TU-95 Bear
On Sunday, Ukraine launched a stunning drone attack on Russian military airfields and airbases and destroyed a minimum of 13 aircraft, reported Andriy Kovalenko, head of Ukraine’s Centre for Countering Disinformation at the National Security and Defense Council.
Kovalenko asserted in a Telegram statement, according to BBC News, that Operation Spiderweb, conducted by Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU), drastically hindered significant Russian aviation assets, destroying more aircraft and hitting airbases such as Olenya, Belaya, Dyagilevo, Ivanovo, and Voskresensk.
Ukrainian sources say the strikes, conducted using trucks disguised as mobile shelters inside Russian borders, targeted approximately 34% of Moscow’s strategic bomber force, valued at approximately $7 billion.
Although Russia has acknowledged the attacks, it has refrained from revealing the extent of its losses; the brazenness of the operation suggests a new stage in the war, where low-cost drones probe the dominance of multimillion-dollar aircraft.
The exercise directly targeted the core of Russian air capabilities. Olenya, near Murmansk and some 1,200 miles from Ukraine, is the home of Tupolev Tu-95 and Tu-22M3 bombers required to conduct long-range missile missions.
Belaya, in Siberia’s Irkutsk province, more than 2,800 miles from the Ukrainian border, has Tu-95s and An-12 cargo aircraft. Dyagilevo in Ryazan, 320 miles from Ukraine, is used as a strategic bomber training facility, while Ivanovo, 500 miles from Ukraine, and Voskresensk are other support facilities.
Aircraft Destroyed
Ukrainian intelligence sources, as cited by Kyiv Post, report that the SBU launched 117 first-person-view [FPV] drones, which were delivered covertly to Russia in trucks with collapsable roofs, to launch near the airbases. The mission, planned for 18 months and cleared by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and SBU head Lt. Gen. Vasyl Maliuk, was meant to disrupt Russia’s ability to shell Ukrainian cities.
The Tupolev Tu-95, or “Bear” in NATO nomenclature, is a Cold War-era strategic bomber and remains the backbone of the Russian air force. First taking to the skies in 1952, the Tu-95 is a four-engine turboprop with a 164-foot wingspan and 152-foot fuselage, capable of carrying 33,000 pounds of mixed ordnance, including Kh-101 cruise missiles deployed against targets in Ukraine.
The Tu-95 has a range of 9,300 miles and a speed of 510 mph, allowing it to reach distant targets without in-flight refueling, making it useful for strategic operations. Later models, such as the Tu-95MS, have upgraded radar and navigation equipment; the cost of maintaining or replacing each of these, however, is approximately $50 million.
The Tu-22M3 supersonic bomber, which became operational in the 1970s, has a top speed of Mach 1.88 and can carry up to 53,000 pounds of payload, including Kh-32 anti-ship missiles. The Tu-22M3 costs $70 million per unit, supporting the Tu-95 in both strategic and tactical missions.
The Beriev A-50, a $350 million airborne warning and control system, serves as Russia’s aerial surveillance system, guiding air operations through its advanced radar technology. Losing an A-50, of which fewer than 10 are operational, would be a catastrophic loss.
FPV drones used by Ukraine
The FPV drones used by Ukraine, likely including variants such as the UJ-22 Airborne, represent a significant shift in military tactics. The UJ-22, which was developed by Ukrjet, has a 500-mile range and can carry a 44-pound payload that is enough to carry out precision attacks against ground targets, such as aircraft on the ground.
Manufactured in large numbers at a cost of approximately $10,000 each, these drones enable widespread use by Ukraine. The SBU successfully countered range constraints by implementing a strategy that involved launching drones from trucks positioned near airbases, with one pilot operating a single drone using live video feeds for accurate targeting.
Videos released by the SBU, as confirmed by CNN, show planes on fire at Belaya, one of which shows SBU leader Maliuk saying, “How beautiful Belaya airfield looks now.”
Logistically, the operation was impressive; drones were smuggled into Russia in disguised mobile cabins camouflaged as wooden crates and then launched from vehicles parked outside an FSB-owned building, according to Reuters.
Hit over 40 aircraft
The scale of the attack is extraordinary. Kovalenko reported 13 planes destroyed, matching broader SBU accounts. Citing multiple sources, the SBU claimed to have hit over 40 aircraft. These included Tu-95s, Tu-22M3s, Tu-160s, and an A-50.
The SBU estimated damages at $7 billion, equal to 34% of Russia’s cruise missile carriers. Independent confirmation of these numbers is still pending. Video footage on Russian social media, reported by The Guardian, showed bombers burning at Belaya. Smoke rose above the Siberian military base.
Irkutsk Governor Igor Kobzev said drones were launched from a vehicle near Belaya. Russia’s Defence Ministry confirmed strikes on five airbases. It claimed attempts on Ivanovo, Ryazan, and Amur were repelled. The ministry refused to confirm individual aircraft losses. This mirrors its response to Ukraine’s March 2025 strike on Engels airbase that destroyed two Tu-95s.
The mission has major strategic implications. Tu-95 and Tu-22M3 bombers are crucial to Russia’s long-range missile campaign against Ukraine. Missiles from these bombers have devastated Ukrainian infrastructure. Losing 13 to 40 aircraft would severely weaken Russia’s aging bomber fleet.
Soviet era
Russia relies on obsolete platforms from the Soviet era. Sanctions and supply issues hinder Moscow’s ability to replace losses, especially A-50 aircraft.
Ukraine’s Kyiv Post reported strikes also hit fuel storage and runways. This could ground more aircraft for weeks. The timing before peace talks in Istanbul appears deliberate. Zelenskyy demanded a “full and unconditional ceasefire” hours after the operation.
