China buys the Tu22M3 Backfire production line?

[NutLoose]

Hmmm, they certainly seeming to be going for a massive modernisation programme. Not good if true.

The Aviationist » China buys Tu-22 production line from Russia. A major threat to the U.S. aircraft carriers in the region (http://theaviationist.com/2012/12/29/binder-china/#.UN96HonjmAE)

Nice landing :E.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYWzcRINg2s&sns=em




..

[ORAC]

Ahem,

The TU-22 Blinder (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CEAQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FTupolev_Tu-22&ei=CarhUIucCZHL0AXbrYGYDA&usg=AFQjCNFNh3v5YWmDqhWcK7qhKwKpPsyWqw&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.d2k) is an obsolete piece of crap with lousy range and performance and downward firing ejector seats.

http://www.airforceworld.com/bomber/gfx/tu22/tu22_2.jpg

The TU-22M Backfire (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FTupolev_Tu-22M&ei=CarhUIucCZHL0AXbrYGYDA&usg=AFQjCNFyTIskZP45lsiVUeYgCociGAeuxA&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.d2k), on the other hand, is a swing wing tactical bomber of reasonable performance and capable of carrying a range of stand-off cruise missiles. I wouldn't expect them to carry the AS-4 Kitchen however, also obsolete.

http://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/ref/pol/images/pol_tu-22md.jpg

[Doctor Cruces]

Was confused about the "updating" bit until I flicked to the article. That's a TU-22M Backfire, not a Blinder in the picture. Makes sense now. Goodness knows why the same designation with just a different letter at the end, unless it was developed from the Blinder.

Doc C

[Doctor Cruces]

Beat me to it, ORAC.

:)

[NutLoose]

It's the TU22M3, oddly enough I put Backfire and changed it Doh.... Corrected the correction.

[Biggus]

A couple of points...

First of all, I'll admit my source of information was wikipedia, on the basis I couldn't be bothered to look any further!!

Tupolev Tu-22M - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M)

Apparently the Tu-22M was produced from 1967-1997, with none exported (so far), although on the break up of the Soviet Union some of the lesser states ended up with some of their own.

Anyway, are these Chinese ones new built, or Russian ones handed over? Presumably the latter? It would appear that the Tu-22M production line hasn't been used to build aircraft for at least 15 years, has been in place for nearly 40 years, and is probably still based on the original 60s or 70s technology.

Can you imagine the engineering issues involved in moving a 40 year old, probably already in disuse, production line several thousand miles and get it going again. You'd almost be better off starting from scratch with the drawings and maybe a few jigs.

I once had the misfortune to be involved in an attempt to recover some equipment that a UK aircraft manufacturer no longer required for an RAF aircraft type that was soon to retire. The equipment in question was still in occasional use, was maintained, but had been fixed in place for about 30 years. When we tried to physically dismantle and move it much of it just fell apart in the engineers hands.

I just think that there are a lot of practical difficulties involved in this reported production line move - a lot easier to say/write than to actually do!

[keesje]

Can you imagine the engineering issues involved in moving a 40 year old, probably already in disuse, production line several thousand miles and get it going again. You'd almost be better off starting from scratch with the drawings and maybe a few jigs.

One thing the Chinese are specialists in.. However recent programs show they have sufficient skills inhouse to fill in the blanks and implement new technology.

A few yrs ago the chinese reopened their H6 (Badger) line after develloping a significant upgrade, including replacement of the fifties turbojets with turbofans and modifying the wings, boosting range. They implemented a big radar, new avionics suite, glass cockpit etc. the H6K. It is expected that a new tanker variant will soon see appear. In combination with Backfires (and J-20s) it would mean a boost in offensive capabilities in the region.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-MHEiOUK6c&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[ORAC]

It should be noted that the Russians operated the Backfire as a tactical bomber with the army and naval aviation. Those in support of the army carrying external bomb shackles and the naval aviation being used for maritime strike. Strategic aviation relied and relies on the TU-95H and TU-160.

If used in the maritime strike role against a USN BG likely weapons can be found here (http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-PLA-Cruise-Missiles.html#mozTocId840374).

[Pontius Navigator]

Just an idle question and only loosely connected through technology.

What would you do with an old liner capable of carrying several thousand troops at 2 kts faster than you aircraft carrier? Your old liner also has modern 5-bladed variable thrust propellers compared with the 4 fixed-blades of the Laioning.

Now Cunard say they have an interest in the future of the QE2 and I bet the PLAN does too.

[NutLoose]

One thing the Chinese are specialists in..

Yup, when a coal powered power station near here was shut down, the generating part of the plant was shipped to China

[ORAC]

Old news it seems. First reported 2.5 years ago and confirmed 6 months ago (http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20120615000089&cid=1101).

[LowObservable]

This one keeps popping up.

Proven design or not, it would be a huge deal getting it back into production. Supposedly the last was delivered in 1998, but even if that is true, it was probably the last trickle out of a production line that had been dying by inches since the end of the USSR. The "nobody makes parts that even look like that any more" problem would be serious. And it really needs its own weapons, unless someone can explain the logic of launching a subsonic cruise missile from a supersonic platform.

