It's a combination of what I've mentioned above: some airframes are in better condition than the others; their operational history (their maintenance log-books, for example) are 'prooving' them as 'more reliable than others'.
Correspondingly, they are more often operated than other airfames.
Tu-95MS's hit during this strike were all hit while obviously in the process of being prepared for sorties: operational/combat-sorties or training sorties - that's unimportant. Important is that they were in the process of 'being prepared for a flight'.
That's leading to the conclusion that the SBU's UAVs hit 'foremost those Tu-95MS' that matter'.
Only if the Russians really invest - heavily - into re-building/overhauling 'lots' of their bombers. Taking into account the chronical lack of work-force in their aviation industry, lack of necessary electronics (they would have to smuggle lots of chips and motherboards from the USA), and the general age of the bomber-fleet... not so sure that's a viable option. But, then: I'm no 'Russian of the Year 2025'.
Presently - and especially in short term - I consider yet another scam in style of that 'Oreshnik' for far more likely.
A better way to look at this might not be dollar cost but the fact that these bombers' production lines do not exist anymore. What has been lost is literally irreplaceable.
I would also assume that "destroying" a fully refueled plane with a small drone is more likely than an "empty" one, and planes that are regularly used / prepared for being used are much more likely to have fuel?
Take a look at the high-res videos from the FPV strikes. There'a mixture of FMC and non-operational aircraft. For example, some have missing engines or peeling paint. The two An-50s seen in close-up have lichen growing on their radomes. The canvas covering a Tu-95's missing nose cone is blown off spectacularly in one strike. But in many others you can see, for example, cruise missiles slung under wings. Those were clearly about to sortie on a mission. Others have the pylons ready to receive missiles. Apparently Ivanovo and Olenya are graveyards where inoperable airframes are cannibalised for parts and that means, as Tom says, a lot of junk was blown up. It's why Oryx is listing only ten confirmed 'operational' kills so far (although that might rise once all the images are collated and studied). Again, as Tom says, this is still a phenomenal achievement that has taken out a huge chunk of Russia's bomber fleet. It has made life very difficult for the Kremlin and the VKS.
The action has strong negative PR effect inside Russia. It showed that Putin is not controlling the situation and that the costs of war are high and damaging Russia strategic capabilities.
Why 'one and only'? Think of it as a successful proof of concept, quite a few lessons learned I guess. Either RU gets massively more paranoid regarding security of their airbases (and railway yards, and factories and, yes, parades, and and and) with all the pain that's involved (checking every single container? Quarantine zones around airbases?), or UA can just repeat the exercise?
I guess the first airplane-delivered bomb was also an excellent idea, with (most likely) a badly chosen target, doesn't (sadly) mean that they've gone out of fashion..
there is( was ) a limit what FPV drones can hit and destroy. Not sure if they can destroy factories or mobile teams with iskander and shahid drone. And at least shahid teams can be more easy to rebuild, maybe some weeks, but after they can send all produced drones at once. This type of attack need a not moveing target, not protected with bunker
maybe SU34, su35 will be better target, big, making lots of problems and hard to replace.
Why cannot this be repeated more often? You can use smaller container, maybe with better drones with AI, just pick up target 1-2 planes or air defense. Russia is not able to control every car and if it tries, it will collapse economically.
It's not only popping up a bunch of drones form a trailer, is getting it close, find uncontrolled cargo business.
You don't need to search for every truck, need to get 24/7 Anti drone teams in critical industries and sites. Work in bunkers with no repeating schedules.
Get a better control in the border. In weeks or months, the FSB is going to get the full paint of show the SBU do that and then plan counters.
This attack can be bigger, but bigger means higher risiko to be catched.
Target can be better( SU34).
Make such big attack will be very hard, but UA can make smaller attack maybe with better drones.
Russia is not able to protect borders, too big, too much corruption, drones can be splited on small parts or bought.
Yes some things can be done in hangars but not everything, not enough hangars.
What meant anti drone team? Has russia some solution against small drones except EW, which has limited usage. Yes, UA is develeping,start producing and getting some anti UAV computer controlled guns, but has Russia something similar and in enough numbers?
These attack can also be used against expensive SAMs, ...
18 months before maybe drones were not able to detect and hit smaller planes, or SU34 are already now partially in hangars. Lots of questions and too few answers.
