Supersonic Nuclear Precision Bomber for PLAAF ??

[Su-27 Pilot]

Any supersonic nuclear bombers that in the Russian inventory that the PLAAF wants to have ?? (Obviously to strike a target far far away from PRC will be almost impossible, but any EAST Asian countries should be enough.)

[crazyinsane105]

Any supersonic nuclear bombers that in the Russian inventory that the PLAAF wants to have ?? (Obviously to strike a target far far away from PRC will be almost impossible, but any EAST Asian countries should be enough.)

The Tu-22M3's are probably on top of the list.

[MIGleader]

definitly. those things are going to be one of the top airforce budgets equipment shopping list. they dont have to be used for a nukclear roile. they can also fly out and shoot standoff weapons at a carrier. a dozen or so bombers will greatly increase chinas stategic bombing ability.

the black jack might also be an option.

how much might backfire sell for? we know russia has just retired them and is actively promoting them.

[IDonT]

definitly. those things are going to be one of the top airforce budgets equipment shopping list. they dont have to be used for a nukclear roile. they can also fly out and shoot standoff weapons at a carrier. a dozen or so bombers will greatly increase chinas stategic bombing ability.

the black jack might also be an option.

how much might backfire sell for? we know russia has just retired them and is actively promoting them.


Russia has less than 30 Black Jacks. They are not for sale. Their production plants were close a decade ago.

[vincelee]

actually the Blackjack is under very low rate production right now. They're making 160s at the rate of one per year or so, aside from overhauling existing inventory. But you're right, Russia isn't selling anyone the Blackjack anytime soon.

[crazyinsane105]

actually the Blackjack is under very low rate production right now. They're making 160s at the rate of one per year or so, aside from overhauling existing inventory. But you're right, Russia isn't selling anyone the Blackjack anytime soon.

When are they going to sell them? Ten years from now or what? I mean, they might as well sell them to get funds and build a bigger and better and faster bomber.

[tphuang]

When are they going to sell them? Ten years from now or what? I mean, they might as well sell them to get funds and build a bigger and better and faster bomber.
TU-160 is to Russians what B-2s are to the Americans. Those are expensive to build and too hi-tech to get sold overseas.

The best China can get from the Russians at this point is the production rights to the backfires.

It is possible that we might get su-27IB (su-34) in the future.

[MIGleader]

well, russia has just retired its fleet of backfires. they might as well sell them rather than let them rust. the costs can be reduced since backfires purchased come right out the inventory.

the plane is a lethal weapon, but if they can remove a refueling probe and some other advanced gear, it will be perfect for export. i know the russinas are willing to sell them, and the bear aswell.

the su-34 is not for sale, the su-32 is the export varient. seeing how russia is only getting 6 next year, it maybe a while before they are for sale.

[Chairman Hu]

MiGLeader is right, since China has poorer radar system and such, the Backfire can be modified to fire anti-ship missiles with a few million in cost, or maybe extra for all the equipment, face it, Russia needs money, and China has all the money, not to mention China will make better use of the Backfire.

China really needs the advance equipment, or it would be like the Foxhound without its Zaslon radar...

[MIGleader]

i dont think russis is going to sell the foxhound. such a fighter can take on an f-22 if it just waits high up and comes down...

[Su-27 Pilot]

MiGLeader is right, since China has poorer radar system and such, the Backfire can be modified to fire anti-ship missiles with a few million in cost, or maybe extra for all the equipment, face it, Russia needs money, and China has all the money, not to mention China will make better use of the Backfire.

China really needs the advance equipment, or it would be like the Foxhound without its Zaslon radar...
How many years do you guys think PLA will completely catch up with US's level of electronic warfare ?? Twenty years ??

[MIGleader]

are u kidding me!!!! chinese electronics, bith military and civilian, are rising the fastest of all. china is already close to being on par with the
u.s in many electronic areas. less than ten years for sure.

[Chairman Hu]

Try 5, Chinese history shows thaT China WILL get what she wants

Foxhound can take Raptor, yea sure, if Gorbachev kicked Reagan in the face...

