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]

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.

 

[Sumontra Banerjee]

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.

 

[Shiva]

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

 

[Vivek M. R]

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.

 

[Akshat]

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.

 

[Sudha]

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.

 

[Sudha]

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.

 

[Akshat]

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.

 

[Neal.B]

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.

 

[Akshat]

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?

 

[Surfer]

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.

 

[Neal.B]

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.

 

[ASHOK CARROL]

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.

 

[Akshat]

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?

 

[Prem Sharma]

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...

 

[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.