Supersonic Nuclear Precision Bomber for PLAAF ??

According to an article from Combat Aircraft on the Russian long-range aviation branch's 90th anniversary states that the Tu-22M3 will soon recieve an upgrade to keep them in the air force until the PAK DA project is brougth into service, something that will take a couple of years since no prototype has flown yet (as far as I know).

The Russian Air Force has 15 Tu-160's in the 121st Regiment based at Engels. One airframe who has been standing uncompleted at the Kazan-based KAPO plant is scheduled to be finished and bought by the air force, to bring the total number up to 16. Some Russian Tu-160's are included in test programmes, while the rest have been written of. The examples that remained in Ukraine have all been scrapped.

Gollevainen said:

???? Against the tsetsen-rebels? Why on earht would they use biggest and most sophisticated STRATEGIC BOMBERS against gureilians whose are almoust impossiple to engange form air by planes actually suited for that kind of task...you must got it wrong somehow...

Click to expand...

Maybe because of very long endurance over battlefield? The US uses B-52s for this purpose too. Or maybe they jsut needed a live ammo exercise.

everybody is just talking about backfires and blackjacks, but how about SU-34? I thought russia is also marketing this aircraft to the PLAAF, how is the process on this one then?

uhhh no, the export version is the Su-32, trust me it is

Chairman Hu said:

Of course China needs the Blackjack, just think of a dozen of those flying overhead some country China is at war with and unload itz massive payload of napalm cluster bomb

General T. Sherman (Union) - "War is a cruel thing, the crueler it gets, the sooner it ends"

Maintance cost? Nah China is good enough to built a bomber to have as much payload as 30-40 tons, napalm may be cruel, but it will force countries to surrender faster...

Russia has 30 of them!!?!?!? Thats not bad actually, since the US has about 15-20 B-2s the last time I checked

Buying Su-32s? Not a bad idea, since the Su-34 wont be saled, the Russians are just starting to get them

Tu-22M3... People, I think these planes are PRC's best solution, the Su-32 is great but... the Backfire is MUCH better. Even buying 24 will give China a MUCH needed lead to compare to the US and Russia, spare parts!? Nah China will find a solution, just like that Ws-10 engine.

Click to expand...

29 b-2s hu. thats 58 billion dolars down the drain.

lavi, i cant believe u dont know that the russians are retring the backfire. its been known for a long time now. its a cost saving effort

i really think china should buy the su-34(or the su-32, its export variet), but whether the russians want to sell it is in doubt. the russies cant make em really fast either, their only getting 6 next year. but i read that chinas building a new attacker based on the su-34

IMO getting the Su-32 is a good idea, because it has many sharred components with Su-27/Su-30. That would make maintenance a lot easier. Even if the Russians cannot mass produce them at the Novosibirsk plant, a production rate of 2 or 3 per month isn't THAT hard to accompolish. Alternativley the PRC could license produce it like the J-11.

But the Su-32 is limited in range (without inflight refueling) and doesn't really fulfill the role of a long-range bomber. So the question here is, in the era of ICBM's and LACM's, does the PRC really need a supersonic nuclear bomber?

I think a long-range bomber converted for ALCM (Air launched cruise missile) launch platform would be nice. Such a platform can be used to extend the reach of cruise missiles. The USAF converted some B-52's to launch AGM-86 ALCM's. During Desert Storm the USAF sent 7 x B-52's to launch 35 AGM-64C's at high priority targets in Iraq to great success. These cruise missiles have 1,100km - 2,400 km range and payload of up to 3,000 lb explosives, and they only cost about $1 mil each.

"TU-160 is to Russians what B-2s are to the Americans. Those are expensive to build and too hi-tech to get sold overseas."

Actually they are more like our B1-B Lancer. The B1's design was copied by the russians during the cold war, hence the almost identicle look. The B2 is in a league of its own no one has a bomber like it yet.

adeptitus said:

IMO getting the Su-32 is a good idea, because it has many sharred components with Su-27/Su-30. That would make maintenance a lot easier. Even if the Russians cannot mass produce them at the Novosibirsk plant, a production rate of 2 or 3 per month isn't THAT hard to accompolish. Alternativley the PRC could license produce it like the J-11.

But the Su-32 is limited in range (without inflight refueling) and doesn't really fulfill the role of a long-range bomber. So the question here is, in the era of ICBM's and LACM's, does the PRC really need a supersonic nuclear bomber?

I think a long-range bomber converted for ALCM (Air launched cruise missile) launch platform would be nice. Such a platform can be used to extend the reach of cruise missiles. The USAF converted some B-52's to launch AGM-86 ALCM's. During Desert Storm the USAF sent 7 x B-52's to launch 35 AGM-64C's at high priority targets in Iraq to great success. These cruise missiles have 1,100km - 2,400 km range and payload of up to 3,000 lb explosives, and they only cost about $1 mil each.

Click to expand...

i dont know if ruaais would let china liscense such an advanced plane. the tu-22 will serve the plaaf for a good number of years, maybe to 2030. the airplane will be outdated soon, even the uav. they were merly ways to accurately deliver weapons over a long range, and now we can do that with the missle alone.

Eternal vigil, you are mistaken.

The Blackjack is the equivalent to the US B-1 Bomber. The Tu-160 is Russia's Stealth Bomber. Supposedly the first one was completed in the year 2000. I highly doubt Russia has as many as has been claimed on this site, but who knows? It is a highly secretive program. It is rumored to be a variable-geometry stealth bomber, making it significantly different than the B-2 Spirit.

With Variable-Geometry wings, I don't believe its as stealthy as the B-2, but it's stealthy enough.

I don't understand the enthusiasm for China purchasing a Backfire. A supersonic bomber is not all that necessary for China's purposes. It is far larger than needed to deliver an anti-ship missile. It is also too expensive to risk against strong air defences. That leaves it with the ability to bomb primitive airspaces, like Madagascar or Myanmar. Does China really need to bomb such countries with supersonic speed? A Bear bomber will do just fine, thank you.

The Backfire does have a strategic value: quickly launching multiple nuclear tipped criuse missiles. It will be a one way mission, and it would be a nuclear war doomsday scenario that will never happen. But it still presents itself as a deterrent for countries like Japan, India, etc. Since it will never happen, it is more economical to build Intermediate Ranged Ballistic missiles than buying and maintaining expensive bombers.

a bear? its going to get shot down in five minute in war