The bear and backfire are PERFECT candidates, if China can get a license production, hehehe... we can eventually use those platforms to test our newer equipments of the future, plus you can always ask the Russians for modification of the bombers or China can use the tech to built her own, I hope itz the road to the license!

[tphuang]

are u kidding me!!!! chinese electronics, bith military and civilian, are rising the fastest of all. china is already close to being on par with the
u.s in many electronic areas. less than ten years for sure.
In civilian electronics technology, East Asia > Rest of the world.

In terms of military, China is much further behind.

China needs a lot more development in the radar field.

[MIGleader]

most of the asian lead is from japan. but other countries like china, india, and taiwan have made innovations.

radar is not such a big problem for china. it is making its own, and can get bars, a thales, or an elta easily.

[Chairman Hu]

Still China should work on something more advance, quality not quantity

[tphuang]

most of the asian lead is from japan. but other countries like china, india, and taiwan have made innovations.

radar is not such a big problem for china. it is making its own, and can get bars, a thales, or an elta easily.
What innovation has India made? I haven't heard of any.

China's electronics is quite advanced. It just needs to keep on developing its wireless technology. Once your commercial technology is up there, your military technology will be up there too.

[MIGleader]

india has made alot of advances in chemicals and IT. dont doubt them just cause they cant make their own military goods.

[tphuang]

india has made alot of advances in chemicals and IT. dont doubt them just cause they cant make their own military goods.
nope, they have a good IT industry, but no innovation. Chemicals, I don't know much about that.

[Chairman Hu]

True, they tend to buy from Russia and thats all...

[sumdud]

Russia retired their Backfires?

Backfire is perfect for China. The Fullback is only fighting with the JH-7B(Well, The JH-7 can get a better engine, and as it's an upgrade, it's not going to be the A anymore.) The Blackjack is simply too large. It's impressive, but who needs such a big bomber? It's simply too big. And China have not the maintence.

The Backfire can launch many missiles, hold many bombs. LACMs, ASMs, not as much as the Blackjack, but enough. It's got a HUGE nose, so you can launch long range ASMs, LACMs, standing off in the mean time, act as a AEW (Or even AWACS if you take away some of the room, but it's not going to be a 360 coverage.) It holds enough bombs to level an industrial estate/manor or a convoy.

With the large fleet of them sitting around, you can get a lot of spares. As for the stuff they took out, you can replace them with those of Chinese codes. And the refueling probe, you can also install your own probe.(But China needs a better refueler than the H-6...)

[MIGleader]

Russia retired their Backfires?

Backfire is perfect for China. The Fullback is only fighting with the JH-7B(Well, The JH-7 can get a better engine, and as it's an upgrade, it's not going to be the A anymore.) The Blackjack is simply too large. It's impressive, but who needs such a big bomber? It's simply too big. And China have not the maintence.

The Backfire can launch many missiles, hold many bombs. LACMs, ASMs, not as much as the Blackjack, but enough. It's got a HUGE nose, so you can launch long range ASMs, LACMs, standing off in the mean time, act as a AEW (Or even AWACS if you take away some of the room, but it's not going to be a 360 coverage.) It holds enough bombs to level an industrial estate/manor or a convoy.

With the large fleet of them sitting around, you can get a lot of spares. As for the stuff they took out, you can replace them with those of Chinese codes. And the refueling probe, you can also install your own probe.(But China needs a better refueler than the H-6...)


i do agree that china needs the backfire. but about the jh-7, i think it is not such a great design. china may already be developing an attacker based on the fullback, but it may come out with j-xx. when the su-32 becomes ready for export, china should buy a few. the backfire gives the plaaf a long range strategic bombing abilities, and bragging rights. spares may be a problem, but u can always import a few from russia. a refuel probe takes it to far. the backfire must be seen as a regional power aircrft, not a super range attack bomber.

[adeptitus]

The PLAAF/PLAN may need the JH-7 because it's the only semi-modern martine strike aircraft they have that can launch domestically made anti-ship missiles.

