Russia not selling Tu-22M3 Backfire bombers to China

[dump...@hotmail.com]

"Despite rumors to the contrary, Russia has not sold 36 Tupolev
Tu-22M3 Backfire supersonic bombers to China, Russian news agency ITAR-
TASS reports."

See:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/01/russia-not-selling-tu-22m3-bac.html


I guess the Chinese are holding out for something more advanced. I
wonder if they're working on their own design, or if they're going to
wait for the Russians to build a Backfire replacement.

[David E. Powell]

Or the Russians don't want to sell that kind of gear to them.

[Keith W]

They could have LONG wait if thats the case.

IMHO the Russians are more likely to have politely declined
to sell the Chinese strategic assets that could be turned against them.

Keith

[Daryl]

The Russians have done so in the past and each time have been
bitten in the ass. The TU-33 is not a real threat unless you
have a whole Sh**t load of them to successfully launch with a few
hundred thousand stand off weapons. Starting at over 200 miles
from the Carrier, they become nothing more than targets.

but sell the Chinese the new Mig-34 then the Chinese will copy
their little kiesters off making it themselves and also threaten
some territory that Russia Claims but the Chinese think that they
should possess. After the Russians watch the Japan, South Korea,
Phillipines, Vietnam and others with this type of problems, don't
look for them to sell (much less License) something that can
jeopardize the borders between Russia and China.

Daryl

--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

[Keith W]

Daryl wrote:
> On 1/27/2013 3:58 AM, Keith W wrote:
>> dump...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> "Despite rumors to the contrary, Russia has not sold 36 Tupolev
>>> Tu-22M3 Backfire supersonic bombers to China, Russian news agency
>>> ITAR- TASS reports."
>>>
>>> See:
>>>
>>> http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/01/russia-not-selling-tu-22m3-bac.html
>>>
>>>
>>> I guess the Chinese are holding out for something more advanced. I
>>> wonder if they're working on their own design, or if they're going
>>> to wait for the Russians to build a Backfire replacement.
>>
>> They could have LONG wait if thats the case.
>>
>> IMHO the Russians are more likely to have politely declined
>> to sell the Chinese strategic assets that could be turned against
>> them. Keith
>>
>>
>
> The Russians have done so in the past and each time have been
> bitten in the ass. The TU-33 is not a real threat unless you
> have a whole Sh**t load of them to successfully launch with a few
> hundred thousand stand off weapons. Starting at over 200 miles
> from the Carrier, they become nothing more than targets.
>

The Tu-22 is a real threat to the Russian Pacific bases in the
Vladivostok area. They have no carrier , one Slava Class
cruiser and half a dozen destroyers available for surface
defense.

Given that this a major strategic base holding a large
percentage of the boomers at the heart of the Russian
nuclear deterrent the prospect of a regiment of
Backfires firing anti-shipping missiles is a nightmare.

> but sell the Chinese the new Mig-34 then the Chinese will copy
> their little kiesters off making it themselves and also threaten
> some territory that Russia Claims but the Chinese think that they
> should possess. After the Russians watch the Japan, South Korea,
> Phillipines, Vietnam and others with this type of problems, don't
> look for them to sell (much less License) something that can
> jeopardize the borders between Russia and China.
>
> Daryl

There is no such thing as a Mig-34

There are aircraft with the designation Su-34 and Mig-35.

The Su-34 is a development of the Su-27 into a strike aircraft,
basically the Russian equivalent of the F-15E, with only a
handful (less than 30) produced they seem an unlikely
candidate for a sale to China especially since the Chinese aleady
have the Shenyang J-11-B which is a knockoff Su-27

The Mig-35 is a development of the Mig-29 and they are trying
hard to sell it to India,

Keith

[Daryl]

I meant SU not Mig. I think you are bright enough to figure that
out. I could be wrong.

[Keith W]

Well you dont you seem to have figured out that the Chinese
have already copied the Su-34 and given it the designation
Shenyang J-17

Keith

[Daryl]

You certainly do make mistakes. The J-17 doesn't look anything
like the SU-34. The J-17 is a joint Pakistan/China program and
it is to combat the F-16. It's pretty conventional and a 4th gen
fighter.

The J-20 is a copy of the F-22.

J-21 is a close copy to the F-22. It's also known as the J-31

There are NO chinese copies of the SU-34 although they have
copied the Mig-29 series and the SU-27 series pretty heavily.

Kieth, time for you to do some fact checking.

[Andrew Chaplin]

"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote in
news:172cbd04-df3a-46e3...@googlegroups.com:

It may well be a prosaic sticking point such as the Chinese wanting to build
them under license, when Tupolev and the Russian political élite would
rather, at the prices offered, keep the manufacturing in the federation.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 27/01/2013 11:58, Keith W ha scritto:

>> I guess the Chinese are holding out for something more advanced. I
>> wonder if they're working on their own design, or if they're going to
>> wait for the Russians to build a Backfire replacement.
>
> They could have LONG wait if thats the case.
>
> IMHO the Russians are more likely to have politely declined
> to sell the Chinese strategic assets that could be turned against them.

or against United States... IMHO strategic bombers are obsolete, stealth
or not, but remain highly possible that Russia stays neutral during a
sino-US crisis and firmly wants to remain out, so China having
nuclear-capable systems whose looks, walks, and quacks the same as
russian ones is an huge Nyet-Nyet....