FPV drones can do very limited damage. In a factory you can only damage the building structure, you have no access to the valuable machines insides. Or at least it is a much-much-much more complex task to hit a special machine inside a building, than a huge bomber standing on a runway. The same goes to the General Staff or the Kremlin. You could break some windows, but that's it.
Now hiting the tactical aviation is would make sense. What I imagine could be behind the decision, that which move degrades russian capabilities more?
If you destroy 20-30 long-range bombers, than as Tom explained you basically destroy the complete capability of Russia in this regard. On the other hand Russia has more than a hundred SU-35 (according to wiki), and then the SU-30s, the MIGs and so on. If you destroy 20-30 of those, it is painful, but they would be able to replace them in a few weeks. It will take years to rebuild the long range bomber capabilities.
By the way the condition of their strategic air fleet reflects very well their overall condition, i.e. an imperialistic 'wanna be' state in rags and tatters, but still dreaming the deadly dream (for his neighbors) of the rebirth of the USSR under a different name.
"One was confirmed as shot down (probably by Ukrainian S-200/SA-5 Gammon SAMs), on 19 April 2024".
Tom, SA-5 has incredible range of 300km+, but not one thousand km. The bomber in question crashed due to technical malfunction (age took its count) in Stavropol region far away from the frontline. UA "proven" sources are always happy to attribute any RU aviation loss to PSU.
So, a technical malfunction caused a major fire and the jet falling into an irecoverable flat spin with the loss of the crew, too - while returning from a combat sortie?
...and, because it was a technical malfunction, I know of no combat sortie by Tu-22M-3s flown ever since?
Sure. Perfectly plausible. Indeed, the only explanation possible...
...though also reminding me that almost every single Israeli jet lost in air combats with Egyptian, Syrian, and Iraqi air forces is 'credited' to 'technical malfunction', 'fuel shortage' and any other reason (including 'SA-7', and that while 40km over Israel-controlled territory) just not to enemy fighters and their weapons.
Makes me wonder who learned from whom...
But, you know me: me and my questions, that chronical itch in my small toe, and I'm an unprofessional jerk...
"So, a technical malfunction caused a major fire and the jet falling into an irecoverable flat spin with the loss of the crew, too - while returning from a combat sortie?"
Out of 4 crew members "only" 2 perished (RIP). Any plane can go into flat spin in case of serious malfunction, there were a lot of cases thruout the world. And yes, plane was getting back from combat sortie, so what, mishap can happen to old bird anytime.
"I know of no combat sortie by Tu-22M-3s flown ever since?" Do not contradict yourself, they fly missions from time to time when launch Kh-22/32s.
The whole hoax about SA-5 downing Backfire came after Budanov statement about "the bomber was hit 308 km from the frontline". Even this statement itself may cause doubts about its realibility . For example, since SA-5 can't stay near the very frontline (it's big, with fixed position, easy detectable, an etc). That means that it should be at least several dozen km from frontline. Therefore, missile presumably hit the bomber at distance 350 km from the launch point (what exceeds its effective range by 50 km). One can also dispute about maneuverability of SAM at the last stage of flight.
All in, "proven" UA sources prone to lie or exaggerations (see Zelensky stating about 40 bombers hit).
That's a lots of assumptions... thus, let me 'assume' a lot, too...
Firstly: yes, even a single launcher for S-200 is a big piece of equipment. Not to talk about its fire-control radar.
But, that's not making them 'fixed in position', and even less so 'non-redeployable'. Actually, a well-trained crew is going to bring them into position, and load a missile (and, if it hits: not more than one is necessary) within less than 30 minutes. Which, in turn, is actually making it 'perfectly possible' to bring such a 'firing unit' within just 10km of the frontline.
Provided one knows where and when to do so: 'the rest is then no problem'.
...except, of course, one is insistent on such conclusions like, 'nah, they would never do that'...
And, considering 'all the super-powerful US/NATO-support' - as widely claimed by the Russians (and allies abroad) - I wonder how comes nobody came to the idea that this 'super-powerful US/NATO-support', indeed, a 'conspiracy' has provided exactly that: ample warning about an incoming Tu-22-strike...?
