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

[Paul2]

Why does USAF put command staff in AWACs? One reason is that even in the case of satellite communications being disrupted or ground stations being taken out, coordination via UHF radio can still be maintained through a flying command post. That is the situational awareness - if long range comms go down, tactical communications and command is still intact if commanders are physically on planes.

Why are planes turned to drones? Size, expendability, maneuverability. AWACs are large, are NOT expendable by any means, and have no need to be maneuverable.

USA has more generals than we have roaches because USA really invests in officer training... They can afford to put them on frontlines.

Pilot of top-tier fighters should be at least a grade 3, or 4 officers, and be at least capable to have a basic idea what to do in such situations. Or you can go back to the idea of 2 seat fighters, which is still a thing in US navy.

Having an AWACS far behind your lines, which has to escape at first sign of threat, and turn off radar at the slightest suspicion of incoming antirad missile pretty much obviates the rationale for its existence.

A drone AWACS on other hand can be flown along with fighters, if not ahead of them, and provide a far better look on the battlefield. And you can lose it, having it taking the hit.

The fully droned wings concept, if it is to ever materialise, will probably have much lesser reliance on AWACS too. For the force, it will be much easier to put operators on enlarged jets with roughly same flight envelopes as drones they command. Think of something like an American four-seater F-111, with bomb, radar operator, and EW officer being replaced by operators.

 

[Paul2]

The Tu-22M is superior to the H-6k period.

You found what things to compare, H-6 is TU-16 whose design was started in 1948...

H-6 is not a strategic bomber per-se, as its original predecessor, it's a frontline medium bomber. Basically just a re-engined TU without nosegun, and turrets.

Not to say that a medium bomber is not needed. It is indeed very much needed:

Modern airforces have put too much hope into multi-role fighters as the core of airforce, while having dedicated bombers only as strategic level units, or none at all.

The problem with that came pretty quickly: in case of a modern warfare, when you get your airfields vaporised in a first few hours of a conflict, you have too many planes jam packed on airstrips just to accommodate multi-roles with land-attack role, which can only carry 2-4 big enough bombs, and need in-flight refuel (which will also go down in the first hours of the conflict.)

This necessitate a huge number of airfields, which is expensive, and blunts the effectiveness of forward deployed bases in offensive scenarios.

Not to mention the obvious fact that multiroles fitted with bombs are less capable at self defence than a bomber + escort wing combo. And a multirole with bombs will always fly worse (slower, lower, and shorter endurance) than a baseline model, or a dedicated light/medium bomber.

 

[Figaro]

You found what things to compare, H-6 is TU-16 whose design was started in 1948...

H-6 is not a strategic bomber per-se, as its original predecessor, it's a frontline medium bomber. Basically just a re-engined TU without nosegun, and turrets.

Not to say that a medium bomber is not needed. It is indeed very much needed:

Modern airforces have put too much hope into multi-role fighters as the core of airforce, while having dedicated bombers only as strategic level units, or none at all. The problem with that came pretty quickly: in case of a modern warfare, when you get your airfields vaporised in a first few hours of a conflict, you have too many planes jam packed on airstrips just to accommodate multi-roles with land-attack role, which can only carry 2-4 big enough bombs.

Main takeaway : PLAAF needs H-20 urgently ... no use in fantasizing over what if they purchased the Tu-22M