Can Russia's Tu-160 Bomber Fulfill India's Long-Range ALCM and Large-Scale Counter-Terrorism Strike Needs?

India's evolving security landscape has ignited debate over the potential acquisition of a strategic bomber, with Russia's Tupolev Tu-160 "White Swan" emerging as a prominent contender.

While the high cost of such platforms often raises concerns, the Tu-160 could offer India unique capabilities in long-range strikes and large-scale ordnance delivery.

Extended-Range Precision Strikes​

The Tu-160, with its impressive 12,000-kilometer range, could significantly enhance India's power projection capabilities. Equipped with air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs), it could strike targets deep within enemy territory without entering contested airspace, ensuring both survivability and operational flexibility for the Indian Air Force (IAF). This capability would bolster India's nuclear triad, providing a credible deterrent against large-scale aggression.

Mass Strikes in Uncontested Airspace​

In scenarios where India enjoys air superiority, the Tu-160's massive payload capacity could be a game-changer. Whether for counter-terrorism operations or neutralizing infrastructure, the bomber could deliver a devastating blow with a single sortie, potentially carrying a mix of munitions tailored to specific mission needs. This flexibility would enhance the IAF's responsiveness to diverse contingencies.

The Tu-160: A Closer Look​

The "White Swan" is the world's largest and fastest supersonic bomber, capable of Mach 2 speeds and carrying a 45-ton payload. Its design allows for both high-altitude penetration and low-altitude evasion. With Russia's expertise in missile technology, India could integrate various Russian and indigenous ALCMs, customizing the bomber to its strategic doctrine.

Furthermore, the Tu-160's endurance and range make it suitable for patrolling the Indian Ocean Region (IOR), where China's growing presence has become a concern. Its presence could serve as a visible deterrent, signaling India's long-range strike capabilities.

Challenges and Considerations​

Despite its advantages, the Tu-160 presents challenges:

• Dependence on Russia: Operating the Tu-160 would create reliance on Russian support, potentially hindering India's pursuit of defence self-reliance.
• High Costs: Acquisition, operation, and maintenance costs are substantial, potentially straining India's defence budget.
• Strategic Doctrine:Integrating a strategic bomber may require a shift in India's defence doctrine and necessitate new command and control infrastructure.
• Alternative Platforms: Achieving similar strategic goals through more cost-effective platforms, such as upgrading existing aircraft with long-range missiles, remains an option.

Conclusion​

The Tu-160 offers compelling capabilities, but its feasibility hinges on a careful assessment of costs, logistical challenges, and strategic alignment. While India's evolving security environment demands enhanced strike capabilities, whether a heavy strategic bomber is the optimal solution remains a subject of debate.

If the advantages outweigh the challenges, the Tu-160 could become a valuable asset for deterrence and power projection. However, if cost-efficiency and operational practicality are prioritized, India may opt for alternative platforms that offer similar capabilities with a lower burden.

 

[Anant]

Neither, in my opinion. Strategic bombers are neither a game changer nor a while elephant in India's context. However, given our geographical location, the locations of potential bomber bases, the locations of our enemies, and our growing missile capabilities, strategic bombers aren't exactly a high priority item for India.

Strategic bombers do have advantages compared to missiles. However, given the costs of procurement, operation, and maintenance, that advantage is fairly marginal. Moreover, given our track record of losing significant numbers of jets to crashes, if we procurement, say, a squadron (16-20 aircraft) of bombers, and then end up losing 1 or 2 of them in crashes, that'll hurt a lot.

Should bombers, therefore, be on our procurement radar? I would humbly posit they shouldn't. We have a large number of more critical procurements that need to go through before we should consider strategic bombers seriously.

 

[Ayyadurai Namasivayam]

B21 will be the good choice

 

[tipoo2]

Worry about long range strategic bombers after we have enough fighters. On one side our biggest neighbour and largest potential threat near term is blockaded by a giant mountain range you can't get one of these past, on the other is a thin enough strip of land to have access to everything we want to get at, and also the Farkhor and Ayni airbases on the other side of them we can pincer them with.

What we need right now is fighters and a lot of them in the face of a falling squadron strength for the next decade. Maybe by the 2040s we can be thinking about long range bombers, but this will be even more dated by then.

 

[Neal.B]

Not this debate again. Two AAs in comment box will not let anybody talk about it, let alone acquiring.

 

[abhinav srivastava]

We need 5th gen fighter jets. Bombers can wait.

 

[Bhishma]

Not in the immediate priority list. We need to acquire fighters and 5th gens first. This may come up in say 2035. In the meantime, we also need to put more effort into ghatak and think of an alternate bomber equivalent drone that can fly fully autonomously in enemy territory, conduct ops and fly back home.

 

[WarTech]

B21 will be the good choice

We won't get B2's forget B21. They are not going to export it to anyone.