Because the Russians were surprised the Ukrainians pulled this off? Ho-hum..
I have no doubts about UA good adaptability and flexibility. They did it skillfull many times thruout the war. Similar manner have no doubts about NATO-provided situation awareness. However, never heard even a hint about Backfire hit by SA-5 in any of RU sources.
Oh absolutely — if there’s no official Russian confirmation, then it clearly never happened. Because, as we all know, Russian sources are the gold standard of transparency and truth. They’ve never hidden a loss or altered a narrative. If a Tu-22M3 had been hit, we’d have seen a full press conference, flight logs, and maybe even a commemorative stamp.
"However, at least as much of the Long-Range Aviation’s Tupolevs can only be described with ‘museum pieces’ (which is why SBU’s claims about ‘destruction of bombers worth US$7 billion’ is, sorry, ridiculous). "
Antique museum pieces may be perceived as quite valuable, so why not? ;)
Although I can't help but wonder how much russia might actualy save by not having to maintain them anymore...
Although striking the strategic bombers was a great PR victory, I can't stop thinking that it would have been much more useful for ukraine to strike bases hosting SU-34 and SU-35 who are dropping dozen of glide bombs every day.
Maybe the PR wouldn't have been as important as striking the strategic fleet, but it may have been tactically more useful.
In conclusion even the destruction of 12 Russian planes 1) is a materially significant reduction in Russian airpower, 2) The value of this is approx $5bn-$8bn. 3) Since Russia cannot build any plane equivalent to modern western planes or old plane designs, the monetary loss of military capability is more than $7bn. Summary, Ukraine is bankrupting the Russian military machine & Russian economy. The $7bn loss quoted is a monetary loss, or replacement cost. Think like this, I have an 20yr old car which I bought for $2k, I cannot buy it or any equivalent any longer. So, the replacement cost of a cheap old car can be (10x) $20,000 for a new car. Nevertheless, by your estimates about 12 planes were destroyed, this equates to $58m per plane. A western plane, fighter as we have few bombers can easily cost $58m. One of the new stealth type planes can easily cost more. However, taking into account "PPP", Price Purchase Parity. Which compares what can be bought in different countries taking into account different local costs. The cost to build a plane in Russia is less, but maybe you will agree, with the following analysis/assumptions. A new Russian plane/design, of which I believe there are none in production or active service would cost a large amount, but Russia does not have the technology any more to build modern planes, it cannot even build commercial planes (Yak MC-21). Hence, lower costs and increased purchase parity in Russia, still does not help Russia build new planes.
A claim of a destruction of $7 billion worth bombers has some sense, if we assume, that it is their replacement value :)
However, as for Tu-160 I've found an information, that Tu-160M2 are newly built, with more modern technology (apart from M2 prototype Piotr Deynekin rebuilt from an unfinnished Tu-160): 9-01 Valentina Tyereshkova flown in 2022, 9-02 flown in 2023 and 9-03, reportedly completed by 2024. Modernized ones are supposed to be called Tu-160M (four by 2024).
Thank you.
Thanks Tom
How do we that the destroyed planes were among the active ones ? Their presence at an airbase is sufficient ?
It's a combination of what I've mentioned above: some airframes are in better condition than the others; their operational history (their maintenance log-books, for example) are 'prooving' them as 'more reliable than others'.
Correspondingly, they are more often operated than other airfames.
Tu-95MS's hit during this strike were all hit while obviously in the process of being prepared for sorties: operational/combat-sorties or training sorties - that's unimportant. Important is that they were in the process of 'being prepared for a flight'.
That's leading to the conclusion that the SBU's UAVs hit 'foremost those Tu-95MS' that matter'.
Thank you for the updates, can the damage in monetary value be considered in the double digit millions then?
Only if the Russians really invest - heavily - into re-building/overhauling 'lots' of their bombers. Taking into account the chronical lack of work-force in their aviation industry, lack of necessary electronics (they would have to smuggle lots of chips and motherboards from the USA), and the general age of the bomber-fleet... not so sure that's a viable option. But, then: I'm no 'Russian of the Year 2025'.
Presently - and especially in short term - I consider yet another scam in style of that 'Oreshnik' for far more likely.
Thank you Tom, the scam for money investments by the Russians for PRBS to impress others is their way of life.
you don't really need to assess it monetary. What's important is Russia's ability to continue striking.