The Su-30 is a far better platform, but I don't think the Russians like the idea of PRC using its own missiles on it. They'd rather have the PRC import Russian missiles to make $$ on the sale.

Personally I'm not in favor of having more aircraft types. It adds a lot of overhead in maintenance, support, spares, etc. There's a lot of things that goes into the support part, like you have to maintain manufacturing facilities to produce replacement parts, engines, etc.

IMO the $ is better off being saved with fewer aircraft types, and spent on R&D for improvements or future generation aircraft. BUT, at the same time, having built the JH-7 does provide the PRC aviation industry some much-needed experience.

[tphuang]

If you read the recent Kanwa article, it confirms what I said before, China is developing its own version of su-32, basically as a follow up to JH-7A

[Chairman Hu]

Of course China needs the Blackjack, just think of a dozen of those flying overhead some country China is at war with and unload itz massive payload of napalm cluster bomb

General T. Sherman (Union) - "War is a cruel thing, the crueler it gets, the sooner it ends"

Maintance cost? Nah China is good enough to built a bomber to have as much payload as 30-40 tons, napalm may be cruel, but it will force countries to surrender faster...

Russia has 30 of them!!?!?!? Thats not bad actually, since the US has about 15-20 B-2s the last time I checked

Buying Su-32s? Not a bad idea, since the Su-34 wont be saled, the Russians are just starting to get them

Tu-22M3... People, I think these planes are PRC's best solution, the Su-32 is great but... the Backfire is MUCH better. Even buying 24 will give China a MUCH needed lead to compare to the US and Russia, spare parts!? Nah China will find a solution, just like that Ws-10 engine.

[Lavi]

The Tu-22M3 is the best medium bomber out there, anywhere in the world. It fills a gap between aircrafts like the F-15E and the B-1. Also, maritime strike, which is something China needs, is one of its main capabilities.

But from what source have you found out that Russia would be retiring their Backfires? As far as I know they will stay in service for quite long still.

[vincelee]

supposedly the Tu-22M3 no longer serves a purpose in the current Russian doctrine, so they're retiring the entire Backfire fleet to save cost. Whatever strategic roles will be fullfilled by the newly upgraded (conventionalized) Tu-160s.

[IDonT]

supposedly the Tu-22M3 no longer serves a purpose in the current Russian doctrine, so they're retiring the entire Backfire fleet to save cost. Whatever strategic roles will be fullfilled by the newly upgraded (conventionalized) Tu-160s.


Didn't the Russians used the Blackjack in Chechnia?

I beleive the Russians are producing Blackjacks again but at a very slow rate. I don't think these planes are for export.

[Gollevainen]

Didn't the Russians used the Blackjack in Chechnia?

???? Against the tsetsen-rebels? Why on earht would they use biggest and most sophisticated STRATEGIC BOMBERS against gureilians whose are almoust impossiple to engange form air by planes actually suited for that kind of task...you must got it wrong somehow...

[IDonT]

???? Against the tsetsen-rebels? Why on earht would they use biggest and most sophisticated STRATEGIC BOMBERS against gureilians whose are almoust impossiple to engange form air by planes actually suited for that kind of task...you must got it wrong somehow...


For PR purposes. Hey US uses its B-2 against the Taliban.

[Lavi]

According to an article from Combat Aircraft on the Russian long-range aviation branch's 90th anniversary states that the Tu-22M3 will soon recieve an upgrade to keep them in the air force until the PAK DA project is brougth into service, something that will take a couple of years since no prototype has flown yet (as far as I know).

The Russian Air Force has 15 Tu-160's in the 121st Regiment based at Engels. One airframe who has been standing uncompleted at the Kazan-based KAPO plant is scheduled to be finished and bought by the air force, to bring the total number up to 16. Some Russian Tu-160's are included in test programmes, while the rest have been written of. The examples that remained in Ukraine have all been scrapped.

[Knarfo]

???? Against the tsetsen-rebels? Why on earht would they use biggest and most sophisticated STRATEGIC BOMBERS against gureilians whose are almoust impossiple to engange form air by planes actually suited for that kind of task...you must got it wrong somehow...

