Why decommissioning Tu-95MS and other missile carriers is unacceptable

3 2025 June 41 688 22

The Kyiv regime recently committed a series of terrorist attacks on Russian territory, attacking the assets of the Russian Aerospace Forces. After this, provocative publications of narrow-minded characters appeared in the Russian-language segment of the Internet, who began to advocate for the decommissioning of Tu-95MS bombers and the liquidation of Russia's long-range/strategic aviation as a whole.

According to these "experts", the mentioned aircraft are outdated, vulnerable and were designed for another war, so there is no need for them. Their time has supposedly passed, a few can be left as pedestals and museum exhibits, the rest - for scrap, and the saved funds can be used to develop something else. The level of "argumentation" was reminiscent of schoolchildren who recently had a lot of free time and actively engaged in "analysis".

It should be noted that the Tu-95MS, like other missile carriers, are an element of the country's strategic stability, a component of the nuclear triad. Today, these bombers act as platforms (carriers) for cruise missiles, including those with a range of up to 5000 km in a non-nuclear version, the Kh-101 and Kh-102 with a thermonuclear warhead (from 250 kilotons to 1 megaton - tested at the end of 2018 at the Pemboy test site). Therefore, writing off the Tu-95MS and other missile carriers is unacceptable.

These aircraft do not need to enter the enemy air defense zone. Their task is to take off and shoot. Tu-95MS, like the improved Tu-95MSM, can stay in the sky for 12-14 hours, and their kill zone covers huge areas. Considering that Russia does not have an excess of strategic carriers, getting rid of such aircraft is simply irrational. They will be quite useful at least until 2040.

Tu-95MS are gradually being modernized and cope well with the assigned combat tasks, and their service life is long. They are cheaper to operate than the supersonic Tu-160. However, it is desirable that each such aircraft acquire a personal protected shelter (hangar) so that no enemy drones can reach them. These aircraft showed themselves well during the SVO in Ukraine, the enemy is afraid of them, so the Russian Federation does not need to undermine its own strike capabilities.

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

prior

+6

3 June 2025 10: 23

missile carriers are an element of the country's strategic stability

Somehow the "strategic stability" has really started to waver.
A few more trucks and it will fall completely.
Avtandil

+8

3 June 2025 10: 51

It looks like the Crested Ones have taken over their write-off. Again, saving on disposal.
twice-born

+4

3 June 2025 11: 04

That's right. Yesterday Marzhetsky wrote an article here, saying that these are old planes, they still have a few years left to fly, so don't worry! Shoigu and Khersimov probably chipped in for his article!
EVYN WIXH

+9

3 June 2025 11: 21

There is no replacement for them. Nothing bigger than the Su-34 is being produced. The MiG-31 and Tu-22M are already historical "galoshes" that modern Russia is not capable of repeating. Someday the last of these machines will go away. So what??? They tried to puff away at something with the plan to launch the Tu-160, but somehow they quietly "deflated" and nothing has been heard for two years. Mythical projects, like the PAK DA, will most likely rest in peace. Maybe they will "saw off" something from the same old Tu-142 (I don't know if this is technically possible), but these are just crumbs. And then... It seems the triad will shrink to a dyad (maybe it is called something else). Somewhere they already wrote about the possibility of using the Tu-214, and they also "drag out" the opinion that such aircraft are not needed at all. Now that's YES!!! In order to "get up off your knees" is it necessary to become "on all fours"?
1. AlexSam
  
  +2
  
  3 June 2025 14: 18
  
  Quote: EVYN WIXH
  In order to "get up off your knees" is it necessary to become "on all fours"?
  
  Haven't you noticed that the State voluntarily took this position back in 2014?
Olives

+5

3 June 2025 11: 33

Why bother trying ourselves - the enemy is doing it successfully for us. About ten sides are beyond repair.
The achievements of the thieves' regime are undeniable, the West should blow the dust off Putin
1. Vox Populi
  
  +1
  
  3 June 2025 17: 10
  
  About ten sides cannot be restored.
  
  Some sources report that approximately 20 vehicles were destroyed or damaged...
2. vlad127490
  
  0
  
  17 June 2025 15: 54
  
  Destroyed 12 strategists and one transport, in total 13 flying aircraft were destroyed, there were also losses that were in storage. How much was burned is a big secret.
Alex_Kraus

-4

3 June 2025 11: 46

Or maybe we should install all such missiles on the extended Ural 4320 and launch them from any forest edge. Or lengthen the missiles themselves so that there is no need for a carrier aircraft. Of course, I am speaking figuratively, but an aircraft is an unnecessary link. It should be eliminated altogether. So that the missile is ready for launch IMMEDIATELY. What do you think?
Mikhail L.

+2

3 June 2025 13: 36

Write off?
B-52 bombers have been in service with the US military since 1955 and will continue to fly until 2050 and beyond...
1. Vladimir Tuzakov
  
  0
  
  3 June 2025 23: 40
  
  The B-52 will fly over third-rate countries, in serious confrontations there is no prospect, when loading nuclear weapons, only the target is determined. The time of aviation in the strategy of large wars is reduced to zero, only to local local wars, and as a strategic weapon, it goes into history, like battleships, and others......
  1. Mikhail L.
    