A better way to look at this might not be dollar cost but the fact that these bombers' production lines do not exist anymore. What has been lost is literally irreplaceable.
I would also assume that "destroying" a fully refueled plane with a small drone is more likely than an "empty" one, and planes that are regularly used / prepared for being used are much more likely to have fuel?
Take a look at the high-res videos from the FPV strikes. There'a mixture of FMC and non-operational aircraft. For example, some have missing engines or peeling paint. The two An-50s seen in close-up have lichen growing on their radomes. The canvas covering a Tu-95's missing nose cone is blown off spectacularly in one strike. But in many others you can see, for example, cruise missiles slung under wings. Those were clearly about to sortie on a mission. Others have the pylons ready to receive missiles. Apparently Ivanovo and Olenya are graveyards where inoperable airframes are cannibalised for parts and that means, as Tom says, a lot of junk was blown up. It's why Oryx is listing only ten confirmed 'operational' kills so far (although that might rise once all the images are collated and studied). Again, as Tom says, this is still a phenomenal achievement that has taken out a huge chunk of Russia's bomber fleet. It has made life very difficult for the Kremlin and the VKS.
Niece piece!
The action has strong negative PR effect inside Russia. It showed that Putin is not controlling the situation and that the costs of war are high and damaging Russia strategic capabilities.
This is why they down played it in News on TV, but on the other hand Medwedew went again into his usual rabid dog mode.
That is expected from Medvedev "The genocider", always clamoring for mass deaths of the "enemies of Russkiya Mir".
It also shows in a cold clear light their true goal and why the world doesn't need the rebirth of the USSR under a different name.
But it doesn't make him any less disgusting and abhorrent. The man is a scumbag and a deterrent example of the negative potential of our species.
Yes, and I agree, hopefully in the games of the silivokis/mafiosi cliques in Russia, Medvedev would have a "Russia Windows 2025" update event🙂🙂🙂.
This careful planned action and use of drones was almost a "one and only", because the surprise element gone.
What not strike the Russian General Staff? The Kremlin? Kapustin Yar?
Russians are pounding Ukraine with tactical aviation, tactical ballistic missiles and drones. Why not the factores?
Think about an excelente idea, bad chosen targets.
Why 'one and only'? Think of it as a successful proof of concept, quite a few lessons learned I guess. Either RU gets massively more paranoid regarding security of their airbases (and railway yards, and factories and, yes, parades, and and and) with all the pain that's involved (checking every single container? Quarantine zones around airbases?), or UA can just repeat the exercise?
I guess the first airplane-delivered bomb was also an excellent idea, with (most likely) a badly chosen target, doesn't (sadly) mean that they've gone out of fashion..
there is( was ) a limit what FPV drones can hit and destroy. Not sure if they can destroy factories or mobile teams with iskander and shahid drone. And at least shahid teams can be more easy to rebuild, maybe some weeks, but after they can send all produced drones at once. This type of attack need a not moveing target, not protected with bunker
maybe SU34, su35 will be better target, big, making lots of problems and hard to replace.
Why cannot this be repeated more often? You can use smaller container, maybe with better drones with AI, just pick up target 1-2 planes or air defense. Russia is not able to control every car and if it tries, it will collapse economically.
It's not only popping up a bunch of drones form a trailer, is getting it close, find uncontrolled cargo business.
You don't need to search for every truck, need to get 24/7 Anti drone teams in critical industries and sites. Work in bunkers with no repeating schedules.
Get a better control in the border. In weeks or months, the FSB is going to get the full paint of show the SBU do that and then plan counters.
SBU, I think, missused a silver bullet.
This attack can be bigger, but bigger means higher risiko to be catched.
Target can be better( SU34).
Make such big attack will be very hard, but UA can make smaller attack maybe with better drones.
Russia is not able to protect borders, too big, too much corruption, drones can be splited on small parts or bought.
Yes some things can be done in hangars but not everything, not enough hangars.
What meant anti drone team? Has russia some solution against small drones except EW, which has limited usage. Yes, UA is develeping,start producing and getting some anti UAV computer controlled guns, but has Russia something similar and in enough numbers?
These attack can also be used against expensive SAMs, ...