Maybe because of very long endurance over battlefield? The US uses B-52s for this purpose too. Or maybe they jsut needed a live ammo exercise. :)

[Eurofighter]

everybody is just talking about backfires and blackjacks, but how about SU-34? I thought russia is also marketing this aircraft to the PLAAF, how is the process on this one then?

[Chairman Hu]

uhhh no, the export version is the Su-32, trust me it is

[MIGleader]

Of course China needs the Blackjack, just think of a dozen of those flying overhead some country China is at war with and unload itz massive payload of napalm cluster bomb

General T. Sherman (Union) - "War is a cruel thing, the crueler it gets, the sooner it ends"

Maintance cost? Nah China is good enough to built a bomber to have as much payload as 30-40 tons, napalm may be cruel, but it will force countries to surrender faster...

Russia has 30 of them!!?!?!? Thats not bad actually, since the US has about 15-20 B-2s the last time I checked

Buying Su-32s? Not a bad idea, since the Su-34 wont be saled, the Russians are just starting to get them

Tu-22M3... People, I think these planes are PRC's best solution, the Su-32 is great but... the Backfire is MUCH better. Even buying 24 will give China a MUCH needed lead to compare to the US and Russia, spare parts!? Nah China will find a solution, just like that Ws-10 engine.

29 b-2s hu. thats 58 billion dolars down the drain.

lavi, i cant believe u dont know that the russians are retring the backfire. its been known for a long time now. its a cost saving effort

i really think china should buy the su-34(or the su-32, its export variet), but whether the russians want to sell it is in doubt. the russies cant make em really fast either, their only getting 6 next year. but i read that chinas building a new attacker based on the su-34

[adeptitus]

IMO getting the Su-32 is a good idea, because it has many sharred components with Su-27/Su-30. That would make maintenance a lot easier. Even if the Russians cannot mass produce them at the Novosibirsk plant, a production rate of 2 or 3 per month isn't THAT hard to accompolish. Alternativley the PRC could license produce it like the J-11.

But the Su-32 is limited in range (without inflight refueling) and doesn't really fulfill the role of a long-range bomber. So the question here is, in the era of ICBM's and LACM's, does the PRC really need a supersonic nuclear bomber?

I think a long-range bomber converted for ALCM (Air launched cruise missile) launch platform would be nice. Such a platform can be used to extend the reach of cruise missiles. The USAF converted some B-52's to launch AGM-86 ALCM's. During Desert Storm the USAF sent 7 x B-52's to launch 35 AGM-64C's at high priority targets in Iraq to great success. These cruise missiles have 1,100km - 2,400 km range and payload of up to 3,000 lb explosives, and they only cost about $1 mil each.

[EternalVigil]

"TU-160 is to Russians what B-2s are to the Americans. Those are expensive to build and too hi-tech to get sold overseas."

Actually they are more like our B1-B Lancer. The B1's design was copied by the russians during the cold war, hence the almost identicle look. The B2 is in a league of its own no one has a bomber like it yet.

[MIGleader]

IMO getting the Su-32 is a good idea, because it has many sharred components with Su-27/Su-30. That would make maintenance a lot easier. Even if the Russians cannot mass produce them at the Novosibirsk plant, a production rate of 2 or 3 per month isn't THAT hard to accompolish. Alternativley the PRC could license produce it like the J-11.

But the Su-32 is limited in range (without inflight refueling) and doesn't really fulfill the role of a long-range bomber. So the question here is, in the era of ICBM's and LACM's, does the PRC really need a supersonic nuclear bomber?

I think a long-range bomber converted for ALCM (Air launched cruise missile) launch platform would be nice. Such a platform can be used to extend the reach of cruise missiles. The USAF converted some B-52's to launch AGM-86 ALCM's. During Desert Storm the USAF sent 7 x B-52's to launch 35 AGM-64C's at high priority targets in Iraq to great success. These cruise missiles have 1,100km - 2,400 km range and payload of up to 3,000 lb explosives, and they only cost about $1 mil each.

i dont know if ruaais would let china liscense such an advanced plane. the tu-22 will serve the plaaf for a good number of years, maybe to 2030. the airplane will be outdated soon, even the uav. they were merly ways to accurately deliver weapons over a long range, and now we can do that with the missle alone.

