China DOESN'T buy the Backfire...

kcran567

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
663
Reaction score
0
Interesting. I wonder if there is also a deal for future bomber development as well.
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,236
Reaction score
378
I believe this is just a rumour on t'interwebs which pops every few years.
 

2IDSGT

Ah tale yew wut!
Joined
Nov 27, 2012
Messages
371
Reaction score
0
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
I believe this is just a rumour on t'interwebs which pops every few years.
That's possible, but the site where I picked up this story has been pretty reliable; although, it is unusual for them to post stories before better-known outlets.
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,133
Reaction score
20
Yup, this story has been reappearing every few years since the early-mid 90s. It is usually accompanied with the story that China is about to buy the Project 1164 cruiser Ukrayina though that one seems to have died a death since the reports in 2010/11 that the Russians were going to acquire the ship- that has never happened either.

The mainstream aerospace and defence media is still pretty poor at reporting about China; there have been a number of examples- most of them documented on this website by Deino. My personal favourite was Jane's claiming a photo of a Chinese fanboi's RC model of the J-20 was a prototype PLAAF STOVL aircraft; good examples of why this happens can be seen in the below links, both discussing poor reporting of Chinese military developments:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gregory-kulacki/misattribution-and-exagge_b_1839029.html

http://china-defense.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/in-age-of-internet-information-can-be.html
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,617
Reaction score
69
On the other hand, it wasn't so long ago that people were claiming that the J-20 was a nonexistent project.
 

chuck4

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
803
Reaction score
0
When? As far back as 1997 the US DOD had publicly proclaimed itself aware of the existence of the project that would ultimately lead to the J-20. At the time intelligence community called it the J-XX project. Around 2006 The DOD said it believed the Chinese can successfully pull off a indiginous g5 project. The Chinese themselves announced when the prototype construction on the j-20 started around 2008.
 

Deino

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,472
Reaction score
32
Ohhh guys, please these rumours comnplete BS ! Just take a look, what should CHina or the PLAAF gain by acquireing a long dismissed production line of a dated aircraft, which would require a completely new chain of logistics and even if surely one of the most impressive aircraft (IMO) ever build, not woth the efforts ???

Deino
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,630
Reaction score
22
Website
beyondthesprues.com
Deino said:
Ohhh guys, please these rumours comnplete BS ! Just take a look, what should CHina or the PLAAF gain by acquireing a long dismissed production line of a dated aircraft, which would require a completely new chain of logistics and even if surely one of the most impressive aircraft (IMO) ever build, not woth the efforts ???

Deino

My thoughts exactly. More likely to see more J-20s or even a whole new Chinese program.
 

Steve Pace

Aviation History Writer
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
2,269
Reaction score
5
The J-20 looks big enough to carry a payload equal to or even more than the Backfire. -SP
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,236
Reaction score
378
24,000kg of bombs or 3 Kh-22 missiles? Don't think so :)
 

Deino

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,472
Reaction score
32
Sorry, but why still these "s...d" arguments like the J-20 looks big so it has to be a bomber !??? :mad:

By the way


MOSCOW, January 24. / ITAR-TASS /. In the "Rosoboronexport" denied the information of several Russian media and unofficial Chinese websites about the alleged upcoming Russia supply China 36 long-range bombers Tu-22M3. "Rosoboronexport" does not have any information about the discussion of this subject the two sides, "- told Itar-Tass Corporation spokesman Vyacheslav Davidenko.
"There are no negotiations on this issue with China has taken place and there is no," - he stressed.
"This comment is made ​​in exceptional cases - said Davidenko. -" Rosoboronexport "strictly follows the practice to comment on posts only official sources of information, to what these sites do not include the Chinese."
Another source in the "Rosoboronexport" on condition of anonymity told Itar-Tass that the common non-official Chinese website about the upcoming supply China 36 Tu-22M3 "is pure newspaper duck." "Someone crook desperate to wishful thinking," - said the source. "Meanwhile, the supply of Tu-22M3 foreign countries are in principle impossible, because these aircraft are a strategic weapon," - he said.
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.itar-tass.com%2Fc134%2F629868.html

