China to buy Backfires from Russia
- Thread starter Lostfleet
- Start date
For the Soviets, the element of surprise would have played a very, very important factor as to how successfull Backfires on anti-shipping missions would have been and off course early detection would also have helped the USN a lot. What I don't get is how the Soviets intended to take a USN carrier group by surprise given that ground based radars and ESM in the U.K and Norway would have detected the Backfires and that the carrier group would have had an E-2 Hawkeye in the air, as well as Tomcats on CAP. And was it also part of Soviet doctrine to have a USN carrier group ''weakened'' by long range wake homing torps and supersonic ASMs fired by SSNs and SSGNs before a Backfire strike went in?
Despite their limitations, Backfires - togeher with subs - provided the Soviets with the most effective means to target USN carriers and at the end of the day the Soviets had to work with what they had.
Despite their limitations, Backfires - togeher with subs - provided the Soviets with the most effective means to target USN carriers and at the end of the day the Soviets had to work with what they had.
so my skepticism about them being a rational fit was justified......
China might as well as spend those money on extra missile, at least they don't need to worry about casualty.
An official who remained unnamed, because not authorised to comment on issue, stated that the Russians would not sell the Tu22M3 because it is a strategic assett. You don't sell those according to said official.
I can't see any tactical benefit in this, unless they are after a mule to build their own high speed maritime interdictors - and even then there are more fundamental issues that need to be addressed
Yes and the PRC are negotiating for Su35 (or is 33) so they have an aircraft that can be a high speed maritime interdictor if they want it, albeit with a lighter load and less range. They are also building carrier capability and given that it will take time, lots of time, to become proficient, they would have same issue with TU22M3 if they wanted to use it as a mule. I suppose they could always steal a copy of the drawings and then work from there. And that's ok with the Chinese. They have patience; they think long term and plan long term. If they do acquire a TU22M3 or B1B Lancer type capability that is going to be a game changer for Asia and the South Pacific including Australia and NZ, especially if used in conjuction with a Carrier Task Force or two and their ACBM (Anti Carrier Ballistic Missile). Now thats another thought - what if they figure out how to sub launch that ACBM?
Assuming that China wants flying and working aircraft, they'd have to come from VVS inventory. So yes that would be quite accurate. Now I don't think that sort of deal was ever seriously on the table, since the VVS has rather limited numbers of the planes. I speculated that given the re-engine-ing and upgrade program for the type they could have bought in storage airframes, and had them refitted and brought up to the Tu-22M3M standard. But that would be extremely expensive, and generally unnecessary.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #30
I have a question regarding the role of Tu-22s or a similar capability aircraft for PRC
I am not an expert for this region ( actually not an expert in any region just an enthusiast) but everyone seems to be focused on a single conflict where US carrier force will fight against PRC Air Force and Navy. On the other hand I feel like there is a new type of Cold War in the Western Pacific where it involves more than the carrier force of the US Navy.
Wouldn't Tu-22 type aircraft will be perfect tool for power projection for the most of the region? If for some reason they got into a conflict with South Korea or Japan, they would be able to cut their supply lines with these type of aircraft as USSR intended with NATO convoys in the North Atlantic ? Or simply being able to interfere with the trade route of almost every country from Malayan straits to Central Pacific wouldn't Tu-22s be a good political card ?
I am not an expert for this region ( actually not an expert in any region just an enthusiast) but everyone seems to be focused on a single conflict where US carrier force will fight against PRC Air Force and Navy. On the other hand I feel like there is a new type of Cold War in the Western Pacific where it involves more than the carrier force of the US Navy.
Wouldn't Tu-22 type aircraft will be perfect tool for power projection for the most of the region? If for some reason they got into a conflict with South Korea or Japan, they would be able to cut their supply lines with these type of aircraft as USSR intended with NATO convoys in the North Atlantic ? Or simply being able to interfere with the trade route of almost every country from Malayan straits to Central Pacific wouldn't Tu-22s be a good political card ?
