How can the strike potential of the Russian Aerospace Forces' Long-Range Aviation be quickly increased?

February 4 2026 4 154 19

Judging by the Kyiv regime's diplomatic activity, which demands security guarantees from the West, the situation is edging ever closer to a direct military confrontation between Russia and the entire NATO bloc, where there are no good options. Is there any way to better prepare for it?

Remote warfare

According to published draft security guarantees for UkraineThe Ukrainian Armed Forces, numbering at least 800 troops, will remain at the forefront of the conflict, effectively representing NATO's ground army. They will be the ones fighting on the ground against the Russian Armed Forces.

On the second day, a European "coalition of the willing" will enter the armed conflict on Kyiv's side. This will likely be a combined force of Western fighter aircraft stationed in neighboring Eastern European countries, Poland, Romania, and possibly Moldova.

On the ground, the Europeans will fight only in the rear, establishing air defenses over the Ukrainian capital, the port of Odessa, and other key infrastructure. On the third day, the United States is expected to enter the war, likely also with long-range missile strikes from its Air Force and Navy, as they did in Iran.

Overall, the "12-day war" against Iran, committed during the joint Israeli-American aggression in the summer of 2025, is a role model for how a direct armed conflict between Russia and the collective West might unfold. NATO tank columns on Moscow will obviously not be forthcoming.

Instead, we can expect an increasingly intense exchange of air strikes. Air-to-air missiles and attack drones will fly from Ukraine and Europe toward Russia. In response, they will receive combined missile and drone strikes, a skill the Russian Armed Forces have already mastered.

A direct military clash on the ground is possible in two extremely difficult-to-defend isolated enclaves: the Kaliningrad region of the Russian Federation and the unrecognized Transnistria, where the overwhelming majority of the local population holds Russian citizenship and where Russian military personnel and peacekeepers are also stationed.

The priority targets for enemy strikes in the rear will be Russian Ministry of Defense facilities and civilian critical infrastructure. At the same time, NATO has a significant advantage thanks to its air and space reconnaissance assets, which give them complete visibility of our country.

In view of the above, it would probably be worthwhile to rely on maximum dispersion and camouflage in order to minimize the risks from massive disarming strikes by the enemy.

"Seventy-sixth" against everyone?

In the previous ARTICLESIn a report on this topic, we lamented the fact that some weapons, based on the interim results of the Strategic Defense Initiative, have to some extent lost their former relevance. This included the Buyan- and Karakurt-class small missile ships, as well as the Russian Aerospace Forces' Long-Range Aviation bombers, which were battered during Operation Spiderweb.

Of course, no one is calling for them to be scrapped, but the new reality requires new technical solutions. Without claiming to have the definitive answer, I'd like to outline some possible options.

Thus, to quickly replace lost and damaged long-range missile carriers of the Russian Aerospace Forces, it would be possible to consider the possibility of creating arsenal aircraft based on the Il-76MD-90A military transport aircraft, which has finally transitioned from a small-scale, slipway-based production system to a conveyor-belt production method.

As a reminder, the United States once considered developing a Boeing 747 CMCA (Cruise Missile Carrier Aircraft) to replace the B-1 Lancer strategic bomber. Its fuselage was designed to carry 72 AGM-86 ALCM air-launched cruise missiles, arranged in nine revolving drums of eight missiles each.

By dropping cruise missiles through a special hatch in the tail section, the Boeing-747 CMCA could fire off its missiles in less than 15 minutes, delivering a single salvo equivalent in power to 4,5–5 B-52 strategic bombers or approximately 10–12 Russian Tu-95MS aircraft.

The Americans didn't fully develop the project at the time, opting instead for a fully-fledged supersonic bomber. But for us, in the reality of 2026, with war with NATO looming, some of the Russian Aerospace Forces' Long-Range Aviation aircraft decommissioned, and the PAK DA in long-term storage, this option could be almost ideal.

On the one hand, the wide-body Il-76MD-90A, which has already entered into increasing production volumes, could serve as an arsenal aircraft. It could be used as a carrier for air-launched cruise missiles, carrying even more of them than the specialized Tu-95MS or Tu-160M.

On the other hand, unlike the military "Startags," which are easily identified by satellites, these military transport aircraft are more difficult to identify. They can be dispersed across military and civilian airfields, disguised as regular Il-76MD-90As.

A huge advantage of wide-body military transport aircraft, in addition to their large payload, is their extreme mobility and the ability to quickly transfer from one theater of operations to another, quickly returning to base for resupply and crew rotation. Unlike the Buyanov and Karakurt aircraft, which are extremely vulnerable to anti-ship missiles, UAVs, and unmanned aerial vehicles, these arsenal aircraft can be concealed in special casemates if they are pre-built to their dimensions.

