Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Air Force & Aviation
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

Miramar_14_MV-22_1965a.JPG

Miramar_14_MV-22_0358a.JPG

Miramar_14_GR4_1646a.JPG

Miramar_14_LF_0221a.JPG
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





China to buy Backfires from Russia

This is a discussion on China to buy Backfires from Russia within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Does anyone have more info on the subject ? I used to fancy Tu-22M when I was playing Harpoon and ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old January 18th, 2013   #1
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
Lostfleet's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 215
Threads:
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
Lostfleet is offline   Reply With Quote
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Chinese Navy News and Discussion Wall83 Navy & Maritime 256 January 29th, 2014 02:59 AM
Taiwan to build 3rd-generation warplane with Russia's help Viktor Air Force & Aviation 29 July 3rd, 2009 04:35 AM
China New Strategic Cruise Missiles: From the Land, Sea and Air ultrafang Military Photos & Videos 5 January 2nd, 2008 03:08 PM
China in Talks with Russia on IL-76 Purchase Deal P.A.F Air Force & Aviation 9 November 13th, 2007 05:28 PM

Old January 18th, 2013   #2
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,819
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lostfleet View Post
....................... 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,
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2013   #3
Super Moderator
Brigadier General
AegisFC's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,863
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lostfleet View Post
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.
________________
"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
Forum rules, read them!
AegisFC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2013   #4
Senior Member
Brigadier General
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,856
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lostfleet View Post
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.
STURM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2013   #5
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 13,153
Threads:
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.
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2013   #6
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,819
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor View Post
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
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2013   #7
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 245
Threads:
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.
the concerned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2013   #8
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,819
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by the concerned View Post
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
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2013   #9
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 13,153
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
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.
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2013   #10
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 784
Threads:
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.
colay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2013   #11
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,819
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by colay View Post
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
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 20th, 2013   #12
Banned Member
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 328
Threads:
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".
Sampanviking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 20th, 2013   #13
New Member
Private
Lcf's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 35
Threads:
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?!
Lcf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 20th, 2013   #14
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Aus
Posts: 100
Threads:
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.
Goknub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 20th, 2013   #15
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 784
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lcf View Post
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.
colay is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:17 PM.