Should PLAAF or PLAN have bought the Tu-22M Backfire?

[Figaro]

There is a reason why USAF puts their B-1s as their maritime striker instead of B-2: B-1s have much higher payload, are bigger and has external hardpoints. I wonder why PLAAF did not use a more traditional design like the B-1, taking lessons learned from J-20 and J-31? Or maybe that's the JH-XX project. It would've been cheaper and a better mission fit, particularly as Chinese aircraft are better at shaping and electronics while having poor engines but B-2 style planes heavily rely on good engines.

Because of survivability ... that is why the US is developing the B-21 instead of another supersonic bomber.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Because of survivability ... that is why the US is developing the B-21 instead of another supersonic bomber.

USAF doesn't put their B-2s on maritime strike duty. They are putting B-1s. PLAAF isn't going to be carpet bombing anyone. B-21 is rumored to be even smaller than the B-2, meaning that its standoff weapons payload will be even lower. B-1 is also not exactly a flying brick, it's still got a far lower RCS than flying bricks like the B-52.

USAF requirements are for B-21 to be able to bomb enemy infrastructure with dumb unpowered bombs... China is not going to need to do that. It's unrealistic to think that PLAAF will need to do carpet bombing. Even B-2 has 100x higher RCS compared to F-22; anything that can detect the F-22 can detect the B-2 far more easily. So B-2 still needs standoff weapons.

The B-1 deploys to Guam because it expects to go against the PLAN with LRASMs. USAF doesn't fantasize about being able to carpet bomb Beijing with B-2s. That's why they've even brought back B-1s from mothball.

 

[vi-va]

why are we using H-6K then? it is far worse in terms of performance. Unmanned also can't take on roles of AWAC, tanker, etc. anyhow, this is more for historical purpose, since AVIC now is producing H-20.

Legacies, cheap, easy to maintain. H-6 can carries long range cruise missiles, good enough for PLAAF.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

The problem with Tu-22M3 is it's not versatile. That's why PLAN went for Su-30MKK2 which can fire anti ship missiles just the same but is at the same time multi role.

 

[Viet]

There were rumors that Russia would sell Tu-22M back in 2013 with ToT and production.

If PLAAF or PLAN had the chance to buy Tu-22M, I think it would've been a massive asset. If ToT on airframe production was provided, it would've been a very valuable stepping stone in learning how to make modern bombers, and could've been upgraded with Chinese electronics.

Tu-22M is a much better platform than H-6. It has longer range, almost double the payload capability, a speed that can keep up with fighters, and has much more lift capabilities. It can carry almost twice the number of missiles on hardpoints and internal launchers. It doesn't have a bomb bay, but H-6 also removed its bomb bay.

Most of all, it has supersonic low level flight capabilities. With upgrades, it could've been like a PLAAF B-1, since they have somewhat similar flight characteristics.

The other advantage would have been cost savings on domestic bomber development (similar to how J-11 reduced cost and development time for J-16) and a better heavy airlift platform for use with AWAC, EW and tanker aircraft than H-6.

What a nonsense
What Russia should be so dumb to sell out a strategic bomber to China?
Making zero sense

 

[vi-va]

What a nonsense
What Russia should be so dumb to sell out a strategic bomber to China?
Making zero sense

you talk nonsense.
Russia offered long time ago.

 

[Viet]

you talk nonsense.
Russia offered long time ago.

If true
Then Russia is dumb!

 

[PeacefulWar]

I wonder why PLAAF did not use a more traditional design like the B-1, taking lessons learned from J-20 and J-31? Or maybe that's the JH-XX project shown before; I'd say a big JH-XX would be much cheaper and better mission than a H-20.

Agreed.
I think till now offensive doctorine is still not PLA's priority.
Otherwise it doesn't make sense that the only bomber we have is H-6.
We don't have true strategy bombers yet.

 

[vi-va]

If true
Then Russia is dumb!

You don't understand geopolitics. Russia need the money and lock China in Russia weapons system back in 2010.

Regarding weaponry. Tu-22M only good at speed. but what's for? Nowadays bomber attack outside of the threat engagement zones, when you fly faster, radius of turning circle is bigger, which means you have to attack even further, otherwise your bomber is not safe.