Deino
 

chuck4

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
803
Reaction score
0
Deino said:
Sorry, but why still these "s...d" arguments like the J-20 looks big so it has to be a bomber !??? :mad:
Probably because its current engines are somewhat small in proportion to its size. Just saying. If it's estimated size is correct and its bulk density resembles those of F-22, then it's T/W ratio would probably be pretty low for a post 1980 fighter. Of course they could put in a substantially larger engine in the future.
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
11
Deino said:
Ohhh guys, please these rumours comnplete BS ! Just take a look, what should CHina or the PLAAF gain by acquireing a long dismissed production line of a dated aircraft, which would require a completely new chain of logistics and even if surely one of the most impressive aircraft (IMO) ever build, not woth the efforts ???
According to Air Power Australia they need them to attack Australian offshore rigs that are flat out pumping gas to ship to China. There's not much logic to it but if they did so it would give Chris Gibson another job + plane spotting opportunity!
 

lancer21

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
286
Reaction score
0
Sorry, but why still these "s...d" arguments like the J-20 looks big so it has to be a bomber !???
:(" title="Angry" class="smiley">
They are to be ignored only imo (especially considering they come from the "China-hate" mafia) . Anyway i for one always thought it would have been great if indeed things like Tu-22M and say MiG-31 deals would have actually proceeded in the early nineties. The pros and cons are debatable ( especially costs), but i still think it would have given an even bigger boost to China's defense and aerospace industry.
 

2IDSGT

Ah tale yew wut!
Joined
Nov 27, 2012
Messages
371
Reaction score
0
Possible Backfire purchase also mentioned here (article mostly about Su-35 deal).

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130124/DEFREG02/301240021/Russia-China-Working-Deal-Despite-Property-Rights-Trouble?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

...Cheng said this is an “enormous and fundamental strategic shift.” If these sales are confirmed, including the possible sale of Russian Tupolev supersonic Tu-22M3 Backfire long-range strategic bombers to China, it “suggests either an ongoing strategic alignment between Russia and China, with a renewed push since Putin’s re-election, or Russian weakness, wherein they are bargaining with one of the few chips — that is, advanced weapons,” he said.

The Tu-22M3 has a combat radius of 2,410 kilometers and, with refueling, a combat range of 6,800 kilometers, which places Guam, for the first time, well within striking distance of China’s 8th and 9th Bomber Divisions. Tu-22M3s based in the Lanzhou military region will have command over all of India, most of the Indian Ocean and parts of the Middle East...
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
11
2IDSGT said:
Possible Backfire purchase also mentioned here (article mostly about Su-35 deal).
Only in the context of the opinions of:

said Dean Cheng, a research fellow with the Heritage Foundation.
Absolutely no news confirmation in this article just more chatter about "what if".
 

Deino

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,472
Reaction score
32
2IDSGT said:
Possible Backfire purchase also mentioned here (article mostly about Su-35 deal).

Possible only in another parallel.universe ....

Hey ... There is simply no need to think any longer if or if not ...





MOSCOW. Jan 24 (Interfax-AVN) - The Russian arms export agency Rosoboronexport has not received and has not considered any proposals from China on buying Tu-22M3 long-range bombers, Rosoboronexport spokesman Vyacheslav Davidenko told Interfax-AVN on Thursday.

"No negotiations on this issue have been held or are being held," Davidenko said in commenting on media reports referring to Chinese websites claiming that China may buy 26 Tu-22M3 planes from Russia for $1.5 billion.

Rosoboronexport has no information on this score, Davidenko said.

Chinese websites may publish almost anything, but this information "most often is not worth any attention," he added.

Vasily Kashin, an expert from the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST), said earlier that reports suggesting that Russia could sell a shipment of Tu-22M3s looked doubtful to him.

"At the present time, the sale of new Tu-22M3 bombers to China, of which media have reported, is hardly physically possible. The manufacturing of these planes was stopped in 1993 and has not been resumed. Nor are the NK-25 engines with which this plane was equipped being manufactured. The resumption of the production of these planes after a 20-year pause would require gigantic investments and years of hard work if it is technically possible at all," Kashin said.

"Rumors suggesting that Russia is selling a shipment of Tu-22M3 bombers to China have regularly appeared on the Internet in China and in Western media outlets over the past ten years. As far as I know, China was earlier interested in these planes, but negotiations did not reach any result," Kashin said.

"Russia could technically ship only old-made Tu-22M3s to the Chinese," he said.

"But even in this case, this would involve a lot of work on their maintenance and re-equipment to make them compatible with Chinese weapons, communications, control systems and so on. And even so China would get an old plane with old engines at a very significant price," he said.