(I can also bet that the imminent overhaul of the Kutnezov, will be a
little akin to a refit, altering superstructure & other signature
sources in a manner that became clearly and unmistakeably distinct to
the (unauthorized) chinese half-sister...)

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 27/01/2013 12:37, Keith W ha scritto:

> There is no such thing as a Mig-34
>
> There are aircraft with the designation Su-34 and Mig-35.

Question on soviet/Russian designation sytem:

there's a saying (more probably, a rumour) that, for some obscure
reasons, Russians think that odd numbers are more lucky that even, and
the MiG bureau, being the senior areonautic design bureau (as in "senior
service") has a priority in designation number assignment.
this thing seems too odd to me, and I felt a strong stench of urban
legend (airbase legend ?) so someone can factually conferm or (much more
probable) deny this ?

[Derek Lyons]

"dott.Piergiorgio" <chied...@ask.me> wrote:

>IMHO strategic bombers are obsolete, stealth or not

That depends on their payload (gravity weapons or stand-off weapons)
and the nature of their targets/opponents I suspect.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

[Keith W]

That would be the PAC JF-17 old boy, different manufacturer
and different aircraft. JF-17 is the Pakistani designation, the
Chinese refer to it as the FC-1 Xiaolong

> The J-20 is a copy of the F-22.
>
> J-21 is a close copy to the F-22. It's also known as the J-31
>
> There are NO chinese copies of the SU-34 although they have
> copied the Mig-29 series and the SU-27 series pretty heavily.
>
> Kieth, time for you to do some fact checking.
>

Pot Kettle Black

[Keith W]

Mikoyan seem to have used odd numbers pretty much from the
beginning using even numbers only for experimental craft

Sukhoi and Tupolev seen to have no such rules as we can
see with major types like the Su-24, Su-30 Tu-2, Tu-4,
Tu-22 and Tu-160

Keith

[Ian B MacLure]

"Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote in news:nddNs.9$pY.4
@fx10.fr7:

The system used to designate Soviet aircraft has been a source of
confusion over the years.
One simple rule that works for most things is that if the number is
odd its a fighter or GA type, even is a bomber. Doesn't work for
everything but does for most.

Paraphrasing "The Observer's Soviet Aircraft Directoy"

"The current system (70's) uses an OKB (design bureau disignator
[eg: MiG, La, Tu] followed by a number assigned when the design
passes acceptance trials"

[David E. Powell]

Well, whether the Chinese want to license build or not, their big problem has been engines. Either copying Russian ones for the more advanced fighters or producing their own advanced aero engines has been a difficult nut for them to crack apparently.

It's been a concern in their next generation fighter programs, it might rear it's head as a problem if they try a bomber program too.

Shades of the Germans and their jets in the 1940s, they had the Heinkel and Messerschmitt designs working up, and eventually the Arado, but engines were the tricky part.

If China cracks the nut of manufacturing these high end jet engines, that will be a big one. I agree about Russia worrying, their Far East is a big frontier and their warm water military port area is well within range of China using those kinds of Backfire class aircraft. Not only military stuff and nuclear deterrent as mentioned, but civilian shipping ports and shipping lanes too.

Of course, China's submarine fleet must occupy some of the Russians' thinking as well.

[yug...@yahoo.com]

On Jan 27, 7:16 am, dumpst...@hotmail.com wrote:
> "Despite rumors to the contrary, Russia has not sold 36 Tupolev
> Tu-22M3 Backfire supersonic bombers to China, Russian news agency ITAR-
> TASS reports."
>
> See:
>

> http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/01/russia-not-sell...

>
> I guess the Chinese are holding out for something more advanced. I
> wonder if they're working on their own design, or if they're going to
> wait for the Russians to build a Backfire replacement.

The Russians had stop their T 22M3 production line in 1993.
It is too costly and probably not worthwhile to both China and Russia
to re-start the production line 22 years later.

[Keith W]

The initial reports were that the Chinese wished to purchase the design,
any remaining jigging and tooling and the rights to manufacture the
design. The Russians have made it clear that this is not acceptable.

The Chinese have no heavy bomber in production right now.
The ancient Xian H6 which was a copy of the Tu-16 Badger is still
in service and its supposed successor the H-8 was cancelled.

Keith

[Andrew Swallow]

Standard Japanese style industrial espionage. Buy one and a copy of the
plans. Then mass produce them in their own factories.

Andrew Swallow

[David E. Powell]

Not really, it sounds like they were open about the intent and if they paid licensing fees it would be similar to their licensing of Sukhoi fighter designs.

The Russians, despite not using the tooling themselves, made the choice that they didn't want anyone else using it either.... even if they paid for it. A strategic decision.

> Andrew Swallow