Defense Technology & Military Forum

Defense Technology & Military Forum (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/)
-   Air Force & Aviation (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/)
-   -   China to buy Backfires from Russia (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/china-buy-backfires-russia-12382/)

Lostfleet January 18th, 2013 05:41 AM

China to buy Backfires from Russia
 
Does anyone have more info on the subject ?

I used to fancy Tu-22M when I was playing Harpoon and other Cold War games when it was a great tool in the Northern Atlantic and it looks cool as well :) More than twenty years have passed since and I was wondering if it was still considered a threat to a carrier force ?

We don't have F-14's and Phoenix anymore ( I am sure some will debate its effictiveness at the first place) but could a carrier force defend itself against a salvo of cruise missiles launched from Backfires and how effective are As-4s ( Kh-22) with their updated sensors ?


The Aviationist China buys Tu-22 production line from Russia. A major threat to the U.S. aircraft carriers in the region

gf0012-aust January 18th, 2013 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lostfleet (Post 258231)
....................... but could a carrier force defend itself against a salvo of cruise missiles launched from Backfires and how effective are As-4s ( Kh-22) with their updated sensors ?

The USN used to train for multiple regiments of Backfires and Blackjacks conducting a co-ordinated attack. The soviet/russian nickname for this attack was loosely referred to as "beating the bushes". Their intent was to overwhelm by sheer numbers and assume that some of the release would get through. It was never considered a successful approach or use of resources

ie 4-6 regiments against a Carrier group

They have far more sophisticated sensors and systems nowdays both on ship, on fleet and off ship,

AegisFC January 18th, 2013 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lostfleet (Post 258231)
Does anyone have more info on the subject ?

I used to fancy Tu-22M when I was playing Harpoon and other Cold War games when it was a great tool in the Northern Atlantic and it looks cool as well :) More than twenty years have passed since and I was wondering if it was still considered a threat to a carrier force ?

Considering the USN now has CEC equipped ships and Hawkeyes? No I'd say not. That isn't even getting into defensive goodies like Nulka that didn't exist a decade or so ago.
A carrier group can be defeated but it won't be easy. Even at their height the Russians never assumed it would be.

Quote:

We don't have F-14's and Phoenix anymore ( I am sure some will debate its effictiveness at the first place) but could a carrier force defend itself against a salvo of cruise missiles launched from Backfires and how effective are As-4s ( Kh-22) with their updated sensors ?
I have a soft spot for the F-14 but lets be honest, they were maintenance hogs and the Pheonix was approaching its "use by date". The radar in the Shornets is much better than the one in the Tomcat and the AAMRAM is better BVR missile.
From a technical standpoint the fleet is better defended than its ever been.

STURM January 18th, 2013 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lostfleet (Post 258231)
We don't have F-14's and Phoenix anymore ( I am sure some will debate its effictiveness at the first place)

The Iranians certainy won't. The Tomcat/Phoenix combination was a major factor that prevented the Iraqis from having their own way over the skies of Iran. In Iranian service, Phoenix accounted for numerous long range kills and Iraqi pilots often stayed well away as soon as their ESM picked up the AWG-9. Ironically, it was the Shah who saved the Tomcat programme by providing Grumman a huge loan when Congress severed funding and shortly after gaining power, the mullahs made plans to sell their Tomcats.

Feanor January 18th, 2013 03:39 PM

I've seen the article claiming that China is buying them, but honestly it doesn't seem likely. The Tu-22M is out of production. However engines, and other subsystems, will be restarting production soon as the upgrade program for the Tu-22M3M starts up. In principle this means that old airframes could be pulled out of storage and reactivated with this program. In practice however, I doubt China will be interested in them especially considering the high costs associated with something of the sort.

gf0012-aust January 18th, 2013 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feanor (Post 258239)
I've seen the article claiming that China is buying them, but honestly it doesn't seem likely. The Tu-22M is out of production. However engines, and other subsystems, will be restarting production soon as the upgrade program for the Tu-22M3M starts up. In principle this means that old airframes could be pulled out of storage and reactivated with this program. In practice however, I doubt China will be interested in them especially considering the high costs associated with something of the sort.


Basic analysis dictates that you look at bthe operational requirement

I really can't see any justification for it

If the tactical need is to compromise an enemy fleet at range (ie before its effectiveness, fighting range) kicks in, then long range bomber interdiction in a maritime strike role is one of the least effective ways to do it.

as a curiosity for the chinese to do some reverse engineering? maybe, but only for a physical look as the chinese would already have as much info as they need already on that platform

sounds like over enthusiastic teenagers wargaming to me /smile on

the concerned January 18th, 2013 05:11 PM

Wouldn't the Su-34 fullback be a better aircraft than the backfire,they already operate flankers anyway .The question is whether Russia would let China have any.

gf0012-aust January 18th, 2013 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the concerned (Post 258241)
Wouldn't the Su-34 fullback be a better aircraft than the backfire,they already operate flankers anyway .The question is whether Russia would let China have any.

I don't think even the most hardened russofile would argue against the fact that china probably has enough info from various harvesting activities to build or copy their own

its not a matter of what they let china have, its about what they can successfully protect long enough

Feanor January 18th, 2013 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gf0012-aust (Post 258243)
I don't think even the most hardened russofile would argue against the fact that china probably has enough info from various harvesting activities to build or copy their own

its not a matter of what they let china have, its about what they can successfully protect long enough

Provided they import Russian engines... :)

On a more serious note though, you're right. It's a matter of whether the Chinese even want an Su-34 clone. Russia is getting it due to fairly heavy inertial thinking, and major political support, requiring both completion of this long-time ambitious program, and a matching replacement for the Su-24. Honestly even the VVS could have done without the Su-34, had they really been smart about planning ahead. They could have gone for the Su-30SM as their sole heavy multirole and strike fighter. It would have been cheaper, easier to produce, and much more flexible. Hell it could even perform maritime strike. Which is maybe why the Chinese aren't in a hurry to get their own Su-34 clone, and instead are focusing on upgraded Flankers.