[Fairthought]

Eternal vigil, you are mistaken.

The Blackjack is the equivalent to the US B-1 Bomber. The Tu-160 is Russia's Stealth Bomber. Supposedly the first one was completed in the year 2000. I highly doubt Russia has as many as has been claimed on this site, but who knows? It is a highly secretive program. It is rumored to be a variable-geometry stealth bomber, making it significantly different than the B-2 Spirit.

With Variable-Geometry wings, I don't believe its as stealthy as the B-2, but it's stealthy enough.

I don't understand the enthusiasm for China purchasing a Backfire. A supersonic bomber is not all that necessary for China's purposes. It is far larger than needed to deliver an anti-ship missile. It is also too expensive to risk against strong air defences. That leaves it with the ability to bomb primitive airspaces, like Madagascar or Myanmar. Does China really need to bomb such countries with supersonic speed? A Bear bomber will do just fine, thank you.

The Backfire does have a strategic value: quickly launching multiple nuclear tipped criuse missiles. It will be a one way mission, and it would be a nuclear war doomsday scenario that will never happen. But it still presents itself as a deterrent for countries like Japan, India, etc. Since it will never happen, it is more economical to build Intermediate Ranged Ballistic missiles than buying and maintaining expensive bombers.

[MIGleader]

a bear? its going to get shot down in five minute in war

[EternalVigil]

Its no stealth bomber. Trust me on that its another derivative of the B1-B lancer. The USAF trains at intercepting them and shooting them down in a nuclear defense role. Its as much stealth as the B1-B. I know everyone wants to say they have stealth tech but this one isnt friend. The Tu-160 is the blackjack. The backfire bomber is an old version of the same concept of a long range supersonic bomber. Ill repeat this again the TU160 is the black jack and has the same stealth as the B1-B. Look at the B1-B and the tu-160 they are nearly identicle and the backfire TU22 looks completly differant. I know the USAF knows what they are training us airmen for and its not a long range nuclear capable stealth vehicle, its just a fast bomber that has a huge range and can fly low under radar like the b1-b. It has the same RCS of a B1-B as well.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/tu-160.htm
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-1b.htm

[Fairthought]

Sorry Eternal Vigil,

My mistake. I always seem to make an error everytime I first jump into a thread. The stealth bomber I was talking about was the T-60s, not the Tu-160. The Tu-160 is the Blackjack I was talking about. The Blackjack is the equivalent of the B-1B, as you've said. It is an older bomber.

Forgive me, T-60s/Tu-160, all codes begin to blur in my little gray cells over time. I prefer verbal descriptions. Thank god I'm not a postal worker!

[EternalVigil]

Not a big deal. It does get confusing with the russian designation and the nato designation. :)

[MadMax]

if china could get the russians to sell them a few SU 34 radars then thats half the battle of building an indigenous version. im not sure china could right now produce a radar as powerful as the SU 34 even the us dosnt half terrain follwoing as advanced

[vincelee]

what's up with Americans and calling everything of copy of so and so.

Has it ever occured to you that these two have outwardly similar appearances because they were designed to fullfil similar roles?

[Mazepa]

Even the americans use the easy way of copying things from time to time. Its nothing to be ashamed of as there is no meaning in inventing the wheel more then one time.

[IDonT]

Tu 160

http://www.aeronautics.ru/img001/tu16001.jpg

B1-B

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b1-dvic162.jpg

[Lavi]

Okay, now I'm starting to feel stupid... Have I missed the retirement of the Tu-22M3? That was something... Anyone could give me an article with more details on that?

Well, if the Russians retire them, I think China should try to purchase them, they're exactly what the PLAAF needs, a supersonic aircraft for carrying out maritime strike missions at low altitueds with anti-ship missiles.