18 months before maybe drones were not able to detect and hit smaller planes, or SU34 are already now partially in hangars. Lots of questions and too few answers.
FPV drones can do very limited damage. In a factory you can only damage the building structure, you have no access to the valuable machines insides. Or at least it is a much-much-much more complex task to hit a special machine inside a building, than a huge bomber standing on a runway. The same goes to the General Staff or the Kremlin. You could break some windows, but that's it.
Now hiting the tactical aviation is would make sense. What I imagine could be behind the decision, that which move degrades russian capabilities more?
If you destroy 20-30 long-range bombers, than as Tom explained you basically destroy the complete capability of Russia in this regard. On the other hand Russia has more than a hundred SU-35 (according to wiki), and then the SU-30s, the MIGs and so on. If you destroy 20-30 of those, it is painful, but they would be able to replace them in a few weeks. It will take years to rebuild the long range bomber capabilities.
Excellent article again. On Noelreports there are also some pictures as further proof.
https://t.me/noel_reports/29211
&
https://t.me/noel_reports/29215
By the way the condition of their strategic air fleet reflects very well their overall condition, i.e. an imperialistic 'wanna be' state in rags and tatters, but still dreaming the deadly dream (for his neighbors) of the rebirth of the USSR under a different name.
"One was confirmed as shot down (probably by Ukrainian S-200/SA-5 Gammon SAMs), on 19 April 2024".
Tom, SA-5 has incredible range of 300km+, but not one thousand km. The bomber in question crashed due to technical malfunction (age took its count) in Stavropol region far away from the frontline. UA "proven" sources are always happy to attribute any RU aviation loss to PSU.
So, a technical malfunction caused a major fire and the jet falling into an irecoverable flat spin with the loss of the crew, too - while returning from a combat sortie?
...and, because it was a technical malfunction, I know of no combat sortie by Tu-22M-3s flown ever since?
Sure. Perfectly plausible. Indeed, the only explanation possible...
...though also reminding me that almost every single Israeli jet lost in air combats with Egyptian, Syrian, and Iraqi air forces is 'credited' to 'technical malfunction', 'fuel shortage' and any other reason (including 'SA-7', and that while 40km over Israel-controlled territory) just not to enemy fighters and their weapons.
Makes me wonder who learned from whom...
But, you know me: me and my questions, that chronical itch in my small toe, and I'm an unprofessional jerk...
"So, a technical malfunction caused a major fire and the jet falling into an irecoverable flat spin with the loss of the crew, too - while returning from a combat sortie?"
Out of 4 crew members "only" 2 perished (RIP). Any plane can go into flat spin in case of serious malfunction, there were a lot of cases thruout the world. And yes, plane was getting back from combat sortie, so what, mishap can happen to old bird anytime.
"I know of no combat sortie by Tu-22M-3s flown ever since?" Do not contradict yourself, they fly missions from time to time when launch Kh-22/32s.
The whole hoax about SA-5 downing Backfire came after Budanov statement about "the bomber was hit 308 km from the frontline". Even this statement itself may cause doubts about its realibility . For example, since SA-5 can't stay near the very frontline (it's big, with fixed position, easy detectable, an etc). That means that it should be at least several dozen km from frontline. Therefore, missile presumably hit the bomber at distance 350 km from the launch point (what exceeds its effective range by 50 km). One can also dispute about maneuverability of SAM at the last stage of flight.
All in, "proven" UA sources prone to lie or exaggerations (see Zelensky stating about 40 bombers hit).
That's a lots of assumptions... thus, let me 'assume' a lot, too...
Firstly: yes, even a single launcher for S-200 is a big piece of equipment. Not to talk about its fire-control radar.
But, that's not making them 'fixed in position', and even less so 'non-redeployable'. Actually, a well-trained crew is going to bring them into position, and load a missile (and, if it hits: not more than one is necessary) within less than 30 minutes. Which, in turn, is actually making it 'perfectly possible' to bring such a 'firing unit' within just 10km of the frontline.
Provided one knows where and when to do so: 'the rest is then no problem'.
...except, of course, one is insistent on such conclusions like, 'nah, they would never do that'...