H-6 can carry 6 cruise missiles, while TU-22M is variable-sweep wing, hardpoints are very limited. also carry 6 cruise missiles.

variable-sweep wing is expensive, hard to maintain.
Super-sonic bomber is expensive, hard to maintain as well.

China is not India, we have long vision, we don't need Bling Bling.

 

[vi-va]

You know what, I have said many times, B1B sucks.
US has officially abandon B1B, and keep grandpa B-52 instead.
B-52 is long range, can carry many cruise missiles, attack outside of the threat engagement zones, subsonic, easier to maintain, lower cost per hour.
B1B is variable-sweep wing, expensive, hard to maintain. Readiness is horrible.

It's meaningless if next generation bomber is not stealthy, it's outdated at least.

 

[PeacefulWar]

You know what, I have said many times, B1B sucks.
US has officially abandon B1B, and keep grandpa B-52 instead.
B-52 is long range, can carry many cruise missiles, attack outside of the threat engagement zones, subsonic, easier to maintain, lower cost per hour.
B1B is variable-sweep wing, expensive, hard to maintain. Readiness is horrible.

It's meaningless if next generation bomber is not stealthy, it's outdated at least.

B52 works for US because they can get air superiority.
For USSR/Russia/China and others, we need bombers that can either fly fast enough or stealth enough to break through.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

You know what, I have said many times, B1B sucks.
US has officially abandon B1B, and keep grandpa B-52 instead.
B-52 is long range, can carry many cruise missiles, attack outside of the threat engagement zones, subsonic, easier to maintain, lower cost per hour.
B1B is variable-sweep wing, expensive, hard to maintain. Readiness is horrible.

It's meaningless if next generation bomber is not stealthy, it's outdated at least.

The B-1B has certain stealth features i.e. serpentine inlets and coatings that reduce its RCS (4 m2) to less than that of the F-15. B-1B is also 3x cheaper to operate than the B-2. Just 8 B-1Bs dropped 40% of all bombs in Iraq, which is why their readiness is low today - their airframe life is already used up 10 years ago. Modern designs don't require swept wings either, removing the largest maintenance cost of the B-1B.

IMO, a flying wing for H-20 is risky. If it doesn't work or gets delayed it would be a waste of money and more importantly, cost China a valuable asset in what could be the most critical time in history. Instead, I think that its better to use a traditional layout plane with lessons learned from J-20, scaled up to bomber size and mounting large radar/carrying a high cruise missile payload. Sort of like a stealthy Tu-22M or B-1B.

B52 works for US because they can get air superiority.
For USSR/Russia/China and others, we need bombers that can either fly fast enough or stealth enough to break through.

Agreed. PLAAF/PLAN is going to be using bombers as missile platforms and as support aircraft (radar/patrol, scientific research) for a long time due to strategic realities. PLAN naval aviation in particular needs to have extreme focus on long range naval strike.

US has very different requirements, and even they are keeping B-1B around as a LRASM truck for maritime strike in the Pacific.

 

[Viet]

You don't understand geopolitics. Russia need the money and lock China in Russia weapons system back in 2010.

Regarding weaponry. Tu-22M only good at speed. but what's for? Nowadays bomber attack outside of the threat engagement zones, when you fly faster, radius of turning circle is bigger, which means you have to attack even further, otherwise your bomber is not safe.

H-6 can carry 6 cruise missiles, while TU-22M is variable-sweep wing, hardpoints are very limited. also carry 6 cruise missiles.

variable-sweep wing is expensive, hard to maintain.
Super-sonic bomber is expensive, hard to maintain as well.

China is not India, we have long vision, we don't need Bling Bling.

Ok if true you rejected the offer (very stupid by Russia) then it’s good for us.
A PLA with a fast flying bomber in inventory would pose a far more dangerous threat to Vietnam air defense.

 

[Figaro]

Ok if true you rejected the offer (very stupid by Russia) then it’s good for us.
A PLA with a fast flying bomber in inventory would pose a far more dangerous threat to Vietnam air defense.

A PLA with a stealthy subsonic bomber is even more of a dangerous threat to Vietnam air defense. Supersonic bombers like the B1B and Tu-160 or Tu-22 are a thing of the past now.

 

[Viet]

A PLA with a stealthy subsonic bomber is even more of a dangerous threat to Vietnam air defense

Why?
A slow flying bomber is easier for our fighter jets to intercept than a fast one.
Physics.
H6 is not stealth.