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.

 

[Neal.B]

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?

Dude you are just twisting my replies and bare facts here for your own rescue. Your CBG point is bull sheet and that's not what I said. You view on pak and china do not reciprocate replies on my observations. You said I didn't reply you 3rd question which I did but you don't want to accept it. That's your problem. I don't have time to read hundreds of replies here and don't know what Anant has said but in no universe it can cost 6 billion dollar for said number of units. If you take runway development cost and erection of MRO facility that's a different ballgame. Defence sector didn't see extraordinary increase in budget because government didn't want it. If they think it is a a priority they will make required arrangements. Don't worry about that. Question number 5 is no question. It's just saying if I hadn't used the money in poverty alleviation I could have used it for village medical centres. It's an argument for sake of the argument. About 6th point I didn't say we will get 100% ToT but we can bargain for it. Tell me which western country gives you 100% ToT for niche weapons? If we get 85-95% its enough. Russia is more liberal about that towards India and prioritize India's interest be it their next gen fighters, FGFA, warships, supersonic or hypersonic missiles, Tanks, BMPs, rifles, air defense systems, bvraams. And after all it's not only against pak china entente, it is a need of the hour for growing regional adversaries in the region, be it in BoB, IOR, Indo-pacific, Arabian ocean and peninsula or Central Asia.

I can sense here that except you and Anant noone rejecting our 'immediate' requirement of Tu-160M. Let's see who were more right through the course of time.

 

[Sumon Roy]

Indian air force Need at least 12 Heavy bomber. TU 160 is the best option. It will be able to carry 6 BrahMos missile which has a range over 750km. To carry 6 BrahMos need at least 6 Su 30mki. So this will be cost effective.

 

[Lokesh K Ray]

How susceptible are these bombers to surface to air missiles? I think India should stick to fighters with refueling unless China acquires / develops similar bombers

 

[tipoo2]

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?

Amazing how many people respond here without reading or understanding

The giant mountain range between us and China prevents large bombers from flying over, maybe you've heard of it. It's the J20s we need to worry about at a nearby airbase, even then for the same reasons those are working with reduced fuel and loadout for the high altitude. Bombers are too large and heavy to get over.

A bomber doesn't prevent us from getting bombed, we have long range missiles for this purpose. Again, I already wrote that over the arm of time India will have bombers eventually, but it's not a current top priority while we're so short on fighter jets because of our geography.

 

[Akshat]

Dude you are just twisting my replies and bare facts here for your own rescue. Your CBG point is bull sheet and that's not what I said. You view on pak and china do not reciprocate replies on my observations. You said I didn't reply you 3rd question which I did but you don't want to accept it. That's your problem. I don't have time to read hundreds of replies here and don't know what Anant has said but in no universe it can cost 6 billion dollar for said number of units. If you take runway development cost and erection of MRO facility that's a different ballgame. Defence sector didn't see extraordinary increase in budget because government didn't want it. If they think it is a a priority they will make required arrangements. Don't worry about that. Question number 5 is no question. It's just saying if I hadn't used the money in poverty alleviation I could have used it for village medical centres. It's an argument for sake of the argument. About 6th point I didn't say we will get 100% ToT but we can bargain for it. Tell me which western country gives you 100% ToT for niche weapons? If we get 85-95% its enough. Russia is more liberal about that towards India and prioritize India's interest be it their next gen fighters, FGFA, warships, supersonic or hypersonic missiles, Tanks, BMPs, rifles, air defense systems, bvraams. And after all it's not only against pak china entente, it is a need of the hour for growing regional adversaries in the region, be it in BoB, IOR, Indo-pacific, Arabian ocean and peninsula or Central Asia.

I can sense here that except you and Anant noone rejecting our 'immediate' requirement of Tu-160M. Let's see who were more right through the course of time.

There are quite a few, if you read the comments. And most importantly, IAF and IN themselves oppose the idea and hence no procurements.

Coming to question 6. You say they are more liberal but I have presented 2 examples. In Ka226 T they are not ready to go beyond 33% and the whole tender is stuck due to that. And in FGFA also they refused to even allow us to see the aircraft. So no, Russia isn’t lenient at all. In fact, look at the facts from HAL chief himself. In AL31 we got 47% ToT while Us is ready to give 80% and France is ready to give 100%.

Now coming to China and Pak. I read your arguments but you haven’t responded to my points.

“.Strategic non stealth bombers work near the area where almost all SAM systems are neutralized or beyond their reach.”- Literally your comment, and now you are backtracking. This comment clearly tells us that we don’t need them against Pakistan and we can’t use them against China. You haven’t responded to my points. We can’t fly over Tibet and don’t have the means to take the Southern route to China. So where will the bombers go from?

