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.

 

[Akshat]

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

You will have to train your pilots on them. That usually means over 100 hours of flight time per year at least. You will have to practice with them, trying out your tactics and strategies and integrating them with the overall force structure. You will also have to keep them operationally ready. Engineers will have to be trained, spares maintained. Hangars will be developed and maintained. Operational costs include a lot more than flying time alone.

 

[Dilip Kumar Rai]

That's very very important for India to develop nuclear reactors to power our submarines because nuclear submarines can stay silently under the sea for long time without being deducted

 

[kurtwallis wallis]

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

Russian manufacturing very unreliable and all jets cannot fly due to some breakdown or the other just like MIG's....

 

[kurtwallis wallis]

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

It is NOT stealthy and will be shot down easily...

 

[Sridhar]

It is NOT stealthy and will be shot down easily...

Bombers has the capability to launch missiles from a very long distance which is outside the range of any current SAM.
The best SAM which is now available going by their specifications if not performance is around 400 KMs.
Bombers now carry missiles with range exceeding 1000s KMs with supersonic speed.
So the chances of shooting down a modern day bomber is quite difficult if not impossible.

 

[Akshat]

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.

It’s not an ego spree. Submarines are a defensive asset. AC are power projection tools. With submarines you can harass the enemy, but you need surface ships, especially carriers, to control the sea. Our whole strategy revolves around blockading Pakistan and Malacca, and that is best done with ACs, not submarines.

 

[Akshat]

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

It actually makes perfect sense. I disagree with your response sir, and it seems IAF and IN agree with us as well.

 

[DB_NE_Guy]

India should buy some of them if possible. It may help us to gain valuable inputs on tactics and many. Don't say that we don't need bombers, very same mindset stopped India from acquiring light battle tanks at earliest in 1990s. We don't know whether we may need bombers in the future. So, we need to operate atleast few of them for experience.

 

[Anant]

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

You do realise that the B-2s are used in conflicts halfway around the world, right? Who do you think we should be striking at that kind of distance?

Our main enemies are Bhikaristan and China, and missiles and the like are better-suited for that.

Moreover, since you did mention the B-2, do you think someone can maybe go and hit the base they operate from in the US? No. However, if we base bombers at Gwalior or someplace, those areas are somewhat more susceptible to attacks.

 

[Sandeep]

India needs to buy at least 12 bombers and think strategically and beyond just our enemies on our borders along with keeping a purely defensive doctrine. India needs more long range offensive power that can cover large parts of China, Middle East, Indian Ocean and Africa. This gives us the flexibility and ability to strike at tomorrow’s enemy who may be a friend today. One bomber on a mission can strike multiple military infrastructure, manufacturing facilities, economic infrastructure etc which a fighter jet can’t.

Another crucial reason is that if we want to be a superpower then we need bombers as we can’t just rely on missiles which can be intercepted more easily with SAM which don’t have any defensive capabilities unlike bombers or jets which can use EW, flares/chaff and dodge. Eventually we will need to develop our own indigenous bombers so it’s better to buy a few bombers, learn how they operate, the technology, designs, avionics, engines and weapons capability as on one bombing mission we can launch 12 nuclear missiles at Beijing or hit key cities as most of their economy is on the eastern side of China.

 

[Anant]

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

Sir, just on the price aspect, that 163 million USD figure is not exactly with proper context. Here is why:

1. That price was paid by the Russian MoD with the idea that Russia was still getting a lot of imported parts and components for the bombers. Now that this flow has slowed down (or stopped), Russia has to develop those things themselves which will mean costs will rise.

2. That 163 million USD figure was back in early 2018, which was at 15 billion rubles each. Just factoring in inflation pushes that up to just shy of 27.6 billion rubles today, which, by today's exchange rate, comes to some 284 million USD.

3. That figure includes no spares, no ground infrastructure, no training, and no weapons. Just factoring in some of them will push costs up massively.

4. Bombers are ridiculously expensive to operate and maintain. Looking at Ukrainian records from the early 1990s (when they had a fleet of 19 Tu-160s they got from the USSR), the costs of maintenance (on the ground, mind you) came to several million USD per jet. Heck, just a training sortie required 40 tons of fuel. For reference, an American B-2 costs some 79 million USD a year in maintenance costs, while a B-52 costs some 31.45 million USD annually, with the B-1 costing some 29.8 million USD a year. That is an absurd amount of money we simply do not have, even if the costs for us were a third of that.

 

[Anant]

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

Sir, factor in maintenance and operational costs, and that price will spiral out before one knows it.

 

[linus52]

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 !

DRDO wasted lot of money has not produced Kaveri to induct let production

 

[kunitesh]

We should not even discuss such offers..this aircraft will be a sitting duck to enemy air defences...stealth bombers should be considered instead if available

 

[Rajesh]

Bombers are a necessity esp when we have heavy missiles and bombs . Do we need tu160 type bombers or a bit smaller like the tu22m is a question esp we don't have to go to that end of the corner to bomb any body. Better we join the russian stealth bomber project and develop one based on the enlarged gathak program which will reduce development cost. Meanwhile we also can train our crews to operate a bomber which we have never done with russia.

 

[Akshat]

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?

Firstly, let’s say we even acquire 50 bombers. How many of them will be able to cross the Chinese airspace to reach their main cities?

