All good points which the Russians understood as well. They were prepated to send them out in brute force to overwhelm the defenses, which is still possible.First, the Tu-22 is highly, highly vulnerable to interception, and it and the Tu-160 are the planes around which the USN has designed its entire anti-air suite. From a strategic standpoint, it's not really worth it to buy the capability your intended adversary has already spent billions building defenses against.
Second, the Tu-22 is not guaranteed to link well with the tightly linked, 21st-century, C4ISR model that the PLAN/PLAAF want to have. This could turn it into a one-off albatross that looks great on paper but is a pain in the ass for field commanders to use.
Third, the Tu-22 will be expensive and will dilute PLAAF defense budgets away from areas which they really should be focusing on, like UCAVs, 5th-gen avionics, AWACS, and better engines.
If the PLAN had the production capabilities, you can be sure that the new ones they put off the line would address as many of the points you raise as possible.
1) Range and Vulnerability: Answer, refuel them en route and as they return at predesignated spots out of harms way. As to vulnerability, see below.
2) C4ISR; Answer: Integrate the better components into their very large airframes as you build them. New components designed by the PLAn to address the comms, the EW issues, the other vulnerabilities etc.
3)Expense: Answer: The PLAN would have to determine that it was worth it, or at least enough so to make it a part of their efforts to address their vulnerabilities.
The only one I see that would negate it...and, IMHO probably already has...is the third. Simply put, is this where they want to spend a big hunk of change? $1.5 billion simply to get into the game. Probably not.
But make no mistake, a modernised PLAN Backfire with new electronics and new weapons would be a very real threat that would have to be taken very seriously.
Last edited: