Russia Offers India its New Tu-160M 'White Swan' Heavy Bomber with Nuclear Capability and 12,000km Range without Refueling

Russia has revived its offer to supply India with heavy bomber aircraft, this time including the advanced Tu-160M "White Swan," according to veteran defence journalist Sandeep Unnithan. This comes nearly two decades after Russia initially proposed the Tu-22M3 to the Indian Navy, a deal that ultimately fell through due to high costs.

The Tu-160M is a modernized version of the iconic Tu-160 strategic bomber, boasting significant upgrades in avionics, navigation systems, and weaponry. Manufacturer Tupolev claims the Tu-160M is 60% more effective than its predecessor. With a range of 12,000 km without refueling and a payload capacity of 12 long-range cruise missiles or short-range nuclear missiles, the Tu-160M offers considerable strategic reach. Each unit is estimated to cost around $163 million.

This offer presents India with a potential opportunity to significantly enhance its long-range strike capabilities. The Tu-160M would provide a powerful deterrent and deep-strike option across the Indo-Pacific region and beyond. Its ability to carry nuclear-capable missiles could also bolster India's strategic nuclear triad, complementing its existing land and sea-based nuclear forces.

However, acquiring the Tu-160M would be a significant departure for the IAF, which has traditionally focused on multirole fighters. Integrating heavy bombers would require substantial investment in infrastructure, specialized training for pilots and crew, and modifications to airbases. The high acquisition and operational costs of the Tu-160M would also be a major consideration.

The IAF will need to carefully evaluate whether the Tu-160M aligns with its operational doctrine and long-term strategic objectives. Factors such as cost, logistical requirements, maintenance challenges, and potential impact on existing force structure will all play a role in the decision-making process.

 

[R. Singh]

We don't need such bomber who need fighter jet protection ! DRDO should make manned version of GHATAK stealth bomber with 6000 km range and at the same time DRDO should start project for B-21 type bomber !

 

[sanket]

Long i am saying Bharat need to buy atleast 6 to 9 Bombers whether it is white swan or ant thing , else, Range is excellent 12000 kM it will b handy to strike in deep China with capable of carrying 12 cruise Missile, 163 mn $ is Half the price of single Rafale jet package

 

[Bard of Anarchy]

IN can buy overpriced French cr@p for 300 million dollars but can't buy tu 160!!

 

[tipoo2]

I'm sure they've always been willing to sell it to us. And we've never particularly needed it. Our neighbours and primary potential adversaries are either one a relatively narrow strip of land where we can already access most sites we'd need to, which by the way we have the Farkhor and Ayni airbases on the other side of too which would be handy for pincering operations, and on the other side we have a massive mountain range which is our primary saving grace vs China and also nearly useless to try to get a large bomber over.

We need fighter jets is what we need. And further integration and improvement of our missile forces. Over a long enough time, sure we'll probably end up with long range bombers, but it's below several priorities for the price right now.

 

[Apocalypse gupta]

Long range bomber acquisition plan needs to be put on paper. We may not need to buy them today, but in long run, all great powers need bombers and so we will need them too.

 

[Akshat]

IN can buy overpriced French cr@p for 300 million dollars but can't buy tu 160!!

We have no need for a bomber. We do have a need for maritime fighters.

 

[Akshat]

Long range bomber acquisition plan needs to be put on paper. We may not need to buy them today, but in long run, all great powers need bombers and so we will need them too.

No, we won't. Strategic bombers make no sense for us to operate, unless you just want those as a status symbol.

 

[Praveen]

No, we won't. Strategic bombers make no sense for us to operate, unless you just want those as a status symbol.

This is not for status symbol. It is mainly for saturation strike against carrier battle group. Because of these big bad boys Russia has kept US Carrier Battle Group outside of its territory. We need atleast 12 such guys to keep Chinese and US carrier battle group outside our area. If we have them then, all of our missile tests will not be monitored by both Chinese and Americans.

 

[Neal.B]

This is not for status symbol. It is mainly for saturation strike against carrier battle group. Because of these big bad boys Russia has kept US Carrier Battle Group outside of its territory. We need atleast 12 such guys to keep Chinese and US carrier battle group outside our area. If we have them then, all of our missile tests will not be monitored by both Chinese and Americans.

True. Even such long range heavy bombers almost work like a CBG for small nations and a great help to deter influence of strong adversaries in Asia. You also need muscle flexing against them in skies and nothing can be more better than this jumbojets with nukes.

 

[CM]

Taking into account all pros & cons, one thing for sure, one squadron (6 to 12) of long range strategic bombers is a better cost effective bait than acquiring 3rd Aircraft Carrier?

 

[Bobby Singh]

High cost?? it is much cheaper then Rafale fighters which cost over $200 mil a piece.🙏🦁⚔️

 

[Sudha]

With china having long range bombers, Bharat should also consider to induct dedicated bombers. As Ajith Doval said today, Bharat's military thinking needs to be updated & upgraded. Strategic long range bombers is required today & coping with multirole fighters is self defeating when we have adversary like china if not the US. US is armtwisting Bharat for small things like aero engine & purchasing further from US is foolhardy. It is time Bharat's military stop using fighters as bombers or manufacturing ACs instead of submarines.

 

[Bobby Singh]

We have no need for a bomber. We do have a need for maritime fighters.

Who decide that????

 

[A K Tiwari]

The price does not seem to be a constraint. India should buy 4 to 6 such bombers.

 

[Sudha]

No, we won't. Strategic bombers make no sense for us to operate, unless you just want those as a status symbol.

If we have to junk industrial capacity of china or pakistan (if any) then we need long range bombers. It is not feasible to use multirole fighters carrying couple of bombs to destroy china's massive manufacturing bases. When these multirole fighters carry bombs we need more fighters to protect them from chinese fighters. Moreover china will try to bomb Bharat's economic assets with their bombers & we cannot even retaliate because we feel it is not required & scared of the costs. Getting scared of cost will not make Bharat defences better.

 

[buggy 007]

Buying them in small numbers and configuring them with nuclear arsenal will definitely create a deterrence against China. We should buy 6-10 bombers as per our pockets.

 

[Sudha]

We have no need for a bomber. We do have a need for maritime fighters.

Bombers are what Bharat really needs with china as an adversary with bombers. To degrade china's manufacturing assets we need bombers. IN is going on an ego spending spree by going for faltops instead of more submarines.

 

[Anant]

Bombers are what Bharat really needs with china as an adversary with bombers. To degrade china's manufacturing assets we need bombers. IN is going on an ego spending spree by going for faltops instead of more submarines.

Ma'am, given China's ADS systems over Occupied Tibet and other regions, a direct infiltration would be practically impossible.

What we could use in a better fashion against those assets are long-ranged missiles.

As for the Navy, submarines aren't entirely sufficient for maintaining control of the seas. Yes, the Navy needs submarines first, but carriers are also equally important, seeing as the Navy doesn't exactly wany to drop down to being a one-carrier Navy again.

 

[Anant]

Who decide that????

Strategic thinking. Look up the use-cases of strategic bombers by the three nations that use those. Look up the kind of places where they are baser, the susceptibility of such bases to attack, etc.

 

[Sudha]

I'm sure they've always been willing to sell it to us. And we've never particularly needed it. Our neighbours and primary potential adversaries are either one a relatively narrow strip of land where we can already access most sites we'd need to, which by the way we have the Farkhor and Ayni airbases on the other side of too which would be handy for pincering operations, and on the other side we have a massive mountain range which is our primary saving grace vs China and also nearly useless to try to get a large bomber over.

We need fighter jets is what we need. And further integration and improvement of our missile forces. Over a long enough time, sure we'll probably end up with long range bombers, but it's below several priorities for the price right now.

China will not wait till Bharat gets bombers to junk our manufacturing assets. Tomorrow there is a war the first thing they will do is bomb Mumbai, Bangalore & Gujarat. And what will Bharat be using is fighters carrying one bomb, to bomb their manufacturing bases. How many sorties do you think IAF has to do for bombing couple of their factories?

 

[Hey]

Long i am saying Bharat need to buy atleast 6 to 9 Bombers whether it is white swan or ant thing , else, Range is excellent 12000 kM it will b handy to strike in deep China with capable of carrying 12 cruise Missile, 163 mn $ is Half the price of single Rafale jet package

Their operation cost is quite high & the availability rate is low..

 

[RajeshN]

India must acquire bomber whether it is russian or USA B21 SECOND HAND

 

[Bobby Singh]

Their operation cost is quite high & the availability rate is low..

Why? They are not going to be in air all the time. They are strategic assets like nuclear missiles not tactical wepon

 

[Bobby Singh]

Strategic thinking. Look up the use-cases of strategic bombers by the three nations that use those. Look up the kind of places where they are baser, the susceptibility of such bases to attack, etc.

LOL. Look up the use cases of nuclear missiles. Do you know about US B2 bombers???. It has been heavily used in most of the post vietnam wars and it is one of the most stratgic asset of USA

 

[Bobby Singh]

Ma'am, given China's ADS systems over Occupied Tibet and other regions, a direct infiltration would be practically impossible.

What we could use in a better fashion against those assets are long-ranged missiles.

As for the Navy, submarines aren't entirely sufficient for maintaining control of the seas. Yes, the Navy needs submarines first, but carriers are also equally important, seeing as the Navy doesn't exactly wany to drop down to being a one-carrier Navy again.

Totally disagree with your response. It does not make any sense

 

[Vf Feb]

Bharat wont attack Pak or Chin why do we need bombers, Su & Rafale are enough... Israel does not have any bomber yet it has turned its enemies to rubble... thts the clue.
We need Air to Surface and Surface to surface missile, rockets, bombs, Small arms thts more imp.. not once in a while & not to be used Air assets.. Need to spend money judiciously.

 

[Fr@nk]

Useless against china and overkill against porkis

 

[Dilip Kumar Rai]

India needs atleast ten bombers keeping Chinese and Pakistan threat also we need full technology transfer to manufacture such bombers indigenously

 

[Wonder Boy]

People are naive. Only country we can attack with bombers is Pakistan. We don't need bombers for Pak. China ? Neither China nor India can fly over the Himalayas and remain undetected. So anu bombers will get shot down 80-90% of times.. For nuclear attacks both countries has enough ballistic missiles in their arsenal.. yes china can go though middle east and then using detour they can attack India but why ? Both have better options.. next comes cost - maintaining them and keeping them operational ready is an extremely huge burden.. we need jets and submarines.. yes if one day india can develop one of their own then we can build it