And, considering 'all the super-powerful US/NATO-support' - as widely claimed by the Russians (and allies abroad) - I wonder how comes nobody came to the idea that this 'super-powerful US/NATO-support', indeed, a 'conspiracy' has provided exactly that: ample warning about an incoming Tu-22-strike...?
Because the Russians were surprised the Ukrainians pulled this off? Ho-hum..
I have no doubts about UA good adaptability and flexibility. They did it skillfull many times thruout the war. Similar manner have no doubts about NATO-provided situation awareness. However, never heard even a hint about Backfire hit by SA-5 in any of RU sources.
So I guess we are now down to the core of the problem:
"However, never heard even a hint about Backfire hit by SA-5 in any of RU sources."
Thank you for your honesty.
Oh absolutely — if there’s no official Russian confirmation, then it clearly never happened. Because, as we all know, Russian sources are the gold standard of transparency and truth. They’ve never hidden a loss or altered a narrative. If a Tu-22M3 had been hit, we’d have seen a full press conference, flight logs, and maybe even a commemorative stamp.
So yes — no info = didn’t happen. Case closed. 😉
Thanks Tom, interesting as always.
"However, at least as much of the Long-Range Aviation’s Tupolevs can only be described with ‘museum pieces’ (which is why SBU’s claims about ‘destruction of bombers worth US$7 billion’ is, sorry, ridiculous). "
Antique museum pieces may be perceived as quite valuable, so why not? ;)
Although I can't help but wonder how much russia might actualy save by not having to maintain them anymore...
Although striking the strategic bombers was a great PR victory, I can't stop thinking that it would have been much more useful for ukraine to strike bases hosting SU-34 and SU-35 who are dropping dozen of glide bombs every day.
Maybe the PR wouldn't have been as important as striking the strategic fleet, but it may have been tactically more useful.
Nevertheless, still a great move
Please like everyone else, keep in mind this operation started 18 months plus a few days (7 or 9, I no longer remember) ago.
This means the parameters were the possibilities & threat awareness of THAT TIME.
IMHO it makes no sense to speculate which targets would have made more sense NOW.
Как украинец, я горд, что нас поддерживают такие друзья как вы, Том, а также Дон, Бенджамин и многие другие. Спасибо вам за это большое!
In conclusion even the destruction of 12 Russian planes 1) is a materially significant reduction in Russian airpower, 2) The value of this is approx $5bn-$8bn. 3) Since Russia cannot build any plane equivalent to modern western planes or old plane designs, the monetary loss of military capability is more than $7bn. Summary, Ukraine is bankrupting the Russian military machine & Russian economy. The $7bn loss quoted is a monetary loss, or replacement cost. Think like this, I have an 20yr old car which I bought for $2k, I cannot buy it or any equivalent any longer. So, the replacement cost of a cheap old car can be (10x) $20,000 for a new car. Nevertheless, by your estimates about 12 planes were destroyed, this equates to $58m per plane. A western plane, fighter as we have few bombers can easily cost $58m. One of the new stealth type planes can easily cost more. However, taking into account "PPP", Price Purchase Parity. Which compares what can be bought in different countries taking into account different local costs. The cost to build a plane in Russia is less, but maybe you will agree, with the following analysis/assumptions. A new Russian plane/design, of which I believe there are none in production or active service would cost a large amount, but Russia does not have the technology any more to build modern planes, it cannot even build commercial planes (Yak MC-21). Hence, lower costs and increased purchase parity in Russia, still does not help Russia build new planes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-ksNjIAkJo&t=4s
Новий ролик від СБУ про підпал літаків. Їх таки багато).
Superb piece - really thought provoking and interesting. Thank you for cutting through all the hot air and noise on this topic.
Thanks, also any word about Drapaty being appointed as leader of the "United forces" whatever that means?
Hope to 'get back to that topic' tomorrow... simply can't do everything at once.
A claim of a destruction of $7 billion worth bombers has some sense, if we assume, that it is their replacement value :)
However, as for Tu-160 I've found an information, that Tu-160M2 are newly built, with more modern technology (apart from M2 prototype Piotr Deynekin rebuilt from an unfinnished Tu-160): 9-01 Valentina Tyereshkova flown in 2022, 9-02 flown in 2023 and 9-03, reportedly completed by 2024. Modernized ones are supposed to be called Tu-160M (four by 2024).