Supersonic Nuclear Precision Bomber for PLAAF ??

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

Chairman Hu said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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

tphuang said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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.

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?

Chairman Hu said:

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?

Click to expand...

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

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.

MIGleader said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Blinder:


Backfire:



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.