As for Mumbai, Bangalore etc., no one will be bombing them. Bombing major cities is the last thing you do. By then the war would have escalated to the nuclear sphere. And there is no war coming, except limited skirmishes along the LAC. There is a reason no 2 nuclear capable countries have ever gone to war. Even at the peak of the Cold War, Russia and US never dared to attack each other directly or cross each other’s red lines. Even India and Pakistan haven’t fought a war at since both became nuclear powers (discounting the Kargil). So what we need to have is conventional war fighting capabilities to defend the border areas and for that we need fighters.

 

[Design Engineer Build]

Indian Navy can Try to bring back Tu 142 ME out of retirement for using as temporary fill in for Bomber Aircraft as they were retired in 2017. Also its eminent that ADA, HAL, GTRE, DRDO, Brahmos Aerospace should work on conceptualising and drawing a bigger manned version of Ghatak UCAV (Flying Wing design) as a future bomber Aircraft similar to under development Chinese Xi'an H-20. The future Powerplant of 110 KN or a more powerful derivative with 130 KN Thrust (and 4 Numbers) can help fulfill the needs of Bombers in Indian Navy & Indian Air Force role. Bomber Aircraft will be needed in future 2030 onwards as Indian Navy has airbases ranging from Madagascar, Seychelles in Eastern Indian Ocean to A&N islands in Western Indian Ocean. These extreme outliers necessitates a Bomber role in case a quicker Bombing mission is needed & at the same time if these bombers can be optimised for troop transport, logistics, Aerial tanker then will have a quicker air transport available at our disposal. Bomber is needed for future as those who are friends today they can indeed turn into adversaries or enemies with the highest penchant lying with US as it would feel threatened the day Indian GDP becomes 3rd in world & we are seeing that feeling has already started to creep within US.

 

[Neil B.]

If I was CCS, I'd have already given the order of 1 squadron TU160M. If that makes a total cost of 2-2.5 billion dollar, that's OK. It's a strategic asset and not every country give such an opportunity

 

[Surendra Barsode]

Where are you going to drop the bombs or missiles that TU 160 M is capable of ? We need to sort out Pakistan and just hold on China. Why bother with unnecessary equipment and expenses? Instead of this, let us focus on more submarines, more hypersonic and long range missiles, drones and stronger air defenses.

 

[Akshat]

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.

No small nation has bombers, and that is for a reason.

 

[Akshat]

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.

No you don’t. Firstly, we can’t possibly junk the industrial capacity of China. The war will escalate to the nuclear sphere much before that. And they will always have far more bombers to junk our capacity well before that. As for Pakistan, their entire capacity is within 200 or so km of the border. Except some smaller patches, of course. For that you don’t need bombers.

 

[Akshat]

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?

Nopes. A CBG is far more effective and far more versatile. It can pack a much higher punch then even 30-40 bombers.

 

[Bobby Singh]

You will have to train your pilots on them. That usually means over 100 hours of flight time per year at least. You will have to practice with them, trying out your tactics and strategies and integrating them with the overall force structure. You will also have to keep them operationally ready. Engineers will have to be trained, spares maintained. Hangars will be developed and maintained. Operational costs include a lot more than flying time alone.

Now you are talking nonsense to prove your point. India still maintaing Mig21 and they hove no value. 🦁👺😖⚔️

 

[FROST]

I feel it is futile to go for this bomber. It is untested and one cannot depend on the manufacturer's claims. Better to go for more no AMRC aircrafts with better accuracy and heavy payload

 

[Bobby Singh]

Russian manufacturing very unreliable and all jets cannot fly due to some breakdown or the other just like MIG's....

So then why 70% of all Indian wepons are Russians????? including Brahmaos.

 

[Akshat]

Now you are talking nonsense to prove your point. India still maintaing Mig21 and they hove no value. 🦁👺😖⚔️

Is India buying them afresh? You are th done talking nonsense to prove your point by bringing in an old plane that is about to be retired after serving us well and comparing it to a resource for which we will have to shell out fresh money.

 

[kurtwallis wallis]

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

Ops costs of TU160 will be 10 times that of Rafale jets and useless to fly over CCP or Porks airspace as they will shot it down very easily.. ONLY Ghatak is good for IAF to attack enemy's now...

 

[Bobby Singh]

It is NOT stealthy and will be shot down easily...

B2 is not stealthy either and American have lost even one. This Russian Bomber is supersonic and can fly intercontinental. Chinese are worried and it seems that you are worried as well. Chinse has built their own intercontinental bomber and I think they are not as smart as you.

 

[Bobby Singh]

It actually makes perfect sense. I disagree with your response sir, and it seems IAF and IN agree with us as well.

Please explain your point.

 

[Akshat]

Please explain your point.

My point is that we have far more pressing needs than bombers. Bombers are very specific tools with a very specific purpose. Right now, we are short on critical assets themselves and can’t spare money for such luxuries.

Secondly, the bomber on offer is of little use to us. We don’t need it against Pakistan, we can’t use it against mainland China and it will be sitting duck against carriers, where we already have much better options.

So if we can get our hands on some super stealthy bombers which can actually go and destroy Chinese CBGs, or attack mainland China, then sure, have them. But otherwise the current option makes little sense.