Back to the Tu-22M3M, there were many attempts to sell the Tu-22M abroad in the 90s, when tons of extra airframes in good condition could be had for bargain bin prices. China didn't buy them. Today, when the restoration of those aircraft to service is expensive and time consuming, and Chinese air space industry is far ahead of what it was back then why would they get one? VVS has no choice. The PAK-DA is a long ways away, and might not even get completed. Meanwhile the current Tu-22M3 fleet is thoroughly outdated. during the war in georgia they had to drop 100 unguided bombs off of 4 bombers, to disable iirc 2 runways, and out of those bombs only a total of like 6 actually hit the runways. The rest made nice little crater lines in the fields surrounding them. So they are going to upgrade the existing fleet because they have no other options. Their tanker fleet is going to increase soon enoguh for them to plan Su-34s as their sole long-range strike option, and they can't realistically use strategic bombers every time they need a long-range strike mission. Not to mention the strategic fleet isn't any more modern or accurate then the Backfires.

China meanwhile operates a very advanced Tu-16 derivative, that's still in production, and onboard electronics-wise is probably more advanced then current Tu-22M3s (given that they're Soviet-era planes). Why go for a direct analogue to an aircraft they already produce? Especially when it would be a complex import of an outdated design.

colay January 18th, 2013 09:58 PM

Instead of buying outdated Backfires or newer Fullbacks, perhaps it makes more sense for them to invest in the J-20 and it's speculated role as a maritime strike platform among others.

AEGIS, CEC, SM-6 should provide a daunting gauntlet extending hundreds of miles from a CBG that was not previously available while freeing more aircraft for the strike role.

gf0012-aust January 19th, 2013 03:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colay (Post 258247)
Instead of buying outdated Backfires or newer Fullbacks, perhaps it makes more sense for them to invest in the J-20 and it's speculated role as a maritime strike platform among others.

.


its not about the platform

there are a whole pile of other things that need to be addressed before they purchase a digitsed blackjack, su-34 or venusian battleblob

a US carrier task force in 2013 is not the same as a CTF from Reagan's era (and where the US still had the aces high)

a USN CTF in 2013 is not operating within the comms constraints of old.

Blue water navies are no longer just about absolute 7 seas capability. Those fleets have to be able to call on the full C4-C5 spectrum - and the USN is the only force that can call on that cudgel in any ocean, any time

it does make a difference. no amount of high speed airborne maritime interdiction assets can change that as they don't get to dictate or manage the space spectrum in conjunction with the maritime spectrum

every fight is a comms and C2-C4/C5 fight before its a tactical fight. you can't win the latter without owning the former

Sampanviking January 20th, 2013 10:37 AM

The idea of the PLAAF buying Backfires does seem unlikely.
I will Caveat that by noting that the stories I have read, talk about buying the production line and technology as opposed to simply buying aircraft.
I could believe that there is a politically constructed deal for the benefit of good will, where the real Chinese objective is to use the design to initiate or be incorporated into a development project of their own. (H8 springs immediately to mind). So for that matter does the phrase "no point re-inventing the wheel".

Lcf January 20th, 2013 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gf0012-aust
The USN used to train for multiple regiments of Backfires and Blackjacks conducting a co-ordinated attack. The soviet/russian nickname for this attack was loosely referred to as "beating the bushes". Their intent was to overwhelm by sheer numbers and assume that some of the release would get through. It was never considered a successful approach or use of resources

ie 4-6 regiments against a Carrier group

They have far more sophisticated sensors and systems nowdays both on ship, on fleet and off ship,

They still count heavily on that strategy, somewhere around this time last year Vice President of the Academy of Geopolitical Issues Konstantin Sivkov said firepower of 30 Tu-22M3Ms will be enough to sink one (1) carrier strike group.
With Blackjacks in the equation, this may be correct, but since their tactical ballistic missiles lack precision striking, I really doubt this. For that same reason they lost Tu-22M3 in Georgia since it had to get close to it's target, enough to get in range of Georgian AA systems so how exactly do they hope to sink an entire CSG?!

Goknub January 20th, 2013 10:38 PM

As a long term replacement for the TU-16 it would make sense to pick an existing design. If the deal is for a production line it would be a major boost to the types of aircraft China can build.

Building on China's existing experiance, a new-build Chinese Tu22Ms would be able to incorporate modern avionics and some stealth features. Underestimating China's ability to develop modern military systems has been pretty common.

colay January 20th, 2013 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lcf (Post 258275)
They still count heavily on that strategy, somewhere around this time last year Vice President of the Academy of Geopolitical Issues Konstantin Sivkov said firepower of 30 Tu-22M3Ms will be enough to sink one (1) carrier strike group.
With Blackjacks in the equation, this may be correct, but since their tactical ballistic missiles lack precision striking, I really doubt this. For that same reason they lost Tu-22M3 in Georgia since it had to get close to it's target, enough to get in range of Georgian AA systems so how exactly do they hope to sink an entire CSG?!

Seems like a scenario tailor made for the Cuda missile with HTK capability. You could have F-35Cs loitering at extended distance, each carrying up to a dozen of these things internally to provide ASCM/AShM defense.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2003-2011 DefenceTalk.com. All Rights Reserved.