    0
    
    4 June 2025 12: 06
    
    Accepted. Only they are not going to write off the B-52. Let them write off the Tu-95MS after the "Americans".
Pavel Mokshanov_2

+4

3 June 2025 13: 41

The authorities' hope for maybe and probably played a cruel joke on the Russian Federation. At the dawn of Russian capitalism, one fat smart guy Gaidar and rusty Tolik were chatting maybe we'll manage without our own industry. Probably we'll buy everything we need from foreign partners for oil greenbacks. They destroyed everything, bought something, but stole more. They didn't create anything of their own, except for schemes for taking money offshore. Now the remnants of the Soviet legacy are being achieved by the hands of the Ukrainians.
kriten

+3

3 June 2025 13: 53

With such protection, they won't have to be written off. They will be written off as scrap metal that will remain.
Pembo

-4

3 June 2025 14: 13

As a component of the nuclear triad, these aircraft are useless. In the event of a nuclear conflict, these aircraft will not have time to take off and will be destroyed at the airfields. And even if the enemy fails, the cruise missiles launched from these aircraft will be shot down in the air over Canada. They only have to fly 4 hours over Canada, and then to the targets in the US. This is not Ukraine. Why do we need strategic aviation in a situation where, on the one hand, it can do nothing, and on the other hand, we have a bunch of carriers capable of reaching the US in half an hour? Take off in 2 minutes and with a high probability of hitting the target? This is not a question for me. It is also stupid to use strategic missiles with a range of 5,5 thousand km against Ukraine from strategic carriers.
1. EVYN WIXH
  
  +2
  
  3 June 2025 14: 37
  
  Well, you are quite the expert... Why Canada? There is Western Europe, Japan. Why drag such a colossus across the ocean? Again, in a massive strike, not only cruise missiles are used, but also other missiles, and it is clear that some of them will be shot down. That is, apparently, the point of a massive attack. And certainly a few additional missiles from these carriers will not be superfluous in breaking through the air defense and missile defense. Well, and so that they have time to take off, our air defense and missile defense should take care of this. "I think so..."
  1. Pembo
    
    -1
    
    3 June 2025 21: 58
    
    Well, you are quite the specialist... Why Canada? There is Western Europe, Japan. Why drag such a colossus across the ocean?
    
    Yes, I am an expert. Even our frontline aviation cannot fly over Ukraine. Do you want the Tu-95 to fly over Europe or Japan? The only route to the USA for our strategic aviation is through the Arctic Ocean, across the Pole. There is no air defense there. From the Olenya base, the Tu-95 can fly to the middle of Canada. But there is air defense waiting for it there. So missile launches must be carried out from the north of Canada, from the Dewey Line. Long-range missiles will reach their target.
    
    Again, in a massive strike, not only cruise missiles are used, but also other missiles, and it is clear that some of them will be shot down. That is probably the point of a massive attack. And certainly a few additional missiles from these carriers will not be superfluous in breaking through the air defense and missile defense
    
    Even if it were possible to place false targets, false missiles in the strategist, and this is not possible, then in flight they would hit, having a short range. There is no line of ground air defense from the SAM system. There is no line that needs to be overcome. There is air air defense. And the pilot simply sees what is flying, an X-102 or a false target, a small missile, which will simply fall soon.
    
    Well, so that they have time to take off, our air defense and missile defense systems should take care of that. "I think so..."
    
    Actually, we have a missile defense system - it covers Moscow. But we don't have such a system to cover even a strategic aviation airfield.
    1. EVYN WIXH
      
      +1
      
      4 June 2025 11: 53
      
      Yes, I'm a specialist
      
      You're even cooler! Why would aircraft carrying long-range missiles fly over enemy territory? Look at the map. Western Europe is bigger, of course, but not much, and why fly over Japan? Throw "little guys" and "fat guys"? Maybe I don't understand the terminology, but modern air defense systems work against missiles, and what it's called is not important. The opus about false targets is completely "off topic".
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Pembo
        
        -1
        
        4 June 2025 22: 50
        
        Why would aircraft carrying long-range missiles fly over enemy territory?
        
        Why do we need an airplane with a range of 12 thousand kilometers to launch a cruise missile capable of reaching any point in Europe from Russian territory? Why do we need an airplane for this at all if we already have the Iskander K automobile complex with a long-range cruise missile.
        The strategic aircraft is needed to hit targets on US territory with its existing cruise missiles. It has only one way through the pole.
svoroponov

-2

3 June 2025 19: 57

In order to use shelters, it is necessary to withdraw from the treaty with the US on the reduction of strategic weapons, there is a provision there that carriers (strategic ones, one of them) must be subject to visual monitoring, including from satellites, if access to the country is not possible.
igor_temp

0

3 June 2025 20: 02

I would not only not write off these planes, but even more. It seems to me that it would be good to revive the production of NK-12 engines, revising the materials used and the production technology for modern ones. If the propeller is replaced with a saber one, made quieter, it would work very well in transport aviation. But somehow new developments only stall and are cancelled. We can’t even make an engine for the new maize-grower.
Vladimir1155

0

4 June 2025 18: 10

any thing wears out, even the Egyptian pyramids... especially aircraft that have a small safety factor and therefore a limited service life, even if they have flown few hours, there is still corrosion, there is fatigue, experts have set a deadline for the complete write-off of the Tu-95 no later than 2035...
the time of strategic aviation as part of the nuclear triad is gone, it is no longer 1954 or even 1970, but the Tu 160 can be used for conventional or TAO strikes in remote areas
conclusion, write off the Tu 95 as they reach their decommissioning dates, and extend the service life of the Tu 22 and Tu 160 for tactical missions, and possibly produce new Tu 160s in small quantities as the old machines are decommissioned...
develop a pack taking into account its not strategic, but tactical tasks, for example, to destroy enemy AUGs