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

tu-160M-min.webp


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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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. 🦁👺😖⚔️
 
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
 
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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
No small nation has bombers, and that is for a reason.
I meant 'against small nations'. Small nations can't afford fighters, let alone bombers. Btw you have some weirdest thoughts on this topic for a reason. I guess that must be your anti Russia, pro France stance.
 
First of all we need to develope at least 5 nuclear blast proof hardened underground hanger system with repair facilities in Southern and Central India. Only after that we should go for nuclear capable long range bombers. As things stand most of IAF and IN air wing lacks adequate modern hardened hangers and repair facilities for existing fleets.
 
I think, already India is developing or about to develop 12000km range missiles. Then why bombers, if it costs more than that of missile?
both will anyhow do same damage as damage depends on ammunition rather than the type (either missile/bomber).
Not clear, what kind of special advantage we may get.
I think, more technical information may be needed
 
IN can buy overpriced French cr@p for 300 million dollars but can't buy tu 160!!
Ours is defensive doctrine unlike USA, earstwhile USSR Or now China. We just want a second strike delivery system. Protect our borders and we don't aspire to be global police or a bully. Nor we want to export war to global south. Times have changed. We are concerned about our depleting squadron strength with our limited defense BUDGET we have to choose that suits our requirement, unlike USA or China. Russia Ukraine conflict has changed the way war is fought with eyes from the sky. Satellite tracking because of which element of surprise is lost. Rest is upto the best brains who are updating of IAF doctrine.
 
I meant 'against small nations'. Small nations can't afford fighters, let alone bombers. Btw you have some weirdest thoughts on this topic for a reason. I guess that must be your anti Russia, pro France stance.
I only have pro India stance. Any enemy of our nation is my enemy and any friend is my friend. Simple as that. But I can back up my claims with reasoning and it seems IAF and IN both agree with those arguments too bro.
 
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.
Missiles are one time use. By what we have seen in Ukraine war missile stocks get dried up fast & the damage done is very low unlike bombers. One flattop itself is very very expensive with additional high cost of its escorts put together it will be exorbitant & its maintenance is also very high. The ability to survive is very low in this supersonic missile era unless short, quick reaction defense is very strong. Think even US ACs will find it difficult to defend itself against Brahmos. Take for example a swarm of at least 20 Brahmos like missile can sink an AC as well as its escorts. What IN needs urgently is submarines & not ACs. Bharat is not going to wage war with nations far from its shores like US.
 
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.
Bharat is not going to wage war with far off nations at least for present. Moreover the ACs are easy to be sunk. A swarm of Brahmos like missiles can easily sink it and Bharat's ACs which do not have a strong quick reaction defence systems to defend against Brahmos like missiles.
 
Bharat is not going to wage war with far off nations at least for present. Moreover the ACs are easy to be sunk. A swarm of Brahmos like missiles can easily sink it and Bharat's ACs which do not have a strong quick reaction defence systems to defend against Brahmos like missiles.
Oh please…Indian carriers are one of the best in the world and have some of the best SAM systems to defend against these missiles. You think India has Brahmos and won’t practice against it? India already has got STAR drone. That is a supersonic drone that mimics Brahmos. If we don’t have a system to defend against Brahmos than what will we practice with bro?

As for use case, what will you use when the Chinese carriers come with their fighter jets to the Malacca? They will rip us apart if we don't have carriers.

On the other hand, these Russian bombers will be target practice for Chinese SAM systems. They don’t have stealth, they can’t maneuver, they don’t have decent EWs…nothing. These are just transport aircrafts to ferry the bombs and launch them from mid air.
 
I only have pro India stance. Any enemy of our nation is my enemy and any friend is my friend. Simple as that. But I can back up my claims with reasoning and it seems IAF and IN both agree with those arguments too bro.
These are strategic assets and none gives them to even the friendliest nations. We did the same mistake when Tu-22M was on offer to navy, and by not purchasing Tu-160M we can not afford to do it again. 10-18 of them must be in the armory of IAF. They are mobile, supersonic, nuke launchers for a reason. And above of all they are gonna be escorted with at least a quarter squadron of fighter jets. It's only 160 million dollar per unit which is half of the price of Rafale. If we can afford 62 rafales, white swans are no big shock to the defence budget.
 
These are strategic assets and none gives them to even the friendliest nations. We did the same mistake when Tu-22M was on offer to navy, and by not purchasing Tu-160M we can not afford to do it again. 10-18 of them must be in the armory of IAF. They are mobile, supersonic, nuke launchers for a reason. And above of all they are gonna be escorted with at least a quarter squadron of fighter jets. It's only 160 million dollar per unit which is half of the price of Rafale. If we can afford 62 rafales, white swans are no big shock to the defence budget.
Again, you have failed to answer the key questions.