"The project looks even more doubtful considering that China is currently pursuing a program of building modernized H-6K bombers, for which it has been making large-scale purchases of D-30KP2 engines from Russia," he said.
 

2IDSGT

Ah tale yew wut!
Joined
Nov 27, 2012
Messages
371
Reaction score
0
@Deino
I love your posts; but if the Chinese were willing to go to the trouble of restoring the Varyag (which was a rusting hulk), I see no reason why they wouldn't go to the trouble of restoring a few of the Tu-22s that Russia has in storage. Let us "live and see" what happens next.
 

Deino

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,472
Reaction score
32
Thanks, but honestly why do You want to continue a discussion on something completely speculative !???

Rosoboronexport has denied any talks nor the will to sell, from official Chinese sources You get nothing which does not mean there is anything going on, the PLAAF has no requirement for the Tu-22 and seen as a source of technology a dated design with dated engines ... :-\ . All these reports are posted by some more or less unreliable sources, which were - as so often - immedeately picked up by others to spread their fear of a mighty PLAAF, Chinese hordes, which will overran Australia :eek: ;D ... Come on !

Simply forget it even if the Chinese maybe have the capability to do so, even if the Backfire is a nice aircraft, even if .... if, if, if. Much too may ifs if You ask me.

Deino
 

chuck4

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
803
Reaction score
0
2IDSGT said:
@Deino
I love your posts; but if the Chinese were willing to go to the trouble of restoring the Varyag (which was a rusting hulk), I see no reason why they wouldn't go to the trouble of restoring a few of the Tu-22s that Russia has in storage. Let us "live and see" what happens next.

Gimme a break, Let's "wait and see" if something utterly improbably will happen, in the meantime spread panick and alarm as if it has a real probability of happening.
 

SlowMan

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
154
Reaction score
0
2IDSGT said:
@Deino
I love your posts; but if the Chinese were willing to go to the trouble of restoring the Varyag (which was a rusting hulk), I see no reason why they wouldn't go to the trouble of restoring a few of the Tu-22s that Russia has in storage. Let us "live and see" what happens next.
The deal is the whole production line + license to resume production in China, not the existing stock stored away.

Deino said:
the PLAAF has no requirement for the Tu-22 and seen as a source of technology a dated design with dated engines
China has nothing comparable, and J-20 won't be ready for the anti-access role for a long time. This is China's real anti-access weapon, not that DF-21D thing that would never hit a moving carrier.
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,236
Reaction score
378
Its not real. Maybe in 1997 when the Tu-22M production line closed and this rumour first surfaced it was considered on one or both sides. It didn't happen. There are no credible sources for any of this, just a post on a Chinese website from 2010 that is clearly a fanpost.


Wishing something was true doesn't make it so.
 

Deino

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,472
Reaction score
32
SlowMan said:
The deal is the whole production line + license to resume production in China, not the existing stock stored away.

Sorry .... But You don't want or can't understand: there is no deal .... Regardless of what You want.


Deine
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,236
Reaction score
378
The fact that Norman Friedman and some right wing thinktanks got punked by some Chinese fansite is neither here nor there. Its just not true.
 

chuck4

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
803
Reaction score
0
SlowMan said:
China has nothing comparable, and J-20 won't be ready for the anti-access role for a long time. This is China's real anti-access weapon, not that DF-21D thing that would never hit a moving carrier.
China has nothing comparable to the Tu-95 or Buran shuttle either. You are slacking in not having yet claimed that the Chinese are after these too to hurt us
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,236
Reaction score
378
H-6G with YJ-12 supersonic AShM will do everything a Tu-22M can do.

If you want to get speculative, what about a homing seeker on the H-6K's CL-10K ALCM? That extends the strike radius 2500km....
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,617
Reaction score
69
chuck4 said:
When? As far back as 1997 the US DOD had publicly proclaimed itself aware of the existence of the project that would ultimately lead to the J-20. At the time intelligence community called it the J-XX project. Around 2006 The DOD said it believed the Chinese can successfully pull off a indiginous g5 project. The Chinese themselves announced when the prototype construction on the j-20 started around 2008.
A certain Mr. Gates comes to mind.

As to the current debate, I'll reserve my judgement for the moment.
 

chuck4

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
803
Reaction score
0
Grey Havoc said:
chuck4 said:
When? As far back as 1997 the US DOD had publicly proclaimed itself aware of the existence of the project that would ultimately lead to the J-20. At the time intelligence community called it the J-XX project. Around 2006 The DOD said it believed the Chinese can successfully pull off a indiginous g5 project. The Chinese themselves announced when the prototype construction on the j-20 started around 2008.
A certain Mr. Gates comes to mind.