The B-1B and the Tu-160 similar? Not really, a bit similar looking, but they are definitly not copies of each other, that I can see without being an aeronautical engineer.

[IDonT]

what's up with Americans and calling everything of copy of so and so.

Has it ever occured to you that these two have outwardly similar appearances because they were designed to fullfil similar roles?

I believe the B1-A was designed to be a high flying high speed penetrator bomber. This is the same flight profile that the Tu160 uses. President Carter cancelled this project.

The B1-B was ressurected by President Reagans build up in the 1980's. Its mission profile was changed to a low level high speed penetrator.

The B-1B is a modified B-1A with major revisions in offensive avionics, defensive avionics, weapon payload, range, and speed. These modifications were made to incorporate certain technological advances that had occurred between the original B-lA contract award in 1970 and the LRCA competition in 1980. Improvements consist primarily of off-the-shelf technology such as a new radar, new generation computers, expanded ECM capabilities, reduced RCS, and avionics compatibility with the ALCM. The wing sweep is restricted to 60 which limits the maximum speed to just above supersonic. Rockwell also estimated range increases for the modified B-1.


Differences between the B-1B and its predecessor, the B-1A of the 1970s, are subtle, yet significant. Externally, only a simplified engine inlet, modified over-wing fairing and relocated pilot tubes are noticeable. Other less-evident changes include a window for the offensive and defensive systems officers' station and engine housing modifications that reduces radar exposure. The B-1B was structurally redesigned to increase its gross takeoff weight from 395,000 to 477,000 pounds (177,750 to 214,650 kilograms). Still, the empty weight of the B-1B is but 3 percent greater than that of the B-1A. This added takeoff weight capacity, in addition to a movable bulkhead between the forward and intermediate weapons bay, allows the B-1B to carry a wide variety of nuclear and conventional munitions. The most significant changes, however, are in the avionics, with low-radar cross-section, automatic terrain-following high-speed penetration, and precise weapons delivery.

[MIGleader]

Okay, now I'm starting to feel stupid... Have I missed the retirement of the Tu-22M3? That was something... Anyone could give me an article with more details on that?

Well, if the Russians retire them, I think China should try to purchase them, they're exactly what the PLAAF needs, a supersonic aircraft for carrying out maritime strike missions at low altitueds with anti-ship missiles.

The B-1B and the Tu-160 similar? Not really, a bit similar looking, but they are definitly not copies of each other, that I can see without being an aeronautical engineer.

the backfires retirement was in 04. the russians wanted to save the operation money for the future russian af. not much to know. but the russians dont want to waste the planes, so they completely changed their policy and began promoting the planes to china.

the americans copy/steal more than you think. the govenement actually launched a program in the sixties specificly designed to aquire and copy british, french, and soviet technology.

[Chairman Hu]

LOL AHAHAHAH!!!

yea if i could buy either one, Id buy the blackjack!

Air refuel is enough for even a backfire to bomb anywhere in the US

[MIGleader]

LOL AHAHAHAH!!!

yea if i could buy either one, Id buy the blackjack!

Air refuel is enough for even a backfire to bomb anywhere in the US

i think a refuel probe takes it too far. the russians wouldnt feel safe either. the backfore already has a 4000 km range, enoguh to attack anyone in asia, going as far as guam or australia.

[tphuang]

Russians won't sell tu-160 for a long time.

[MIGleader]

Russians won't sell tu-160 for a long time.

the chinese wernt intersted in tu-160. the backfire is the tu-22.

[Chairman Hu]

too HUGE IN maintance cost, but itd be good for China to have like a dozen or so, and that can be use for tactical assaults, itz not like China is gonna replace them in the next 50 years, Blackjacks KICK ASS, just dont over do it

[sumdud]

I would not go for the Bear, since it doesn't carry a lot. The chance of nuking someone is too small to be measured, so getting the Bear to fly far and drop 2 bombs is just too uneconomic.
While both planes can carry long range ASMs and LACMs, the Backfire carries much more missiles. And since only regional range is needed, getting the Bear can scare the smart ones really bad. Spares for either plane should not be a problem as Russia has a lot of planes sitting around.
One big con for the Backfire though. That thing is a big gas-guzzler.