 

[yogesh]

Reference the article, What we need to consider is that wars are not fought using a multi purpose platform alone. There are good reasons forces around the world choose a mix of different platforms for different roles/functions.
looking at some of the comments here it seems like there are different opinions on the subject. Frankly, it is upto the defense forces to analyze and choose platforms based on how they want to evolve as a force. Do they simply want to be a regional force or be able to meet challenges of the future covering vast tracts of air,land and sea. It is about how the forces project themselves and how adversaries see India as a superior force.This is important for deterence also. We cannot be reliant on superpowers because they have their own problems and duties. It is about how we transition into a technologically superior force and work together in bringing about global peace and stability. We cannot think, ponder and wait on the fence till eternity because advances are happening all the time in different spheres of warfare. We need to chart our own course and project ourselves as a force to reckon with. Let naysayers sit and watch while our forces become stronger.

 

[Anant]

We won't get B2's forget B21. They are not going to export it to anyone.

The B-21 is planned to be exported, but it won't be to nations like India. The US wants Australia to buy a few of those, but let's see.

As for the B-2, well, keeping the age aspect aside, I don't think anyone would be queuing up to buy a bomber costing over 2 billion USD apiece even if it was available for export.

 

[Kushagra]

Reference the article, What we need to consider is that wars are not fought using a multi purpose platform alone. There are good reasons forces around the world choose a mix of different platforms for different roles/functions.
looking at some of the comments here it seems like there are different opinions on the subject. Frankly, it is upto the defense forces to analyze and choose platforms based on how they want to evolve as a force. Do they simply want to be a regional force or be able to meet challenges of the future covering vast tracts of air,land and sea. It is about how the forces project themselves and how adversaries see India as a superior force.This is important for deterence also. We cannot be reliant on superpowers because they have their own problems and duties. It is about how we transition into a technologically superior force and work together in bringing about global peace and stability. We cannot think, ponder and wait on the fence till eternity because advances are happening all the time in different spheres of warfare. We need to chart our own course and project ourselves as a force to reckon with. Let naysayers sit and watch while our forces become stronger.

This is the best comment I've seen so far and I agree with you...we have to slowly transition from a regional force to a superior force which can destroy adversaries anywhere in the world as our aim is to be an airforce which can save itself and others from danger as well... that has always been the way of India...it will be a slow and gradual change and it'll take a lot of time...Tu-160 is a really good option but we will have to wait for strategic bombers which would prove most useful in long range missions...given that our main enemies are not far away from us, we should focus more on the fighters for now while keeping in mind our final aim...

 

[Deans]

Part 10 of my blog series on the Ukraine war. Posting here as it cites the Kiel report (Eirope's leading think tank) evaluating Russian armaments production compared to losses.

Ukraine war - part 10. Prelude to the winter offensive

rpdeans.blogspot.com

 

[Tailless Baboon]

Jyst need excellent UAVs to do this job, which will be both cheaper and even if lost, won't get flying officers killed.

 

[Tailless Baboon]

B21 will be the good choice

In that case B2s wouldn't have been produced or UAVs wouldn't have been developed.

 

[WarTech]

The B-21 is planned to be exported, but it won't be to nations like India. The US wants Australia to buy a few of those, but let's see.

As for the B-2, well, keeping the age aspect aside, I don't think anyone would be queuing up to buy a bomber costing over 2 billion USD apiece even if it was available for export.

Yeah, it was only offered for Australia, cause US plans to use Australia for US-China war along with AUKUS treaty lessening nuclear sharing resistance. Idk if others will be offered.
And as you said, nobody wants or will get B2's

 

[Kira]

The reasons for acquiring bombers are compelling enough today,but then again the reasons why the IAF never considered them seriously enough to induct in quantity are just as compelling if not more.

 

[Aravind]

Firstly buy true 4.5 generation fighter jets from foreign nation's because soon Pakistan going to use j35 5th generation fighter jets they already using j10c, jf-17 and killer f16s but we are using mig-21 and mig-29 and Sukhoi 30 please don't dream 30 Rafaels will down all fighter jets

 

[Sandeep]

Firstly buy true 4.5 generation fighter jets from foreign nation's because soon Pakistan going to use j35 5th generation fighter jets they already using j10c, jf-17 and killer f16s but we are using mig-21 and mig-29 and Sukhoi 30 please don't dream 30 Rafaels will down all fighter jets

Those Chinese jets technology is unreliable, problematic, doesn’t work properly and fails to deliver what they say it can do. Most of them are grounded and facing major problems.

 

[Sandeep]

India needs to buy bombers because it can destroy multiple targets on one mission whereas jet are limited to only a few and we need to increase our fire power and range.

In a proper intense war there are a lot of key targets that we need to destroy like key forward bases, arms manufacturing factories, artillery guns and storage, ammunition storage facilities, SAM defence network, radar network, key command bases, communications and information system and network, air bases housing a large number of jets, bombs and missiles, army bases and troop barracks, armoured tanks, IFV, APC bases along with ATGM and shells, naval and civil ports, naval and civil ships docked at bases, large economic businesses and heavy industries that supplies to the military, ballistic missile and nuclear warhead storage facilities, nuclear reactors and plants, transport links like key roads, railways and airports, oil storage facilities, oil refineries, civil warehouses etc which shows that we need more than just multi role jets.