As to the current debate, I'll reserve my judgement for the moment.

The mr. Gates in question may not have pinned the first flight of j-20 down to the very same day he would visit china, but he got the estimate to within a few month. But prior to that visit mr Gates had been remarkably well informed about when the Chinese expects the j-20 to enter service because the head of Chinese air force very helpfully announced the j-20's IOC date of 2017-2018 during a televised interview several month prior to j-20's first flight.


Given an expected IOC Date of 2017-2018, Mr. Gates' estimate that the Chinese would have around 150 stealth fighters in service by 2020 seem very reasonable. How long after f-22's IOC did the 100th raptor enter service?


The irony is while US SecDef was well informed about the status of Chinese stealth fighter development, he may not have been as well informed about the American stealth fighter program. In the same sentence where he made the reasonable estimate of 150 Chinese stealth fighter in service by 2020, he also estimated 900-1000 American stealth fighters in service by the same date. With f-35 IOC likely to be pushed to 2018-2019, that looks increasingly over optimistic.
 

kcran567

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
663
Reaction score
0
Deino said:
Thanks, but honestly why do You want to continue a discussion on something completely speculative !???
:-\ . All these reports are posted by some more or less unreliable sources, which were - as so often - immedeately picked up by others to spread their fear of a mighty PLAAF, Chinese hordes, which will overran Australia :eek: ;D ... Come on !

Simply forget it even if the Chinese maybe have the capability to do so, even if the Backfire is a nice aircraft, even if .... if, if, if. Much too may ifs if You ask me.

Deino

chuck4 said:
SlowMan said:
China has nothing comparable, and J-20 won't be ready for the anti-access role for a long time. This is China's real anti-access weapon, not that DF-21D thing that would never hit a moving carrier.
China has nothing comparable to the Tu-95 or Buran shuttle either. You are slacking in not having yet claimed that the Chinese are after these too to hurt us

http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/editorial/obama-should-ok-keystone-pipeline-this-time-around/article_f0b50821-4ab2-53dc-bfe5-7c2bf977615c.html


None of us here know what China's intentions are long range or if they are a dire threat or not. I do know that China is beginning to aggressively ask the US to repay its debt obligations to China by either being given access to Texas oilfields and other resources including water reserves and strategic areas like ports, etc. and other real estate. An ever hungry China is absolutely drooling over Australian resources and land. Insinuating that China is a paper tiger is a serious mistake.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,554
Reaction score
24
kcran567 said:
Deino said:
Thanks, but honestly why do You want to continue a discussion on something completely speculative !???
:-\ . All these reports are posted by some more or less unreliable sources, which were - as so often - immedeately picked up by others to spread their fear of a mighty PLAAF, Chinese hordes, which will overran Australia :eek: ;D ... Come on !

Simply forget it even if the Chinese maybe have the capability to do so, even if the Backfire is a nice aircraft, even if .... if, if, if. Much too may ifs if You ask me.

Deino

chuck4 said:
SlowMan said:
China has nothing comparable, and J-20 won't be ready for the anti-access role for a long time. This is China's real anti-access weapon, not that DF-21D thing that would never hit a moving carrier.
China has nothing comparable to the Tu-95 or Buran shuttle either. You are slacking in not having yet claimed that the Chinese are after these too to hurt us

http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/editorial/obama-should-ok-keystone-pipeline-this-time-around/article_f0b50821-4ab2-53dc-bfe5-7c2bf977615c.html


None of us here know what China's intentions are long range or if they are a dire threat or not. I do know that China is beginning to aggressively ask the US to repay its debt obligations to China by either being given access to Texas oilfields and other resources including water reserves and strategic areas like ports, etc. and other real estate. An ever hungry China is absolutely drooling over Australian resources and land. Insinuating that China is a paper tiger is a serious mistake.
I am pretty well read and have come across nothing about China 'aggressively' asking for US to repay its debt obligations. China holds Treasury bonds that get repaid through interest and principle when that principle is due. China is free to sell them on the open market anytime and do not 'require' the US to pay them back. If they said to the US 'hear buy them they are redeemable anytime' the Federal Reserve could just print the money. If this was known world wide bond values would fall precipitously causing China to lose tens of billions and for what? Seeing that Treasuries are still very strong (country of last resort and best creditor the US) China obviously hasn't doen anything. If you say they are I would love to know your source because global bond traders would be very interested in this.

