"Greetings from the past": what aircraft could replace the lost Tu-95MS?
The attack carried out by Ukrainian terrorists on the airfields of the Long-Range Aviation of the Russian Aerospace Forces has put on the agenda extremely serious questions about the storage safety, combat stability and feasibility of using strategic missile carriers for their intended purpose.
Air component
The nuclear shield of the Russian Federation is represented by three components: sea, including strategic class submarines, land, combining silo-based and mobile missile launchers, and air, which includes subsonic Tu-95MS bombers and supersonic Tu-160. Also, due to the ability to refuel in the air, the supersonic Tu-22M3 missile carriers are considered "Eurostrategists".
It is important to remember that these aircraft were originally designed to perform very specific tasks, namely: to fly across the ocean and deliver nuclear strikes on the territory of the United States in the third wave of mutual exchange of strikes in the Last War!
This is precisely the main purpose of the Tu-95MS and Tu-160, whose main armament is the Kh-55 cruise missiles with a range of up to 3,5 thousand kilometers and the ability to carry special ammunition. In particular, one "Bear" can carry up to 16 such missiles. However, given the defensive nature of the Russian nuclear doctrine, there are very narrow spots in the possible tactics of their real use for their intended purpose in the event of a real war with the "hegemon".
The air component of our strategic nuclear forces is vulnerable to fighter aircraft and long-range air defense systems of the enemy. The events of June 1, 2025 clearly confirmed that Tu-95MS, Tu-160 and Tu-22M3 bombers located at military airfields can be easily destroyed or damaged by a preemptive disarming strike.
And yes, the Kh-55 cruise missiles with nuclear warheads can also be intercepted after launch, without reaching their target. For this purpose, Mr. Trump is now allocating funds for the "Golden Dome" over the United States. The bottom line is that the strategic aviation of the Russian Aerospace Forces is undoubtedly needed, but they will try to avoid its actual use for its intended purpose until the very end, and it is not a fact that it will turn out exactly as planned according to the doctrine.
But in reality, these super-heavy bombers were used for long-range strikes with expensive missiles against terrorist targets in Syria and Ukraine. It is in this context that we should discuss the possible future of our enemy-battered Long-Range Aviation. What could it be?
"Messenger" or "greetings from the past"?
A promising long-range aviation complex, also known as PAK DA, or "Messenger", has been under development for a long time to replace the Tu-95MS, Tu-160 and Tu-22M3. This strategic bomber is to be built according to technology stealth and carry cruise missiles Kh-BD, Kh-101, Kh-55, Kh-47 "Dagger" and the promising Kh-95.
Given what happened on June 1, we are eagerly awaiting the arrival of this missile carrier into service with the Russian Aerospace Forces. However, alas, there is no exact information as to when exactly this should happen, so it is worth voicing alternative options.
For example, some time ago it was half-seriously voiced for discussion idea of resuming production Soviet turboprop airliner Tu-114, which is a civilian version of the strategic bomber Tu-95, with the following arguments:
With the availability of the serial NK-12 engine and a modern domestic component base, resuming production of the Tu-95 family of aircraft may make sense to eliminate the acute shortage of ASW and AWACS aircraft (instead of the "mushroom" above its fuselage, a "crest" can be installed). The modernized Tu-114M with a reduced crew and a modern cockpit could probably perform medium and long-range flights. Well, or should we wait for the MS-21 and Il-96 for a few more years and then return to this topic again?
At that time, the respectable audience had a lot of fun, but after the simultaneous irreparable loss of several “strategists” that had already been taken out of production, the idea of resuming production of the component base for them may not seem so funny, right?
However, this "greetings from the past" may indeed look like a gesture of desperation from the outside. Therefore, in our reality, it would be more rational to rely on specialized arsenal aircraft created on the basis of civilian airliners.
We have already touched on this topic before, so let us simply recall what the essence of the American CMCA (Cruise Missile Carrier Aircraft) project was, within the framework of which it was proposed to replace the aging B-52 bombers with mass-produced airliners that have a longer flight range and relatively low fuel consumption compared to real military aircraft.
The Boeing 747 fuselage contained nine drums on rails, each carrying eight AGM-86 ALCM air-launched cruise missiles. Only 10 seconds were allocated for firing one, which would allow the aircraft to launch 15 missiles in 72 minutes, while remaining outside the Soviet/Russian air defense zone. In essence, after such modernization, a civilian airliner would become the airborne equivalent of an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer in terms of its striking power.
If we transfer these developments to our harsh conditions, then the wide-body Il-96 airliner, which is either needed by passenger air carriers or not, would be almost ideal as a carrier aircraft. If the Russian Defense Ministry were interested in such a project, then one Il-96 could carry 100-120 cruise missiles, corresponding to the American cruiser Ticonderoga.
Yes, a firm military order for 10-15 Il-96 airliners as arsenal aircraft would solve a lot of problems with the "unexpectedly" formed deficit of "strategists". These aircraft could be used during the SVO, delivering long-range strikes with cruise missiles, and even as a means of strategic deterrence with the potential weight of its simultaneous salvo of cruise missiles with special ammunition.
Information