam racks can be fitted to carry a total of up to 69 500-lb FAB-250 rounds. The external stations can also be used to carry FAB-1500 3,000-lb dumb bombs, for a total of eight rounds.

In terms of performance, the Backfire C compares closely to the now retired SAC FB-111A, but is much larger, carrying around 120,000 pounds of internal fuel. It has Mach 2 class dash speed and a combat radius of between 2,000 and 2,500 nautical miles, subject to weapon payload and profile. Tupolev data indicates that the aircraft is compatible with any runway capable of supporting a later Boeing 767 transport.

The Tu-22M-3 remained in production until 1993, and various sources claim that up to 268 units were built. As IOC was achieved in 1989 and operational flying rapidly curtailed after 1991, the average number of fatigue hours accumulated by the Backfire C fleet is very low, especially for the last aircraft built, which have a calendar age of only 11 years. U.S. sources put Russian Air Force inventory numbers at 70 to 105, Russian naval aviation numbers at 105, and Ukrainian Air Force numbers at 14 (with 16 Backfire B).

Arming China's Backfire C


Among the armament options for possible Chinese Tu-22M3 bombers would be the air-launched version of the NPO Machinostroyenia Yakhont anti-ship missile. The export version has a range of 300km, though China might increase its range, and its Mach 2.5 speed makes it very difficult to shoot down. credit: RD Fisher
Sources in Eastern Europe observe that the Russian Air Force has planned for some time to equip the Backfire C with a conventional precision weapons capability, emulating the U.S. heavy bomber fleet. There are no reports as yet that this has materialized, due to the budgetary situation the Russians face.

Russia would not export the Kh-55 / AS-15 Kent strategic cruise missile or the Kh-15A/R/S / AS-16 SRAM-ski as part of an export package.

Conventional variants of the supersonic Kh-22 were apparently offered to India. As the PLA-AF and PLA-N both operate variants of the Silkworm which use a closely related rocket engine and the same propellants, the Kh-22 would be very easy for the PLA to assimilate.

Integrating the 1,000-lb KAB-500L and 3,000-lb KAB-1500L laser guided bombs would be relatively simple, exploiting hardware for the FAB-1500. A FLIR / laser targeting pod like the Sapsan-E could be carried externally, but also repackaged into the existing bombsight fairing under the flight deck.[7]

Clearance of the electro-optical KAB-500Kr/1500Kr would present little difficulty, but inflight retargeting would require an avionic upgrade. The KAB-1500TK would require integration of the APK-9 Tekon pod, already carried by the PLA Su-30MKK.[8]

The satellite-aided inertially guided KAB-500S-E “JDAM-ski” is now being integrated on the Su-27SKM and Su-30MK, with KAB-1500S-E integration—software and wiring changes—now planned. There are no fundamental obstacles to integrating the KAB family weapons on the Backfire C, and the prospect of the PLA funding such long sought developments is likely to be very attractive to the cash strapped RuAF.

Indian sources claimed that integrating the Kh-31/AS-17 Krypton series of supersonic anti-radiation and anti-shipping missiles, which the PLA-AF adopted for the Su-30MKK and already has in inventory, was a likely prospect for the planned Indian Backfire C lease. Similar claims were also made for the Kh-35U Kharpunski anti-ship cruise missile, which could also be integrated on suitable launchers.

It is to be expected that the PLA-AF would seek to carry its planned strategic Air Launch Cruise Missiles (ALCM) on the Backfire C. Because the Chinese ALCM will have unique software requirements, it would likely be a later rather than earlier addition to the aircraft.[9]

The Strategic Impact of a PLA-AF Backfire

China's claimed intention to field the Backfire reflects multiple agendas and, accordingly, roles. At the upper end of the spectrum, the Backfire, using a range of supersonic and subsonic precision-guided weapons, provides a strategic regional, strike capability. It replicates the formidable sea control capability of the former Soviet AV-MF. Yet with a precision-guided bomb capability, it also provides battlefield interdiction and close air support capabilities much like that of U.S. heavy bombers.

Given the age and fatigue hours in the existing Russian stock of Backfire Cs, a service life into the 2040 timescale is a reasonable expectation for factory refurbished and well maintained aircraft. In terms of survivability, the Backfire compares closely to the SAC FB-111A and current B-1B. Its supersonic high altitude penetration profile remains very difficult to stop. Armed with even a 200-nautical mile class stand-off weapon, it provides limited opportunities for defending interceptors to successfully engage it.