As for asking for access to texas oilfields again a source would be nice.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,617
Reaction score
69
Ahem! - To get back to something near the matter at hand, there are a couple of things bothering me.

First of all, last I heard, the H-6K was still a private venture. When did the PLAAF adopt it?

Another thing is that there doesn't appear to be any current PRC orders for the D-30KP2. The last reported contract for 240 engines, apparently to re-engine Il-76s, was completed around 2011/12 (it was a long drawn out affair).
 

Deino

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,472
Reaction score
32
The H-6K was reported at first a private venture, but following at least two prototypes it is already operational with one regiment at the 8. PLAAF Bomber Division !

Deino
 

Attachments

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,243
Reaction score
51
When you see:

1°) how fast a rumor or fake piece of information can spread, especially across the web
2°) how impossible it is to deny it or remove it afterwards
3°) how big China is

... then you understand much better how this is all most likely bogus.

In a small country with many means of communication, it is easier to dismiss something. In a wide country with little means of communication (at least until recently), a simple rumor once mentioned on national TV, or in a national newspaper may have been repeated in numerous local publications. Then when some of the local readers got an internet connection, many years later, it was equally easy to write about some wrong info that was 10 or 15 years old... then for someone on a forum to mention it... and then for some Western media to find out about it and treat it as news.

As I've said before elsewhere on this forum, leading automotive publications/websites in France, Latin America, Korea and other countries all did articles on a so-called Dacia Rondo car which they'd found out about on the official Romanian Dacia forum. If they had read the Romanian language fluently (and if the poster hadn't removed the copyright in the picture...) they would have found out that the car was merely an invention by a fan, who happened to be none other than myself... Still, in a week's time, no less than 60 websites around the world had written about the new car, some adding performance, mention of a possible introduction at the Hamburg car show, and so forth... And once the fake info has spread, it is no use trying to stop it. I wrote to a French publication, along with several other people, to tell them it was fake but they never removed the page from their site nor published any message implying that the info was erroneous...

The Backfire is a 1960s design with 1970s technology. And though it was upgraded in terms of avionics and various equipment, it would be idiotic to procure it, if only from a financial viewpoint.

And with the current bout of nationalistic pride in China and the desire to position the country as a world leader, it wouldn't make much sense. They'd rather develop an entirely new type, even if it costs more, because it would actively promote the technological edge the country has acquired.

Just my two Euro cents...
 

Deino

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,472
Reaction score
32
Grey Havoc said:
Thanks for the info. Interesting.
H-6K 11094 -operational 8. Div large.jpg added above !
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,236
Reaction score
378
Grey Havoc said:
Ahem! - To get back to something near the matter at hand, there are a couple of things bothering me.

First of all, last I heard, the H-6K was still a private venture. When did the PLAAF adopt it?

Another thing is that there doesn't appear to be any current PRC orders for the D-30KP2. The last reported contract for 240 engines, apparently to re-engine Il-76s, was completed around 2011/12 (it was a long drawn out affair).
Or then again:

"The project looks even more doubtful considering that China is currently pursuing a program of building modernized H-6K bombers, for which it has been making large-scale purchases of D-30KP2 engines from Russia," he said.
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,236
Reaction score
378
The signature in 2011 of two contracts for supply of 184 D-30-KP-2 aviation engines for a Chinese customer

http://www.rybinskmotors.ru/index_b7.php?rssid=1326906923&sat=6&slang=1
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,617
Reaction score
69
Thanks for the update. With that as a reference I was able to dig up the article from the November 2012 special edition of the Russian magazine Take-off attached below.

So, assuming that all of the 184 order is intended for the H-6K program, a quick back of the envelope calculation shows a potential fleet strength of between 46-92 birds. Depending on how many engines, if any, they assign as spares (for the low end number I used a probably generous figure of two spare engines per airframe).

Given that the first batch of 12 from the latest order was delivered just last October, the (pre-production?) examples already in service with the 8. PLAAF Bomber Division are likely using engines diverted from the 'Il-76' order.

Any flaws in my reasoning?


Second attachment is an illustration of the H-6K in action, from the Tu-16 entry/second chapter over on AirVectors.
 

Attachments

Top