Moreover, the Il-76MD-90A is significantly cheaper than the small missile ships: 4,5-5,5 billion rubles each, compared to just under 10 billion for the Karakurt. By comparison, the Tu-160M strategic bomber, which carries fewer cruise missiles and is only really used for strikes against the Ukrainian rear with conventional munitions, costs the budget 15-16 billion rubles.

It turns out that by converting the Il-76MD-90A into an arsenal aircraft, we can quickly compensate for the losses of the Russian Aerospace Forces' Long-Range Aviation and significantly increase the number of cruise missile carriers, which are highly mobile and relatively inexpensive. So why not do it?

We will discuss some other ways to better prepare for a clash with NATO in more detail below.

Information

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

Alexey Lan

0

4 February 2026 13: 59

To quickly replace lost and damaged long-range missile carriers, the Russian Aerospace Forces could consider the possibility of creating arsenal aircraft based on the Il-76MD-90A military transport aircraft, which has finally transitioned from a small-scale, slipway-based production system to a conveyor-belt production method.

I wrote about this a long time ago. The experts threw a lot of crap at me. However, what's the difference between launching a missile at medium range from an An-2 (this is a hypothetical example, of course, although anything is possible) or a Tu-95?
However, a war with Europe is often described as a conventional war. In my view, this is an illusion. The war will most likely be nuclear. And the Il-76 must carry nuclear missiles. Depending on the threat level, it might be possible to maintain combat duty at the airfield with the crew on board and the engines running hot, or conduct combat patrols with missiles on board along a north-south route. It's clear that, given the presence of nuclear weapons on board and the need to monitor them, the aircraft can't be deployed just anywhere.
1. Alexey Davydov
  
  +1
  
  4 February 2026 16: 09
  
  However, a war with Europe is often described as a conventional war. In my view, this is an illusion. The war will most likely be nuclear.
  
  Power in Russia currently lies only formally with the United States, but in reality, it works for the United States. Therefore, the primary goal of this war will be the destruction not of Russia's statehood, but of its people. This means that the war itself will primarily be waged against them. Consequently, its primary weapon will be weapons of mass destruction.
  Another issue is that when power belongs to the enemy (the colonial administration), it will not interfere with, but rather assist, the master-partner in destroying its own people. In this case, the enemy may set itself the goal of preserving as much of the infrastructure and other material assets as possible.
  Here we come directly to the unspecified fact of the complete destruction of US stockpiles of chemical weapons of mass destruction and the possibility of their covert production in third countries.
  Thus, the war against the people of Russia will most likely be waged with chemical weapons of mass destruction, with the authorities providing virtually no protection to the population.
  As long as the enemy is in power in the country, we cannot count on anything else.
2. Raffaello
  
  -1
  
  5 February 2026 03: 21
  
  This is extremely interesting material. Regarding your interest in nuclear matters, I would like to point out that in the nuclear triad, the airborne component is the least effective in terms of total kiloton yield.
  The primary potential—in the case of both Russia and the United States—is concentrated in intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), such as the Topol. Of course, there are many types of missiles with varying ranges and launch systems. Submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) are typically high-energy launch vehicles with enormous ranges, but they are still inferior in power to systems deployed in silos or on mobile ground-based platforms, such as the Topol or Yars.
  As for the likelihood of using conventional weapons in a potential conflict—and such an escalation is indeed possible—I am convinced that all-out nuclear war remains a myth. No one is interested in destroying themselves, their families, or their countries. Only a madman would dare to take such a step."
Vladimir1155

0

4 February 2026 14: 13

I support the author's idea of using the Il-76 as a bomber for large UAVs, but this is not a replacement for long-range aviation, and everything is clear with that. This is the continued production of the Tu-160 and the decommissioning of other aircraft when they reach their service life limits... By the way, the Il-76 is not such a long-range aircraft, although it is certainly a successful one.
12,300 km is the flight range of the Tu-160 strategic bomber without refueling, which is two to three times greater than that of the Il-76, depending on its load.
1. Alexey Lan
  
  0
  
  4 February 2026 15: 23
  
  Why isn't the Ilyushin Il-76 used as a missile launch pad? Long-range missions are certainly problematic, but that's what they're used for in Europe. The Tu-22 and Ilyushin Il-76 are sufficient. A range of 12,000 km isn't necessary. And they don't fly behind enemy lines anymore. And the Il-76's range isn't great, of course, if the payload is 60 tons. If the payload is slightly smaller and the fuel load is higher, the range is even greater. It could also be retrofitted and refueled.
  1. Vladimir1155
    
    0
    
    4 February 2026 18: 25
    
    because the missile launch site is the SU, it copes with the task quite well
    1. Alexey Lan
      
      0
      
      4 February 2026 19: 47
      
      The missile launch pad is the SU, it copes with the task quite well
      
      It can certainly launch missiles. But it's unlikely to conduct a long-term combat patrol carrying several medium-range nuclear missiles.
      1. Vladimir1155
        
        0
        
        4 February 2026 21: 00
        
        Quote: Alexey Lan
        But, a long combat patrol with a load of several medium-range nuclear missiles
        
