China buying TU-22M3 production line

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


It sort of is, but when you can't get stealthy in a hurry, you buy fast, and go in low. It's not as good as a stealth would be, but when you go from 6-7 years, to 2-3 then it's a great stopgap.




posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Actually it would be a fairly effective weapon to use against Laos, Cambodia, Malaysia, and finally Vietnam. The question could be "do the Chinese covet that part of S.E. Asia" and are they willing to carpet bomb the capitals of their neighbors into submission? Make a big deal with Japan with the left hand while the right steals from the neighbors?

The Chinese during the Vietnam war built a nice road/hi-way all the way through Laos to the border of Thailand. There were 3 anti-aircraft batteries placed along the road; Rome built roads for resupply as one of their first acts in a new country. nothing has changed only the weapons and maybe intent?..

The Russian aircraft have usually flown quite well which in my mind has always been rather surprising considering their fit and finish. Engines and fuel consumption was nothing to write home about either. They (Russian designs) have come a long way since WWll but still lack the capability of electronic warfare the west has, IMO.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
the most interesting aspect of this air craft is the tail gun IMO.

It carries conventional weapons, and since the areal refueling aspect of its design was removed as requested by NATO, I dont see it as an effective long range weapon our fleet has to worry about. If China gets upgraded versions with some long range anti ship weapons then maybe the US navy should be worried. China may just re-equip the aerial fueling nozzle into the planes they buy, but that leaves them on the market for some aerial tankers.

But the tail gun is just bad ass and looks useful. I wonder how effective it is though. It reminds me of WW2 flying fortresses.





edit on 31-12-2012 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by zedVSzardoz
 


The tail cannon is outdated in many respects but the cannons can be equipped with chaff and flare rounds. Why delete it when it can be used to deploy such countermeasures.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   
We had better start arming iur Asian allies much better and very soon.As the Chinese are claiming practickly everything in the China sea war there seems inevetable.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by JBRiddle
 


That's the big thing, is that even if it's an old design, it's still quite capable, and it hugely increases their area deniability capability. It would allow for a major attack on Japan, which they're currently in a cold war over several island chains. I'm sure this is making the Japanese government nervous.


The problem is that any attack on Japan would be met by an unstoppable US assault per our defense treaty with Japan (which includes the Sendaku islands). So I think Japan is less nervous than some of the other regional powers, such as Philippines and Vietnam.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by _Del_
 


Granted the odds of war with Japan are very very slim, but they're there. One of the reasons that I say a bomber is better than a missile is that they can go to war with Japan with bombers, and not piss off the entire world, where a ballistic missile causes lots of countries that would otherwise not get involved to crap their pants.


China is not worried about the world, bomber or missile they face the full might of the US military. A bomber strike would end very badly for China.


More likely is a conflict with Vietnam, as they've shot at each other in recent years. Vietnam wouldn't drag anyone else into it, unless they hit other areas.

I think the biggest reason they want them though is that they feel it puts them into a fairly exclusive club, as the only true strategic bomber fleets of any size are the US and Russia. By having any kind of strategic bomber, China joins that club as well.


I agree, Vietnam and possibly the Philippines are real targets for the Chinese. With that said, when China is able to develop their own bombers, including engines, I will be far more worried.

As a side note, part of me wants to tell the Philippines they made their bed and now need to lie in it (kicking out the US military), but the more reasonable parts of me know it's in our interest to support them over the Chinese as the Chinese grabs can not go unchallenged.
edit on 31-12-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 10:05 PM
link   
The guns are a twin-barreled GSh-23 with a rof of 34-3600 rounds per minute.

They are radar controlled (note the radome above them in the photos) and, unusually for guns, do have the capability to fire flares and chaff according to the wiki link above.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by waynos
 


That's why the designations have me twitching. I've heard H-10 for their supposed stealth bomber that flew two years ago, and H-8 for that one, and H-8 for an updated version of the H-6 having anywhere from 4-6 engines slung under the wings.... It's enough to make an avnerd go insane.


If I had to guess, I would say that the Chinese stealth bomber is probably a myth, the H-8 is an upgraded H-6, and the H-10 is just there designation for their new Backfires. Just a guess tho.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 06:28 AM
link   
Interesting analysis and F-35 hit piece by Aviationintel posted on TheAviationist.

theaviationist.com...



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   
According to ITAR-TASS, the Rosoboronexport has denied that Russia is selling any Tu-22s to China. They say that the aircraft is a strategic asset, and can't be sold to foreign countries. This is the third time that Russian news agencies have reported on the sale to China.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I completely disagree in a few respects.

If China is willing to go to war with Japan, for example, then they have decided they are willing to go to war with the US. It won't make a tinker's damn of difference how they do it. Backfire or IRBM. Why purchase and maintain a TU-22M fleet for operations against Japan when you already have one of, if not the, biggest inventories of theatre ballistic missiles, most of them on TEL's?


Because with aircraft, compared to a ballistic missile, you can hit targets that move between the time you take off and get there.





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join