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

[FairAndUnbiased]

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.

 

[vi-va]

Of course not.
Stealth is the way to go. Unmanned stealthy bomber is much cheaper.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Of course not.
Stealth is the way to go. Unmanned stealthy bomber is much cheaper.

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.

 

[Daniel808]

Indeed, Tu-22M would be a nice added for China's Air Force Strategic Bomber Capability.

But at that moment (2010-2020), China Air Forces already focused on their many projects, including
H-20 Stealth Strategic Bomber (Maiden Flight in 2020)

JH-XX Stealth Supersonic Bomber

And also H-6N Strategic Bomber (Entered Service in 2019)

And that's not including their other Aviation projects, such as J-20 (Completed in 2017), J-35, J-10D, J-15 (Compeleted in 2015), Y-20 (Completed in 2015), Y-20U (Strategic Tanker), KJ-3000 (Strategic AWACS), and many other UAV/UCAV Projects..

So with they focusing on those so many projects and Production of many new Combat Aircraft. I think its hard for them to take Tu-22M offer from Russia in that time (2013)

 

[Feng Leng]

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.

I don't understand. With modern cruise missiles, it's all the same -- just a bomb truck. Only a stealth bomber can penetrate dense air defense. Just flying mach 3 won't cut it anymore.

The Soviets went down a dead end technology branch.

Backfire can't do AWACS, tanker either.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

I don't understand. With modern cruise missiles, it's all the same -- just a bomb truck. Only a stealth bomber can penetrate dense air defense. Just flying mach 3 won't cut it anymore.

The Soviets went down a dead end technology branch.

Backfire can't do AWACS, tanker either.

it has higher payload than H-6.

Tu-22M was also used for strategic naval recon as Tu-22MR with long range side-looking radar which is image forming, so it does have EW capabilities that the H-6 does not. It has an advantage in the strategic naval recon role over H-6 because of flight speed and range: more area covered which is important for finding carrier groups in the Pacific.

The WZ-8 air launched recon drone has similar capabilities but it was only recently deployed, and even in this case, the Tu-22 (if we had it back in the 90's) could've been a superior launch platform than H-6 and can carry weapons at the same time.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Indeed, Tu-22M would be a nice added for China's Air Force Strategic Bomber Capability.

But at that moment (2010-2020), China Air Forces already focused on their many projects, including
H-20 Stealth Strategic Bomber (Maiden Flight in 2020)

JH-XX Stealth Supersonic Bomber

And also H-6N Strategic Bomber (Entered Service in 2019)

And that's not including their other Aviation projects, such as J-20 (Completed in 2017), J-35, J-10D, J-15 (Compeleted in 2015), Y-20 (Completed in 2015), Y-20U (Strategic Tanker), KJ-3000 (Strategic AWACS), and many other UAV/UCAV Projects..

So with they focusing on those so many projects and Production of many new Combat Aircraft. I think its hard for them to take Tu-22M offer from Russia in that time (2013)

The problem is that as of now H-20 is still not in service, and the Y-20 platform took 15+ years after PLAAF purchased Il-76. For China the biggest limitation on AWAC is not the radar, it was the Il-76 platform which Russia kept delaying and that is why KJ-2000 still has only a few airframes. Even today they had to put it on inferior platforms like Y-8 and Y-9. PLAAF still is waiting for Y-20 platform AWAC.

If there was a hypothetical conflict with a high capability opposing navy and air force, a Tu-22M buy in 2013, or especially in 1992, would've been an advantage.

 

[Daniel808]

The problem is that as of now H-20 is still not in service, and the Y-20 platform took 15+ years after PLAAF purchased Il-76. For China the biggest limitation on AWAC is not the radar, it was the Il-76 platform which Russia kept delaying and that is why KJ-2000 still has only a few airframes. Even today they had to put it on inferior platforms like Y-8 and Y-9. PLAAF still is waiting for Y-20 platform AWAC.

If there was a hypothetical conflict with a high capability opposing navy and air force, a Tu-22M buy in 2013, or especially in 1992, would've been an advantage.

They have limited budget back then in 1992 or 2013, and like I said they focusing on other many projects they had at that time.

But their Roadmap so far very good, with :
1. First Phase (2010-2020) To become a Powerful & Modern Air Forces.
2. Second Phase (2020-2025) To become a Modern Strategic Air Forces. With Y-20U Strategic Tanker, KJ-3000 AWACS, and H-20 Stealth Strategic Bomber coming.
3. Third Phase (2025 and beyond) To become a World Class Air Forces

 

[Feng Leng]

it has higher payload than H-6.