I don't think China should get the nice looking Fullback. They already have the JH-7A and MKK. The Su-32s have the same capabilities as the MKKs, with the exception of better luxuries. And what will you arm them with? You are just grounding the planes once you run out of Russian ammo.
The JH-7A is underpowered but it's much more reliable in terms of weapons and supplies, and it serves as a better fighter when in need than a Fullback.

[Chairman Hu]

I agree, just get a new engine "cough" RD-93 "cough"

and the engine problem MIGHT go away, as long as the JH-7 has the abilities of the MKK (mostly will since it was built for ground/naval role), then I choose the JH-7 hands down

Otherwise, the Tu-22M3 will be good but... too much of it means too much cost means too much ammo for extra

Maybe a license production and crack the codes like the Su-27SK?

[Su-27 Pilot]

I agree, just get a new engine "cough" RD-93 "cough"

and the engine problem MIGHT go away, as long as the JH-7 has the abilities of the MKK (mostly will since it was built for ground/naval role), then I choose the JH-7 hands down

Otherwise, the Tu-22M3 will be good but... too much of it means too much cost means too much ammo for extra

Maybe a license production and crack the codes like the Su-27SK?

Also the new advanced Su-27 SM fighters are the best ones now.

[sumdud]

Well, you are going to need an engine for the Chinese copy of the Su-32. ;)
The RD-93 is said to be too long for the JH-7A though.
WS-13?

The JH-7A already achieves the same capabilities of the MKK at the ground attack area.

Less types of planes are nearly always better. Plus, why strifle your own efforts and buy from others?

Are any of the planes nuclear capable though?
As for the Backfires, we are only thinking for a squad of 24 anyway. And when there are Russian spares, maintence should not be a nightmare.

[Gauntlet]

the chinese wernt intersted in tu-160. the backfire is the tu-22.
Actually, the Tu-22 is the Blinder. The Tu-22M is the Backfire. Its important not to mix those two with each other.

Blinder:
http://www.globalaircraft.org/photos/planephotos/tu-22_1.jpg

Backfire:
http://www.avions-militaires.net/images/photos/photo2/tu22m.jpg


You are telling me the the Ruskies are retiring the Backfire-Cs?
May I ask for sources (and not: "everyone should know that")?

AFAIK, the strategic weapons air force is still using the Tu-22M5, and the Naval airforce is still using the Backfire-C.

[MIGleader]

Actually, the Tu-22 is the Blinder. The Tu-22M is the Backfire. Its important not to mix those two with each other.

Blinder:
http://www.globalaircraft.org/photos/planephotos/tu-22_1.jpg

Backfire:
http://www.avions-militaires.net/images/photos/photo2/tu22m.jpg


You are telling me the the Ruskies are retiring the Backfire-Cs?
May I ask for sources (and not: "everyone should know that")?

AFAIK, the strategic weapons air force is still using the Tu-22M5, and the Naval airforce is still using the Backfire-C.

from sinodefence:
Following the end of the Cold War, China turned to its old enemy Russia for help. In 1993, China approached Russia seeking the sale of a number of Tupolev Tu-22M3 (NATO codename: Backfire-C) intermediate bomber aircraft to replace its ageing H-6 fleet, which ended production in the early 1980s. Developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Tu-22M is a swing-wing, medium range bomber designed to strike targets in Western Europe and Asia using both nuclear and conventional weapons. It has been designed to penetrate enemy air defence at low altitude and supersonic speed making him more survivable than previous strike aircraft. In addition to the strike role, the Tu-22M can carry out reconnaissance and maritime patrol missions. The Tu-22M3 is the latest model of the Backfire family and first entered service with the Soviet air forces in 1984.

Despite various rumours and speculations of a secret deal between the two sides, it later became clear that Moscow rejected China’s request due to concern that the sale may break the power balance in the East Asia region. However, since late 2004 there has been some major shift in the Russian government’s policy towards the sale of bomber aircraft 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.