India can lease about 12 old bombers from Russia to reduce the price but it’s important that we learn how to operate a bomber, gain experience, gain knowledge on the technology, learn how to operate it and how to launch missiles or bombs. This will also help us to design, develop and manufacture our own future bombers in future as we will definitely need them to increase and widen our reach in South Asia, Africa, Middle East, South East Asia, China and the East China Sea regions.

 

[ASHOK CARROL]

Post 2030-35 wherin Indian GDP exceeds 12 trillion $and the nations armed forces require global reach Bomber squns will perforce have to be inducted. Since money for existing modernization is short, a flight of 6 TU-160 based at a naval base in Tamil Nadu should create the infrastructure support and training facilities. Post 2030, 12 additional bombers be acquired to base 6 in Andaman islands and 6 in a base in Orissa. A final flight of 4 be acquired and based in central Indian airbase with at Total no of 22 bombers with availbilty of over 40-50 % in peace and 60-70% in war.

 

[PKPRS]

Should bombers, therefore, be on our procurement radar? I would humbly posit they shouldn't. We have a large number of more critical procurements that need to go through before we should consider strategic bombers seriously.

We need them at-least a squadron.

 

[Dipesh Debnath]

C295 has 6 external hardpoints which makes it a bomber if applied some extra brains to integrate the missiles. Also can attach some catapult missile launch systems from read door if applied some innovation. So no need of extra bombers.

 

[RG]

These bombers were created in a different Era. I know people will say B-52 are still used. But you can use transporters based on common platform as a delivery platform for bombs. rather than acquiring limited number of highly maintenance oriented platform. Although I like the capability, the cost and other factors makes it a unviable option.

 

[Anant]

We need them at-least a squadron.

Sir, would you please elaborate why you say so? What incremental advantage do we get from bombers that we need given our geopolitical context that missiles don't already afford us? Moreover, given that the IAF lacks fighters, AWACS, aerial refuelers, transport aircraft, etc, how exactly do you posit we find the money for bombers?

 

[Anant]

C295 has 6 external hardpoints which makes it a bomber if applied some extra brains to integrate the missiles. Also can attach some catapult missile launch systems from read door if applied some innovation. So no need of extra bombers.

Won't work. The C-295 is a very small aircraft with very limited payload. The external pylons you refer to have a combined maximum payload of 3.2 tons, with no single pylon being able to carry more than 800 kg. You aren't getting too many missiles or free-fall bombs on that.

Moreover, the C-295 has a pretty short range. Saddle on bombs, and that'll come down even further.

 

[Anant]

Post 2030-35 wherin Indian GDP exceeds 12 trillion $and the nations armed forces require global reach Bomber squns will perforce have to be inducted. Since money for existing modernization is short, a flight of 6 TU-160 based at a naval base in Tamil Nadu should create the infrastructure support and training facilities. Post 2030, 12 additional bombers be acquired to base 6 in Andaman islands and 6 in a base in Orissa. A final flight of 4 be acquired and based in central Indian airbase with at Total no of 22 bombers with availbilty of over 40-50 % in peace and 60-70% in war.

Sir, India's GDP isn't reaching 10 trillion USD until the second half of the 2030s, and that 12 trillion USD figure won't happen till after 2040. Hitting 12 trillion by 2035 requires an annual growth rate of just over 7.1% consistently for the next 12 years, which won't happen. 7% for 10 years leaves us at 8.5 trillion USD by 2035, which is the best case scenario.

Secondly, Sir, when we have a number of high priority needs, why should we run for bombers? We can get it sometime in the 2050s, but now is definitely not the time.

 

[PKPRS]

Sir, would you please elaborate why you say so? What incremental advantage do we get from bombers that we need given our geopolitical context that missiles don't already afford us? Moreover, given that the IAF lacks fighters, AWACS, aerial refuelers, transport aircraft, etc, how exactly do you posit we find the money for bombers?

India is 5th largest economy, having enemies far away that couldn’t be reached by any fighter jet without mid air re fueling with a tanker jet, that is waste of time and too risky, can be attacked by the enemy while doing that , with a bomber, you can employ different types of weapons that give you a broader range of response options. You can use bombs of anywhere from a 250lb laser/GPS guided bomb to something much larger. These delivery mechanisms are generally much more accurate than a TBM (Theatre Ballistic Missile) or even an ICBM (InterContinental Ballistic Missile). Those systems are generally inertially guided (some have GPS capability), which can lead to a larger CEP (circular error of probability) and prone to GPS jamming/spoofing, meaning that it may not hit exactly where you aim, Russia's jamming of the guidance systems of modern Western weapons, including Excalibur GPS-guided artillery shells and HMARS, those systems rely on a much larger warhead to get the job done than bombs from a bomber, even ballistic missiles can be intercepted by systems such as the Patriot, so they are not a panacea against being stopped.