You can't simply cut and paste a Soviet tactic out of the 80s, and try to apply it to current situations. As it's already been pointed out in this thread the situational awareness bubble surrounding a US carrier group has grown considerably. Similarly improved are the capabilities of the IADS. Finally you should consider that the US is much better at shutting down their opponents ISR assets both strategically and tactically then it was back in the 80s. Finally the Soviet tactic was always a component of a larger coordinated attack when it came to hunting carrier groups. One that involved cruisers, attack subs, maritime strike aircraft, and if possible coastal missile assets.
what is academy of geopolitical issue is not caring no one. Say 30 tu-22 =60 missiles, carrier striking group 10 ships- 10 missile for acarrier , 6 on each tika and arly.Hmm, somting tell me that number 30 was borned by some one who decide that selling 30 ll be exactly wished count. Don't know ... Separate 30 piece. Squadron 24 aircraft, for this pearl about 30 aircraft he said for once that Our Squadron of tu-22 not enought, but one and 1/5 squadron is enought.Funny pearl
SteelTiger 177
New Member
If theres a reason to continue developement of the Zumwalt-class DDs and for Boeing to continue to enhance the Super Hornet and to go forward with the FAXX fighter for the U.SS.Navy this would be it.
Beatmaster
New Member
Sorry for quoting a earlier reply, but although the USN navy specially its carrier groups is considered to be very sophisticated and well defended one must remember that in history sheer numbers defeats any technological headstart.
And with respect to the USN navy and all their training and sophisticated hardware.
Their actual battle security and defense against large scale attacks has since the second world war never been tested for real.
I mean carrier groups did see loads of action in the past years, but non of those actions where a real danger to them.
The second world war might be nearly 60 years back, but it did teach us one massive lesson.
No matter how high tech you are, numbers will overwhelm you eventually.
Same goes for Vietnam low tech in mass numbers proved to be a equal match to advanced troops.
My point is the USN has its carrier groups defended and armed to the teeth, and trained them very well.
However their battle strength has never been put to a test.
Since the WOII the USN carrier groups have never been attacked with the aim to destroy the group.
Now i realize that it has been said that the Russian backfires would probably not able to seriously have a shot at a carrier group, but that remains a big question.
Because a lot has been said about armies, navies and air forces but history does show that being the top dogg does not mean you actually come out on top.
And although those backfires are considered inferior to the job at hand, with some upgrades and up to date changes to the platform itself i believe that they actually do pose a serious danger.
We all know what a carrier group is capable off in terms of attacking, as we have seen enough CNN to know.
But in terms of defending it remains to be seen if it can successfully defeat a barrage of nowadays missiles.
And remember if a nation manages to cripple the USN carrier groups then you take away a huge chunk of USN dominance and to many those carrier groups provide the umbrella that the US needs to project power at any place at any time.
And i am pretty sure that back then the Russians did not really care about the costs as long they could sink enough carrier groups. and for that the backfire was a great platform imo.
Obviously i do not know if the backfire can be of any use today, nor do i know if it can be upgraded at all, but i am sure they are bought with some game plan in mind.
just saying.
The russians themselves post cold war stated that they only expected a less than 5% successful penetration rate.
the chinese have nowhere near the force positioning and persistence that the soviets had - even today.
lets remember that the reason for them wanting a carrier capable navy is that they are principally landlocked and cannot apply any force compression in a concentric fashion
getting backfires wouldn't fix that problem for china.
the force composition to include backfires just does not make sense when china has none of the other required elements either in place or being developed.
Beatmaster
New Member
Alright that makes sense, but could the Chinese use the BF as a training model to serve as inspiration for a own design which might be more suitable to the original tasks assigned to the BF but then with modern hard/software?
And yes it seem you are right, but if these BF's are not going to be primary used as call it anti Carrier then perhaps with todays modern missiles they at least can perform anti ship roles right?
The reason i ask this, is because with the rapid development of the Chinese armed forced in general its reasonable to assume that the Chinese are going to try to develop their strategic sea assets, and given the fact that most of their industry is lacking the knowhow to do so i assume that hardware like the BF is capable of filling that role right?
I'll repeat it: it makes no sense to buy old Backfires (even if upgraded) when they domestically produce a Tu-16 knock-off with relatively modern on-board systems. That provides them with the experience and training they might/could want. The Backfire was the replacement for the Tu-16.
true, but the high tech nodes were all soviet crewed and operated