AV-MF, back in the day, was formidable - but it could launch a regiment-strength attack and coordinate with cruise missiles from surface ships and subs.

For the Chinese, the H-6K Super Badger + a serious cruise missile program would be a better investment.

[keesje]

For the Chinese, the H-6K Super Badger + a serious cruise missile program would be a better investment.

From their helicopter and fighter programs, it seems they don't want to bed on one horse (like we do, JSF). Obviously they can afford it..

The H-6K already entered production but probably won't prevent the Hong-10s from entering production.

Meanwhile India keeps buying everywhere, unable to create aircraft themselves. Amazing seeing how many engineers from India work at e.g. Boeing and Airbus. Maybe the best go there? Or too much freedom/ democracy / too little fear?
India, Russia sign defence deals during Putin's visit (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/india-russia-sign-defence-deals-during-putins-visit-380586/)

[The Helpful Stacker]

.... unable to create aircraft themselves......

Not strictly true, indeed they've a long history of doing exactly what the Chinese are rather fond of doing, copying existing designs and upgrading them. Unlike the Chinese though the Indians generally purchase licences for such designs.

Try Googling 'Hindustan Aeronautics Limited'.

[GeeRam]

A bit OT, but I still vividly remember the seemingly unreal sight and sound of that Backfire passing to the south of RAF Northolt at what must have been no more than a couple of thousand feet, as it overflew North West London on it's transit to Farnborough back in 1992.

[Lowe Flieger]

Chinese military aviation does seem to be rushing forward at a great rate of knots. True, it is maybe riding on the backs of others, snapping up the leftovers, but it is sucking up knowledge and learning as it goes. I think it would be wise to keep an eye on their development. Their economy is surging ahead (OK it has slowed to about 7% growth recently, but who in the West are in a position to scoff at that?) so while its R&D grows many others, such as ours, does not. If China continues to accelerate while others brake, our head-start will start to shrink more rapidly than we might like to believe. They have cash and manpower to throw at their problems.

What are their long-term objectives and strategies? Well, probably have their eyes on the top-dog spot. Will they form a cohesive effective force? A question to which I have no answer. Will all their aviation attempts prove winners - very unlikely. Will they all crash and burn? Probably not. Are they in the same technical league as the West? No, but how about 10 years from now? Maybe not. 20 years from now? ??.

Keep watching. The future is often closer than you think.

LF

[keesje]

Helpfull Stacker, I know HAL and their extensive R&D infrastructure. Then India has a technology friendly education culture and many, many tallented engineers, that all speak English and studied everywhere. Still, somehow, they don't come close in achieving of what China does.

In another topic I pasted together recent ongoing projects. Many are improved copies of Western designs. Many are not and we have to get used to that new reality, as lowe flieger noticed. It ain't as it always used to be..


http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/ChineseAircraftDevelopment_zps68950d67.jpg

[mike-wsm]

Buying a production line with presumably the training and know-how to get it operating is a tremendous boost towards getting next-generation products designed and built. This is a core technology export of the sort the USA would ban.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Helpfull Stacker, I know HAL and their extensive R&D infrastructure.

Yet you post a comment stating that Indians are unable to produce their own aircraft, although even a cursory glance at the efforts of HAL show they are able to produce both indigenous and licence built aircraft.

Yes the efforts of the Chinese are impressive but to paraphrase a saying, things are harder to do when you do them legitimately.

[Heathrow Harry]

HAL have a pretty grim record of producing on time and to budget ... unless its under licence - but then BAe and Lockheed aren't much better I guess

[US Herk]

Goodness knows why the same designation with just a different letter at the end,
You mean like how a GR1 might be a Harrier, Tornado, or Jaguar? ;):E

[TheWestCoast]

Was confused about the "updating" bit until I flicked to the article. That's a TU-22M Backfire, not a Blinder in the picture. Makes sense now. Goodness knows why the same designation with just a different letter at the end, unless it was developed from the Blinder.

Doc C

Soviet attempt to mislead NATO into thinking it was a merely an updated Blinder rather than a completely new aircraft. The original assumption in the West was that it was designated Tu-26.

[Heathrow Harry]

I thought the (non) change in designation was really to save face in Russia - the original aircraft looked great but was a bit of a pig, a complete redesign a turned it into a decent bomber but no-one wanted to admit they'd got it wrong to start with

See B-1A & B1B lancer for a similar story

[Thrust Augmentation]

Was the Tu-22M not called so by Tupolev to make it initially appear that it was an upgraded design rather than a new aircraft (so that it was more acceptable to the powers in charge, rather than an entirely new design)?

[keesje]

The Tu22M entered service in 1972 already, 370 were build. First flight 1969. So a Concorde generation aircraft. A remarkable technological achievement by the Tupolev engineers IMO. Non were exported in the USSR tradition of keeping the best equipment for themselves..

Oekraine destroyed theirs as negotiated (11 Tu-160s too)..
http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/2849/253sv.gif

Must have hurt the eyes of the Chinese..