Tu-22M was also used for strategic naval recon as Tu-22MR with long range side-looking radar which is image forming, so it does have EW capabilities that the H-6 does not. It has an advantage in the strategic naval recon role over H-6 because of flight speed and range: more area covered which is important for finding carrier groups in the Pacific.

The WZ-8 air launched recon drone has similar capabilities but it was only recently deployed, and even in this case, the Tu-22 (if we had it back in the 90's) could've been a superior launch platform than H-6 and can carry weapons at the same time.

In hindsight it was a good idea not to tip our hand to the Americans before we were ready to announce the ASBM. Tu-22M would have tipped our hand. Once the ASBM was announced, the US was left little or no time to redirect its efforts.

 

[Zsari]

The problem is that as of now H-20 is still not in service, and the Y-20 platform took 15+ years after PLAAF purchased Il-76. For China the biggest limitation on AWAC is not the radar, it was the Il-76 platform which Russia kept delaying and that is why KJ-2000 still has only a few airframes. Even today they had to put it on inferior platforms like Y-8 and Y-9. PLAAF still is waiting for Y-20 platform AWAC.

If there was a hypothetical conflict with a high capability opposing navy and air force, a Tu-22M buy in 2013, or especially in 1992, would've been an advantage.

Don't think that supersonic airframe would go together with a AWAC dish. Y-20 would be the way to go.
10-20 years ago, Tu-22M would be a great buy. Today, it'll just be a stop gap measure.

 

[Figaro]

I still don't think the Tu-22 purchase would have been justified after the introduction of the H-6K. Sure, it might be better than the H-6K but the discrepancy is not large enough to justify the purchase. This is not to mention that newer Russian weapons systems (e.g. Su-35) are basically impossible to operate coherently with local systems. Besides, with the H-20 bomber not very far away, why would China needed to go for a bomber that came into service in 1972? Such TOT and capability upgrades would not be worth it since the bomber has very limited survivability either way.

The problem is that as of now H-20 is still not in service, and the Y-20 platform took 15+ years after PLAAF purchased Il-76. For China the biggest limitation on AWAC is not the radar, it was the Il-76 platform which Russia kept delaying and that is why KJ-2000 still has only a few airframes. Even today they had to put it on inferior platforms like Y-8 and Y-9. PLAAF still is waiting for Y-20 platform AWAC.

If there was a hypothetical conflict with a high capability opposing navy and air force, a Tu-22M buy in 2013, or especially in 1992, would've been an advantage.

If we assume the PLAAF purchased the Tu-22 in 2013, that would not have been a smart idea. The H-20 is likely to become operational in the mid 2020s, so going through the trouble of buying Tu-22Ms and integrating them into the PLAAF for just around 10 years really does not make much sense. As you said, buying these bombers back in the 90s would have been an excellent choice, but due to the circumstances around the time, the PLAAF decided to put its bomber fleet on the backburner and instead focus other parts of the air force.

 

[Beast]

H-6K still retain the bomb bay. Mechanical sweep wing proves to be very costly to maintain.

H-6K with modern engine and avionics upgraded prove to be an idea platform for launching standoff missile (2300km - 3000km) CJ-2000 cruise missile. H-6K are still idea for modern warfare of proxy war where major power will not engage each other but using other battlefield to settle their own score.

Take for example syria civil war. If China need to back Assad in taking out terrorist in a short notice. H-6K taking off from woody island in Spratly island area. China is absolutely capable of projecting firepower with H-6K armed with cruise missile to neutralise terrorist targets in Syria

 

[Figaro]

H-6K still retain the bomb bay. Mechanical sweep wing proves to be very costly to maintain.

H-6K with modern engine and avionics upgraded prove to be an idea platform for launching standoff missile (2300km - 3000km) CJ-2000 cruise missile. H-6K are still idea for modern warfare of proxy war where major power will not engage each other but using other battlefield to settle their own score.

Take for example syria civil war. If China need to back Assad in taking out terrorist in a short notice. H-6K taking off from woody island in Spratly island area. China is absolutely capable of projecting firepower with H-6K armed with cruise missile to neutralise terrorist targets in Syria

Yes but that is because the terrorists have zero air defense capability against most aircraft. If you are going up against a country that has formidable SAM systems, the H-6Ks effectiveness would likely be greatly reduced. Dropping bombs on terrorists is honestly just like dropping bombs in targeting practice ... there is little risk. The PLAAF needs the H-20 as soon as possible.