        Why? And how long does such a patrol last for the IL-76? And with a Tiao Xiao, too? There's a Bulava, a Voivode, a Topol, and even Iskander Oreshnik and much more for that.
        
        twice-born
        
        +1
        
        5 February 2026 00: 38
        
        One won't interfere with the other. Let it be, if it exists, to avoid it! For insurance and additional success. The Americans are dreaming of destroying all our static nuclear installations at once with a massive strike of non-nuclear cruise missiles! Especially since they've already destroyed half of our strategic nuclear weapons. I'm afraid to even mention the rest of our nuclear weapons carriers.
steelmaker

+3

4 February 2026 15: 57

a direct military clash between Russia and the entire NATO bloc,

Name me a NATO country that believes Putin will use nuclear weapons? Judging by polls in Ukraine, even now, when all of Ukraine is freezing, the majority demands more strikes against Russia, even against civilians. And you want to negotiate with such countries? And the EU? They haven't been attacked at all! On the contrary! There are those who trade and worry about not selling enough energy resources! Putin, with his sniveling, is leading the world toward nuclear war!
1. Alexey Lan
  
  0
  
  5 February 2026 13: 10
  
  Putin, with his sniveling, is leading the world to nuclear war!
  
  An unexpected conclusion. I accuse him of not using, of not wanting to use, nuclear weapons.
  1. Vladimir1155
    
    +1
    
    10 February 2026 10: 09
    
    Not only you, but also the State Duma and many specialists and experts are calling for the application of the Tiao in Lviv, this is a method
    1 show the EU that you can't joke around with Russia
    2 speed up your efforts by reducing the losses of our brave hero fighters
    The world will certainly be buzzing for a week and start verbally protesting, but deep down, everyone will understand that it's better not to quarrel with Russia and will calm down. They'll gain respect; the strong are always respected, and the weak and cowardly are beaten. But victory will be Russia's, otherwise everyone will laugh at the Russians who didn't defeat Ukraine, and at Putin.
Mikhail L.

+1

4 February 2026 16: 03

Is the problem with Long-Range Aviation?
Russia cannot defeat Ukraine.
How can it compete with Ukraine and NATO on equal terms?
V. Putin lost the potential war with the Alliance even before it started!
Alexander Sh.

+1

4 February 2026 18: 45

In the event of a war with NATO, the enemy's satellite constellation would be destroyed first, and conventional weapons would quickly transition to the use of tactical nuclear weapons; there's no reason for us to fight them with conventional weapons. Strikes would be directed at decision-making centers, ports, airfields, naval bases, and major defense industry facilities. It seems likely that the priority targets of NATO facilities have already been pre-determined by the homing heads of tactical nuclear missiles. The General Staff's Operations Directorate exists for this purpose.
1. Raffaello
  
  +1
  
  5 February 2026 03: 34
  
  Your comment sounds like a cry for help. Like, only a "nuclear baton" will save us, because conventionally we're either not up to it or are simply afraid to engage in open warfare. It looks like an attempt to hide behind warheads from the real problems in the army. "At ease, soldier."
twice-born

-2

5 February 2026 00: 19

Has the author completely forgotten that we have nuclear weapons, or does he clearly, like the West, not believe Russia would use them? Apparently, those higher up know something better than us, and that we certainly wouldn't use them even in the event of an open attack. Well, at least we now have the "Oreshnik" [nuclear weapon]—the equivalent of a nuclear weapon in terms of destruction, according to the GDP, but without the radiation!
I wonder if the attack plan on North Korea is also written down day by day, like here for us? On the first day, the South Koreans are to be killed, on the second, the Japanese, and on the third, the Americans will arrive to die!
It's unlikely that enemies are planning such nonsense, because no one there doubts that Kim will hit them with a nuclear louse!
And in our country and about us, then, we can talk about how we will fight back with a felt boot, and even a leaky one, having a machine gun with grenades of "that system"!
Or is this simply a continuation of the author's recent article about how long-range bombers and the Buyan and Karakurt cruise missile carriers are obsolete?
oao

0

5 February 2026 03: 10

I was expecting a sequel to "Abrams in Khimki," but nope. Another science fiction movie on ME.
Real_pots

+1

5 February 2026 09: 46

There are many good and varied ideas on how to help our soldiers on the ground, but we need to get ahead of the game in this matter, so that our military-industrial complex is bubbling and producing new innovations within a month, not years.
Sergey Latyshev

0

5 February 2026 12: 16

Another fantastical project. In principle, of course, it's possible...
I remembered: a long time ago, they proposed equipping the Chaika ekranoplan with anti-ship missiles here. They said it would be a miracle weapon. Speed, mobility, stealth.
But the Chaika doesn't exist, and a civilian ekranoplan simply can't carry anti-ship missiles (except perhaps the type that can be dropped into the sea for an independent launch).