1. How will these bombers manage to defend themselves against enemy SAM systems?
2. A quarter of squadrons means about 4 planes. How will that change their fate against a carrier’s fighter jet complement?
3. What exactly will they achieve with this? We have no use for them against Pak. We can’t use them against China. And they can’t do anything against carriers.
4. IAF (and MoD) hasn’t left their budget unutilized in the last 5 years at least. In some years it has exceeded it in some years. Which programs do you think can be sacrificed to buy these bombers?
5. You think the money spent on these bombers can’t be better used for anything else?
 
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.
Just like buying a 4th gen 80’s tech Rafale paying $400Mln each, it is at-least 1/3rd the price of Rafale.
 
Again, you have failed to answer the key questions.

1. How will these bombers manage to defend themselves against enemy SAM systems?
2. A quarter of squadrons means about 4 planes. How will that change their fate against a carrier’s fighter jet complement?
3. What exactly will they achieve with this? We have no use for them against Pak. We can’t use them against China. And they can’t do anything against carriers.
4. IAF (and MoD) hasn’t left their budget unutilized in the last 5 years at least. In some years it has exceeded it in some years. Which programs do you think can be sacrificed to buy these bombers?
5. You think the money spent on these bombers can’t be better used for anything else?
1. Strategic non stealth bombers work near the area where almost all SAM systems are neutralized or beyond their reach. It is to be used for mass destruction, flatten defence facilities and militarized zones. And why do you think we can't use it against pak? Remember opportunity comes in a most unexpected way. We can use them against china too in the middle of a formal battle.

2. It will not gonna fight with a CBG. Rather fighters will help it to run away asap with its incredible speed if it accidentally comes closer to a CBG.

3. Already answered in point no 1 & 2.

4. Why do you think other programs need to be sacrificed for this jet? Deals do not happen in one or two years. If they starts today talking about it, be rest assured it will take minimum 4-5 years to sign the deal. By that time defence budget will gradually increase and Airforce can easily make a passage for this merely $2-3 billion dollar acquisition. Our first two SSNs will cost 3 times more than this purchase. And most importantly we can bargain for 100% TOT which will serve our interest in long term goals.
 
If money is no criteria thena Squn of Tu-160 M with 4 based in Nicobar islands, 6 at Navy base in Tamil Nadu, 4 at an air base in Orrissa 4 in a base in Madhya Pradesh will give regional and global coverage and the air component of the triad will be immensely strong like the Sea based SSBNs. At over 4-4.5 billion a potent and impressive capability will be add add to the IAF which the nation will require much beyond its 2 1/2 fronts war.
 
1. Strategic non stealth bombers work near the area where almost all SAM systems are neutralized or beyond their reach. It is to be used for mass destruction, flatten defence facilities and militarized zones. And why do you think we can't use it against pak? Remember opportunity comes in a most unexpected way. We can use them against china too in the middle of a formal battle.

2. It will not gonna fight with a CBG. Rather fighters will help it to run away asap with its incredible speed if it accidentally comes closer to a CBG.

3. Already answered in point no 1 & 2.

4. Why do you think other programs need to be sacrificed for this jet? Deals do not happen in one or two years. If they starts today talking about it, be rest assured it will take minimum 4-5 years to sign the deal. By that time defence budget will gradually increase and Airforce can easily make a passage for this merely $2-3 billion dollar acquisition. Our first two SSNs will cost 3 times more than this purchase. And most importantly we can bargain for 100% TOT which will serve our interest in long term goals.
1. We won’t use them against Pak as all the targets are well within the range of our missiles and other dumb bombs (assuming there are no SAMs as you claim). As for China, your own logic again proves that we can’t use them against China either. We can’t fly them over Tibet (now please don’t ask why), and we don’t have the capacity to nullify their air defences in other directions.

2. A CBG will always track it from miles away. So basically your plan is to sacrifice 4 or 5 fighter jets just to make it go close to the CBG and then run away? Wow.

3. No you didn’t.

4. This acquisition (assuming 12 units) will cost us at least 5-6 billion usd. Calculations have been given by Anant. And as I said, we don’t have spare capacity. Our defence budget hasn’t shown any extraordinary rise in the last 3 decades and we don’t even have the money to complete the deals envisioned 5-6 years back. So some other item will have to be sacrificed. So please tell us which one.

You didn’t answer question number 5 either. And here is one more.

6. When Russia refuses to give tech even for their Ka226 T choppers, which they refuse to induct themselves, or Su 57 which again they don’t wanna induct, why would they share 100% ToT here?
 
I think, already India is developing or about to develop 12000km range missiles. Then why bombers, if it costs more than that of missile?
both will anyhow do same damage as damage depends on ammunition rather than the type (either missile/bomber).
Not clear, what kind of special advantage we may get.
I think, more technical information may be needed
That capability of ICBMs is right but bombers have their own advantages like to performing a bombarding at specific targets using small bombs/ammunations and are capable to carry more missiles than other combat aircraft...
 

Forum statistics

Threads
3,559
Messages
37,998
Members
2,448
Latest member
mwm131
Back
Top