All good points which the Russians understood as well. They were prepated to send them out in brute force to overwhelm the defenses, which is still possible.
Quite true, but it wouldn't be economical.
If the PLAN had the production capabilities, you can be sure that the new ones they put off the line would address as many of the points you raise as possible.
1) Range and Vulnerability: Answer, refuel them en route and as they return at predesignated spots out of harms way. As to vulnerability, see below.
Improved operating procedure is kind of a stop-gap, and still doesn't address the fact that the J-20 is an infinitely more survivable delivery system.
2) C4ISR; Answer: Integrate the better components into their very large airframes as you build them. New components designed by the PLAn to address the comms, the EW issues, the other vulnerabilities etc.
I'm sure this could be done, but again, it would ridiculously expensive; it would be a significant fraction of simply building a new plane.
3)Expense: Answer: The PLAN would have to determine that it was worth it, or at least enough so to make it a part of their efforts to address their vulnerabilities.
The only one I see that would negate it...and, IMHO probably already has...is the third. Simply put, is this where they want to spend a big hunk of change? $1.5 billion simply to get into the game. Probably not.
Exactly. It's not just the expense that's an issue--it's that the PLAAF/PLAN would benefit much more from investing that money into things like better engines, better AWACS, real-time satellite intelligence, GPS, tanker capability, wideband datalinks, and pilot training.
But make no mistake, a modernised PLAN Backfire with new electronics and new weapons would be a very real threat that would have to be taken very seriously.
Agreed here. Unfortunately, a modernized PLAN Backfire would also mean sacrificing needed improvements in many other areas, while not really adding that much to the PLAAF/PLAN combat suite.
J-20 has small weapons bays, it won`t carry cruise missiles, Tu-22M can carry cruise missiles letting it fire them at 1600km of the target and in the future 2000km, it flies at Mach 2.
So they are two different aircraft.
Right; you'll notice I said "a flight of J-20s", which means 4 J-20s replacing a single Tu-22M.
Su-34 is a more capable aircraft as bomber.
J-20 like F-35 is limited to JDAMs or small surface to air missiles.
J-20 is a tactical multirole aircraft.
Tu-22M a theater of operations supersonic bomber.
Yep, exactly the point: the J-20 is a more versatile aircraft than the Tu-22M.
Tu-22 can carry 22 tonnes of cruise missilles.
J-20 at the most will carry 3-4 tonnes of weapons and no more than 1 tonne internally like F-35
B-2 is superior to Tu-22M3 but Tu-16 is not
watch the F-22 weapons bays, can you fit a The AGM-158 JASSM inside those bays?
[video=youtube;NXHPJukCeuY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXHPJukCeuY[/video]
see the size
[video=youtube;r-3wFRZ7VHc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-3wFRZ7VHc[/video]
This seems to be the only real advantage of the Tu-22M3 over the J-20--that it can carry heavy, long-range ALCMs and ordnance. If the PLAAF is tasked to interdict USN assets and protect PLAN assets in the Western Pacific (which, quite frankly, will be its primary mission for the next ten to fifteen years or so), then I don't see a need for the PLAAF to have a large ALCM capability on a supersonic airframe. The mission need isn't there. China won't be making air-launched standoff strikes on nations with heavily defended airspace from thousands of kms away in the near future. If China needs to hit Andersen AFB at Guam, Kadena AFB at Okinawa, or Yokosuka Naval Base near Tokyo, it can do that with land-based ballistic and cruise missiles. And if China needs to perform area-denial or protect PLAN assets in the Western Pacific, then it can do that with the J-20 airframe pretty well.
Don't get me wrong--the Tu-22M3 is an amazing airplane, but it's not the right fit for the PLAAF over the next decade.
