Then why bother -- just buy more JH-7s -- you will be able to carry more ammo with the equivalent amount of money.
China obtain liscense to produce backfire bomber
- Thread starter challenge
- Start date
Then why bother -- just buy more JH-7s -- you will be able to carry more ammo with the equivalent amount of money.
Not to mention that China's already building the J-11BS which would probably be equivalent to any MKK, MK2 or Su-34 in strike capabilities.
I doubt China would be wanting to buy any strike or combat aircraft from Russia in future, the major things that they are dependent on are probably transport aircraft, helicopters, and the obvious bottleneck which are engines.
Su-34 has more range I would assume. Range and payload are the two things you want in a bomber class.
Skywatcher
Captain
If this article is true, Hu is doing Putin a very big party favor in propping up the Russian aviation industry, particularly Tupolev, who would be the main beneficiaries.
Geographer
Junior Member
I'm very skeptical of this because it goes against everything we've heard from the PLAAF for at least five years. I remember China asked to purchase Tu-22M's early in the decade but Russia turned them down. Since then the two trends have been: 1) smaller fighter aircraft like the J-10 and J-11, and 2) indigenous development of aircraft and aircraft components like the J-10 and WS-10A. Buying a long-range strategic bomber from Russia just doesn't fit into what we've see and heard from the Chinese air force recently.
However, I disagree with those who say it would be a useless White Elephant. It would give China significant long-range strike capability it has never had. Russia refused to sell it years ago because they feared it would change the balance of power in East and Southeast Asia. The bomber could dropped huge ordinance on bases and cities anywhere in Asia, or launch dozens of cruise missiles from high altitude against Taiwan or ships in the Spratly Islands. The US air force still uses its B-1Bs, B-2s, and B-52s all over the world fighting low tech enemies like the Taliban which shows even the most advanced armies with troops on the ground have a use for overwhelming air power.
However, I disagree with those who say it would be a useless White Elephant. It would give China significant long-range strike capability it has never had. Russia refused to sell it years ago because they feared it would change the balance of power in East and Southeast Asia. The bomber could dropped huge ordinance on bases and cities anywhere in Asia, or launch dozens of cruise missiles from high altitude against Taiwan or ships in the Spratly Islands. The US air force still uses its B-1Bs, B-2s, and B-52s all over the world fighting low tech enemies like the Taliban which shows even the most advanced armies with troops on the ground have a use for overwhelming air power.
Large at it is, it should have a large radar signature. How can non-stealthy backfire survive today´s enemy fighters? B52 only survive because it doesnt face enemy fighters.
Last edited:
during the early 60's and 70's,backfire (not to mention Mig-23 and f-111) swingwing mechanism represnt aviation industries state of art technology,not anymore,with look down shoot down radar,make low level penetration or fly below the radar umbrella obsolete.right now the stealth technology was key to modern aerial combat.
my guess, if backfire bomber if to be assembly in xian, the first thing they has to go was her swingwing mechanism.incorporate RAM coating,reducing her overall RCS .
Geographer
Junior Member
How do the B-1B and B-52 survive enemy fighters with radar cross sections as big as they are? They don't face them. They come in after all the enemy fighters and long range SAM sites have been destroyed, if they ever had them. China could use the Tu-22M the same way, holding it back until the opposing air defenses were destroyed, then using to drop a ton of bombs. Or it could drop dozens of stand-off weapons.