But unlike the H-6 itself a Tu-16 derivative, the Su-34 is a tactical bomber. Horribly outdated, the H-6 not a tactical bomber in the first place. It's modern Russian analogue would be the Tu-160 or Tu-22M5. The Su-34 carries far superior avionics, including TERCOM capabilities. It also has A2A capacity, meaning effectively self-escort. The H-6 also doesn't have inflight refuel, which the Fullback does. Internal fuel storage is higher, but payload is identical at 8000 kg for both. Given availability of external fuel tanks and in-flight refuel, and essentially a different mission profile, that seems to not be a major disadvantage (if a disadvantage at all). Finally a comprehensive ECM suite and tail-mounted radar all offer it distinct advantages over the H-6. Interestingly enough the Su-34 even offers significant progress in crew comfort (a traditional weak spot for Russian equipment). Your comparison there is laughable.
You have no idea that the updated H-6s share nothing with the Tu-16 but the airframes. Everything in the electronic sense are generations ahead, including digital cockpits. The upgraded H-6K does not necessarily have inferior avionics than the Su-34. Updated avionics are an issue separate from the platform. For instance, the H-6K, which has a solid nose, can put a radar far larger than you can have over the Su-34. Furthermore, the aircraft being larger, can hold much more in terms of electrical generation and electronic equipment. How can the Su-34 be better in terms of ECM when practically much of the Soviet/Russian research on this issue became underfunded after the Cold War, where as Chinese counterintelligence efforts began to rise afterwards. Since the 90s, the Chinese have been much more diligent with espionage and data collection efforts, since the crux of any ECM is to know the signals you need to spoof at.
Crew comfort please? The H-6 can hold a small crew rather than just two persons, and there is more room to move about. As for TERCOM, the JH-7A already has that.
The Su-34 is based on an outdated concept, mainly low level penetrating interdictors, a concept that died in the nineties. We're now back to flying high, away from low level interdictors, to high level cruise missile and stand off munition launchers. You want to be as high as possible to get the maximum range for your cruise missiles like the DH-10, KD-63 or YJ-62, or winged munitions like the LS-6.
The Tu-16 itself ia sound design, like the B-52 or even the Tu-95---the latter plane is something the PLAAF indeed should have, which I would honestly much prefer over the Su-34. These big planes have much greater loitering capabilities. They could stay up longer, cruise longer. With their big wings, they can cruise at higher altitudes more economically, and has less aerodynamic consequences carrying large cruise missiles than a fighter based platform.
As a matter of fact, a modified H-6 is the platform used to launch China's air launched recoverable space vehicular project.
Chinese production of the new ZTZ-99 has been progressing very slowly (certainly slower then Indian purchase of the T-90S). As far as I know only around 200 are in service right now.
We got news from the CDF that 220 more tanks were built in the last year or so. The reason is that the PLA wasn't completely satisfied with the ZTZ-99 but seems much more encouraging so with the ZTZ-99G. Another thing is that China is also mass producing a cheaper more cost effective substitute, the ZTZ-96 and now 96G, of which at least 1500 to 2000 may have been built already. They won't put that many eggs in those models since another tank model (99G1 or 99A) might be introduced soon.
The other reason is funds. The Army itself has become less important, and the crux of the modernization has shifted to the Air Force and the Navy, which is now considered the front line of defense.
The lack of funds only means they would buy Russian even less. Considering of all the branches, the Army itself bought the least Russian material compared to the Air Force and Navy, and that was already in its most obsolete period. In fact, you can say in two words what the Army only bought---Mi-171 helos and Tor-M1s. Today, the Russian material costs a lot more thanks to Russia's double digit inflation.
Artillery production has also been very slow. Is it lack of funds? Or lack of facilities? If it's lack of facilities purchases of Russian equipment could at least temporarily serve as a substitute. Finally you've completely ignored SAM's which are a major part of modern warfare. Russia is so far ahead of Chinese SAM design that purchasing Russian theater level SAMs (unlikely anyone else is willing to sell) is practically the only way of acquiring modern AD-network for China. Remember China still has SA-2 in service.
The Chinese did not purchase a lot of Russian theatre SAMs. As a matter of fact, the Chinese have begun to deploy the HQ-9 in land bases. Remember, the naval version of such is already with two of the PLAN's destroyers, and that system has a full four faced 360 degree coverage which the RIF-M does not have. The PLAN is no procuring any more RIF-M. Given that the last of the S-300PMU2s are going to be delivered soon, there has not been talks of renewed and follow up orders.
China has stopped procuring the Tor-M1 some time ago, and has not even order the Buks. The PLA still relies on updated versions of the HQ-7 and recently the KS-1A which is supported by a phase array. As for the SA-2s, those electronics have been changed as well.
L-12, PL-8