Ukraine has long used drone technology to exploit Russian vulnerabilities. In 2022, drones damaged aircraft at Dyagilevo airbase. In 2024, strikes on refineries disrupted Russian fuel exports. This approach reflects an asymmetrical warfare model—low-cost drones targeting high-value assets.
The Houthis’ 2019 attack on Saudi Arabia’s Abqaiq facility is a clear precedent. Cheap drones caused billions in damage. Azerbaijan’s use of Bayraktar TB2 drones in 2020 disabled Armenian armored forces. Ukraine’s FPV drones add precision strikes at extended range. Operators control them using live video feeds.
America’s $30 million MQ-9 Reaper offers reconnaissance and precision strikes. It lacks the scalability of Ukraine’s $10,000 drones.
Ukraine’s strategy
Economic disparity plays a major role in Ukraine’s strategy. For the cost of one Tu-95 bomber, Ukraine could buy many FPV drones. This allows Ukraine to overwhelm Russia’s defenses with sheer numbers.
If confirmed, the SBU’s $7 billion estimate marks one of Russia’s largest single-day air force losses. The Tu-160, another identified target, costs $250 million and is Russia’s most capable strategic bomber. Russia has only 17 operational Tu-160 aircraft, making each loss significant.
Ukrainian journalist Alexander Kovalenko claimed its involvement would add to Russia’s losses. However, The War Zone notes these claims remain unproven. Russia’s attempts to shield aircraft with tires, as seen in the Belaya video, failed. FPV drones use visual targets instead of radar-based defenses.
Geopolitically, Operation Spiderweb could shift the conflict’s balance. Western allies supplying Ukraine with drones and intelligence may see it as proof of Kyiv’s operational sophistication.
In May 2025, Reuters reported NATO nations provided drone systems like U.S.-made Switchblade drones, similar to Ukraine’s FPV models. The mission’s success may lead to more aid, especially in long-range strike capabilities.
Crimean Bridge
However, escalation risks remain. Past Ukrainian attacks, like those on the Crimean Bridge in 2022 and 2023, triggered Russian retaliation. Moscow’s restrained response so far suggests a calculated counterattack could follow, especially if losses are heavy.
The operation highlights Ukrainian ingenuity. Smuggling 117 drones into Russia disguised in mobile cabin trucks took 18 months of secret planning. The SBU’s ability to operate inside Russia, near an FSB base, shows remarkable boldness.
This approach differs from Israel’s drone strikes on Hezbollah, which use shorter-range, precision-guided weapons like the Harop. Ukraine’s swarm attack targeted several airbases at once, overwhelming Russian defenses designed for larger threats, like missiles. Analysts at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies say Russia’s S-400 struggles against small, low-flying drones.
Russian airbase vulnerabilities
Russian airbase vulnerabilities are now under review. Tyres on aircraft, as seen in Belaya, remain ineffective against visual-targeting FPV drones. The U.S. military faces similar issues.
In 2024, it invested $1 billion in counter-drone technologies, according to Defence News Today.
Russia may need to resupply airbases that are thousands of miles away from the front lines, which would divert resources from offensive combat. The personal cost of the operation is indeterminate, and no casualties have been reported. Prioritizing distant bases probably minimizes civilian damage; however, disruptions to Russia’s air campaign can affect its personnel and logistics systems.
The attack has implications for global military strategy. The United States uses expensive assets such as the $2 billion B-2 Spirit for strategic bombing, as opposed to Ukraine’s $10,000 drones, which have the same effect at a small fraction of the expense.
The Pentagon’s shift towards counter-drone technology reflects a growing acknowledgement of this emerging threat; however, Ukraine’s tactical strategy suggests that in certain situations, prioritizing the sheer number and cost-effectiveness of drones may be more advantageous than focusing on quality. China has modified its DJI Mavic drones, which cost around $1,000, for military applications, thereby democratizing drone warfare.
Operation Spiderweb
The scope and execution of Operation Spiderweb reveal its audacity. Striking airbases more than 2,800 miles away from Ukraine with drones fired from within Russian territory is a courageous development in the war.
They claimed that the destruction of 13 aircraft, and potentially as many as 40 or more, could severely cripple Russia’s air force, which operates antiquated equipment. Military analysts consider the powerful Tu-95 and Tu-22M3 bombers to be irreplaceable in the near term. They also consider the limited number of A-50s a serious concern, making any loss highly significant.
Ukraine’s capability to maintain such military actions, aided by indigenous manufacturing and international assistance, can be a game-changer in the balance of power on the battlefield. But there are questions.
The actual number of planes destroyed remains unknown without independent verification. “Silence” in Russia implies small losses or an intentional policy to minimize perceived effects. World viewers will uncover the true extent of the operation as they search for satellite imagery and open-source intelligence.
Will an aggressive Ukrainian counterattack necessitate a rethink of Russian air defenses, or will it provoke a countermeasure that further escalates the war? It might have a significant bearing on the future of the war and the development of air warfare.
References
- BBC News—Ukraine ‘destroys 13 Russian aircraft in drone strikes’
- Kyiv Post—SBU’s Operation Spiderweb Targets Russian Strategic Bombers
- CNN—Videos Show Russian Bombers on Fire at Airbases
- Reuters—Ukraine’s Long-Range Drone Assault Smuggled Through Russian Borders
- The Guardian—Russia’s Strategic Bombers Hit in Ukraine Drone Strike
- The War Zone—Analysis: What Was Hit in Russia’s Massive Drone Attack?
- Defense News—Why Drones Are Changing the Face of Warfare
- CSIS – S-400 and Its Struggles Against Small Drones
- Facebook—Pakistan Defense Forum Discussion on Operation Spiderweb
- Defence News Today—Strategic Bombers Lost in Ukraine’s Deep Strike