 

[obj 705A]

The Tu-22M is superior to the H-6k period.
It's no use to dilly dally around this point, however having said that I'm pretty sure there was no such Russian offer to China, after all China had no problem buying the Su-35 even though they have the better J-20 , the Chinese bought the Su-35 to reverse engineer what ever they can from it & also to get familiar & keep up to date to what kind of capabilities other countries possess, so if there ever was an offer regarding ToT of the Tu-22M then for sure the Chinese would have accepted it LOL no doubt about it which is why I highly doubt such offer even existed.

Regarding the H-20, it is illogical to expect this bomber to replace every single other bomber, after all China has more than 100 H-6 bombers , will the PLAAF aquire more than one hundred H-20 to replace them once these H-6 bombers reach the end of their service life? Or perhaps match the US projected number of 200+ stratigic bombers? Financially China is certainly capable of doing that while still keeping the spending below 2% especially after 3 or 4 decades when China's GDP may become far much bigger than that of the US.

Personally for now I beleive the H-6k is just fine , it is big enough to carry 4 or 6 large anti ship cruise missiles, yet it is small enough (when compared to other stratigic bombers) for it to be affordable for mass production in large numbers, the range of the bomber can be extended with aerial refueling if it ever needs to target a ship that is too far away so range isn't an issue.

Personally I would say China should just keep replacing any old H-6 that may still exist with newer variants of the H-6 till all of the 130 H-6 bombers are modernized, produce 50-80 H-20 bombers to get a total of 180-210 bombers, and when the H-6 reaches the expiration date replace them with a brand new stealth bomber in the same weight class as the H-6.

From time to time we do hear rumors about the existance of another bomber programme in addition to H-20 so who knows may be that second stealth bomber would turn out to be real.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

The Tu-22M is superior to the H-6k period.
It's no use to dilly dally around this point, however having said that I'm pretty sure there was no such Russian offer to China, after all China had no problem buying the Su-35 even though they have the better J-20 , the Chinese bought the Su-35 to reverse engineer what ever they can from it & also to get familiar & keep up to date to what kind of capabilities other countries possess, so if there ever was an offer regarding ToT of the Tu-22M then for sure the Chinese would have accepted it LOL no doubt about it which is why I highly doubt such offer even existed.

Regarding the H-20, it is illogical to expect this bomber to replace every single other bomber, after all China has more than 100 H-6 bombers , will the PLAAF aquire more than one hundred H-20 to replace them once these H-6 bombers reach the end of their service life? Or perhaps match the US projected number of 200+ stratigic bombers? Financially China is certainly capable of doing that while still keeping the spending below 2% especially after 3 or 4 decades when China's GDP may become far much bigger than that of the US.

Personally for now I beleive the H-6k is just fine , it is big enough to carry 4 or 6 large anti ship cruise missiles, yet it is small enough (when compared to other stratigic bombers) for it to be affordable for mass production in large numbers, the range of the bomber can be extended with aerial refueling if it ever needs to target a ship that is too far away so range isn't an issue.

Personally I would say China should just keep replacing any old H-6 that may still exist with newer variants of the H-6 till all of the 130 H-6 bombers are modernized, produce 50-80 H-20 bombers to get a total of 180-210 bombers, and when the H-6 reaches the expiration date replace them with a brand new stealth bomber in the same weight class as the H-6.

From time to time we do hear rumors about the existance of another bomber programme in addition to H-20 so who knows may be that second stealth bomber would turn out to be real.

Russia was selling pretty much everything in the 90's, and there was indeed rumors of Tu-22M being sold in 1992 (see SIPRI). SIPRI is typically mediocre but they did get Su-27 exports right. They also sold the original Tu-22 to Libya and Iraq of all countries. The original Tu-22 airframe is terrible compared to the H-6 airframe (marginally faster speed but shit range) but it goes to show that they do sell bomber platforms.

Rumors are that H-20 is a flying wing design and is a penetration bomber. But what about maritime strike, strategic anti-sub and strategic recon? Basically, something that can mount a high powered AESA radar and drop cruise missiles, sonar bouys and recon drones while having long range and flying fast to cover lots of territory. H-20 will need to have everything inside the bomb bays; they won't be able to mount hardpoints.

The other thing is, does PLAAF have a need for a penetration bomber? I think PLAAF and PLAN both have a far greater need for a missile truck and general "fast heavy aircraft" platform for the 3 big missions of maritime strike, anti-sub and strategic recon. In the next few decades PLAAF and PLAN are still on the strategic defensive and would be served far better focusing on standoff capabilities.

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.

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. 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.