My CBG point is very very valid. You don’t have an answer, so don’t say it’s BS. Either prove why or accept it.

Price is indeed gonna be that much. The prices given are for barebones plane in 2018. Factor in inflation and then double the price. You will come to the same numbers for the package. Factor in the runways ToT and you go to 10 billion USD easy.

And you have not yet answered the 5th point. We have so many other priority items as per IAF.

And about the funds. If GoI had money they would have given already. You are the one saying money will come. So where will it come from? And when it comes why should we not use it for other high priority items? Which items/projects should get the boot? Why are you running away from direct simple questions?

 

[Terminator5000]

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.

Another good point. We have Pralay and other SRBMs if the war escalates to that point. We don't want a war of grandiose scale with China. Sadly, they can hit our industrial assets in UP and capital Delhi. We need more defensive assets and not spend on high maintenance and expensive war machines.

 

[desigandu]

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

Good capability, but something we can’t afford till beyond 2035, given all our current priorities…Post 2035, if we can scale up ghatak to a manned/unmanned stealth bomber even with a smaller payload and combined ISR platform, it may serve our needs…

 

[desigandu]

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.

Fully agree, we can’t afford this capability given our priorities and defense budgets…Post 2035, when we become a $10T economy with a 1.5-2% of GDP military spend nation, we may be able to scale ghatak as a stealth bomber platform at lesser cost and enhanced capability! Non stealth platforms will not be able to operate in contested environments, unless from large stand-off distances, in any case beyond 2030…
Most importantly given our national security needs our contests are not beyond 2500kms of our borders/shorelines - at least by air, so we can manage with ground/sea launched missiles, SSNs as compared to spending at least $1B per year (besides the initial acquisition cost of say $2.5B for 8-12 planes) for 10-15 years on fancy non-stealth bombers, which we neither have, and even if we did is better spent for SSNs, AMCA etc…

 

[Matt]

IMHO buying strategic bombers is a matter of what role they will play in national defense and in enhancing geopolitical influence, and at what financial and geopolitical cost. Budget is unlikely to be an issue.

 

[Akshat]

Another good point. We have Pralay and other SRBMs if the war escalates to that point. We don't want a war of grandiose scale with China. Sadly, they can hit our industrial assets in UP and capital Delhi. We need more defensive assets and not spend on high maintenance and expensive war machines.

Defense is never a cheap job bro. Offensive deterrence is better. But we can’t do that cheaply and effectively with bombers.

And I don’t think there is any chance of a war with China reaching a level where they target populated areas. They know we can give them a bloody nose at the very least and that would kill their chances of world dominance.

 

[vvgnag6933]

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

Do you think china will sit duck when your bombers enter their airspace? India should heavily invest in high-speed Unmanned bombers with stealth capabilities.

 

[gagan Chhabra]

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

Country needs such Bombers. It has a fantastic range and payload capacity. Its inclusion will be a great advantage. And by the way, today Russia needs buyers and so we can negotiate the price further on large orders. We should not depend only on France for our aircrafts of different types.

 

[sanjay1960]

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.

But you have long rang missile

 

[Akhil]

Strategic bombers have high operation cost. It's not your daily run of mill interceptor jet. Also you do not need all n bombers at the same time. It depends upon its escort and their availability. You will hardly ever have need for all bombers in air together. When bombers are flying means something serious is going on. We have no bomber right now. Only few nations have the capabilities. Only Russia is offering us and will offer us in atleast quite some time.

TACTICAL Operation cost or availability is no argument against strategic bombers.But if India sees no need STRATEGIC NEED for it, it is another matter.

 

[VedantaKiran]

India must acquire long range bombers. India may not use it in a war situation - but to deter China, it is a necessity.
China is a bully - and the only message they understand is when they know they will get a bloody nose.

India must acquire atleast a 6 strategic bombers - given the fact that there are enemy countries ranging from North Korea, China, Turkey all of whom have some form of missiles or delivery platforms.

It is time for India to flex its muscles.

 

[JeevanKumarPV]

Just not be naive and miss the boat. These niche machines are not for every country only select few were provided like china and india. Not every country can operate too. Just like we missed UN permanent seat when it was offered in 1960's. We should think in future and do real assessment. There are lot of technologies will be known to us part of this acquisition which will help understanding aircraft technologies

 

[moorthytm]

tu 160 considered obsolete in the current battle environment, Russsia should allow India to participate in pakda