The useful footprint of the Backfire, operating from Hainan Island and Meiktila (in Burma), extends almost to Diego Garcia to the west, northern Australia to the south and Guam to the east. The Backfire can hold at risk any surface target within this footprint, without aerial refuelling support.

In any confrontation with the United States, the Backfire is a tool to threaten navy surface fleet assets in the Indian Ocean, South China Sea and Pacific Ocean, as well as air force basing in Okinawa, Guam and South Korea. The impending loss of the F-14 leaves the United States Navy without a competitive interceptor to challenge the Backfire – the United States Air Force F-15 and new F/A-22A will provide a highly credible interception capability but constrained to land basing.

In a standoff with India, the Backfire is a tool to attack strategic targets and to deter India's growing surface fleet, especially its carrier forces. A secondary, but no less important capability, derives from the Backfire's ability to inflict heavy losses on maritime traffic, especially vital tanker traffic carrying crude oil to Indian shipping terminals. Without self-sufficiency in fossil fuels, India is extremely vulnerable to naval blockade operations.

Against smaller Pacrim nations, the Backfire can threaten strategic targets, naval targets and commercial sea lanes throughout the Far East and South East Asia. It provides a means of blockading Taiwan's sea lanes using missiles and naval mines, and doing so with a very large exclusion zone around the island. Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Singapore, the Philippines and Australia could be subjected to similar coercion.

How much of this strategic potential China can develop will depend on how many Backfires it can acquire and on what weapons package and avionics upgrades it applies to them.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] http://www.phoenixtv.com in Chinese. '06/28/2004 - HK TV: China Plans To Build Strategic Air Force, Acquire Long-Range Bombers', Hong Kong Feng Huang Wang WWW-Text in Chinese 28 Jun 04, "From Supportive Service to Strategic Air Force; Major Change in China's Air Force Buildup Thinking

[2] http://www.phoenixtv.com in Chinese. '06/28/2004 - HK TV: China Plans To Build Strategic Air Force, Acquire Long-Range Bombers', Hong Kong Feng Huang Wang WWW-Text in Chinese 28 Jun 04, "From Supportive Service to Strategic Air Force; Major Change in China's Air Force Buildup Thinking

[3] India's recent acquisition of a Russian aircraft carrier presents an interesting precedent, insofar as the warship was provided for the cost of an overhaul, systems upgrade and air wing of aircraft. It is not inconceivable that the Russians could opt to sell Backfires for the cost of a deep overhaul and package of avionics upgrades, thus realising some return on investment from the underutilised Backfire stockpile.

[4] The earliest origins of the Backfire were in the earlier Tu-22 Blinder, a Russian analogue to the US B-58 Hustler. Inferior to the B-58, the Soviet air staff sought a significantly more capable design. This was the Backfire A, which evolved into the Backfire B and finally the Backfire C.

[5] During the mid-1990s the author discussed the Tu-22M-3 with Levanovich, who asserted that the aircraft had a hi-hi-hi combat radius of 4,000 km (2,160 NMI) with a payload of three Kh-22M/AS-4 missiles, well in excess of then current Western estimates.

[6] In concept the Kh-22 family of missiles most closely resembles the British Blue Steel supersonic standoff missile carried by the V-bomber fleet during the 1960s. The Soviets developed the idea much further.

[7] The KAB-500L/1500L are Russian analogues of the US GBU-16 and GBU-10 laser guided bombs.

[8] The KAB-500Kr/1500Kr are GBU-8 analogues, the KAB-1500TK a GBU-15 analogue.

[9] There have been reports that the PLA acquired tooling for the Russian Kh-65 ALCM, a Russian analogue of the AGM-86C carried by the US B-52H. The H-6H Badger cruise missile carrier derivative unveiled in 2002 was shown carrying four missiles with the size and shape of a Kh-65 derivative missile.

http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.5/pub_detail.asp#

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4615191022276473040&q=TU-22&hl=en

[BLUEJACKET]

If India gets TU-22, it would be hard for the Chinese not to get their own!
Both have Su-30 now, but I don't know if TU-142 would be feasable for PLAN/AF since they've got Y-8 "Maritime Patrol"/ (http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/specialaircraft/y8mpa.asp)ASW and other ISR assets (http://mil.jschina.com.cn/huitong/y-8x_sh-5_a-50i.htm).
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=951