What's up with Russian long-range aviation?
Naturally, after another incident near Irkutsk (and this isn't the first) involving a Tu-22M long-range bomber, this aircraft has naturally attracted some attention. This is especially true since this is the third Tu-22M crash at the Belaya airbase in the Irkutsk region since 2022. And the causes of the crash are the same: engine(s) failure.
Let's take a look at the Tu-22M loss statistics that the other side is providing. This is interesting for several reasons, the most important of which is being voiced in the West today: Russia's long-range aviation has suffered such losses since the beginning of the air defense that it, YES, can no longer be considered a full-fledged form of the Aerospace Forces and, accordingly, it poses absolutely no threat to anyone.
According to Western data, the list of Tu-22M losses looks like this:
- December 2022, 3 Tu-22M3 were damaged at the Dyagilevo airbase;
- August 2023, one Tu-22M3 was destroyed and two more were damaged at the Soltsy airbase;
- April 2024, Tu-22M crashed in Stavropol Krai while returning to base;
- July 2024, 2 Tu-22M3 were damaged at the Olenya airbase;
- August 2024, Tu-22M crashed in the Irkutsk region;
- April 2025, Tu-22M crashed in the Irkutsk region;
- June 2025, as a result of Operation Spider Web, 12 Tu-22M3s were destroyed at the Olenya, Belaya and Dyagilevo airbases;
- June 2026, Tu-22M3 crashed in the Irkutsk region.
The list is, of course, debatable; there's nothing to be said. Three Tu-22Ms damaged at Dyagilevo don't equal three destroyed. While some of the more rabid believe (and the more rabid, the more peculiar their beliefs, there are some) that a total of 24 Tu-22M3s have been destroyed or damaged since 2022, that doesn't prove anything.
Defense believes that "Tu-22 production in any modification ceased in Russia in 1993, and there are still no plans for a replacement, even in the near future. Therefore, spare parts are extremely limited, so even minor damage could lead to the write-off of the entire Tu-22M3."
This is, of course, more of a pipe dream. Almost five hundred Tu-22Ms were produced, so even if we assume that only about 10% of the original number remain in service, spare parts were readily available. Furthermore, as practice has shown, Kazan's warehouses are capable of building Tu-160s from Soviet-era components. But that's just theory; in practice, things are a bit more bleak.
It is possible, of course, that some wear and tear on the aircraft may occur, but comparing the Tu-22M with truly long-lived aircraft like the B-52 and Tu-95 is somehow inappropriate, because the youngest Tu-22M is “only” 43 years old, which is in no way comparable to these strategic monsters.
In short, let's leave it at that: we have no data on the inventory in KAPO's warehouses, and they have no evidence that the warehouses are empty. Let's assume the truth lies somewhere in the middle: spare parts are available; it's just a matter of quantity and quality. Otherwise, the Tupolevs would simply stop flying, which, admittedly, isn't happening.
Then we have real losses. Of course, for the other side it's very pleasant to say that there are no spare parts, there's nowhere to get them from, because UAV hits the wing and the plane is scrapped because it cannot be repaired.
Well, that's the ideal. In reality, the wings are repaired, taken from previously decommissioned aircraft, and so on. If there's one thing we can do, it's to tinker with things so well that the result is just as good as the factory's.
So, let's take the initial figure of 24 aircraft and start to think about it a bit. Yes, considering that the Aerospace Forces have about 50 Tu-22M aircraft in total, 24 is a terrifying figure, indicating that half of our Long-Range Aviation is all we have.
Three damaged Tu-22Ms in Dyagilevo in December 2022. A daring raid, but the UAVs of that time are no match for today's, so it's not worth taking seriously the claims that these aircraft will never return to service. Yes, they did hit the wings, but somehow there's a strong belief that all of these were repairable, mainly due to the frankly weak warheads of the Ukrainian drones. So, we're not counting them.
August 2023, Novgorod Oblast, Soltsy Air Base. The supposed "one Tu-22M3 destroyed and two more damaged" seems easy to write, as the sabotage group that launched the drone couldn't possibly have destroyed three aircraft with a single craft. Damaging one before it was written off due to a fire—yes, that's believable, especially since the Russian Ministry of Defense confirmed the damage. But three... Let's count one aircraft, especially since it all seems plausible.
In April 2024, a Tu-22M crashed in the Stavropol region while returning to base. Ukrainian media rushed to tell the world they had shot it down. rocket S-200 SAM system. Okay, so the A-50 was shot down over the Sea of Azov near Crimea, and it was believable because the probable range there was 170-190 km. The Krasnogvardeisky District of Stavropol Krai is at least 400 km away, no matter what the scenario, and that's not a distance for the S-300 missiles. The 5V28M could fly about 300, but that's still not enough. So, they lied, it was for a technical reason, but yes, the plane was lost.
In July 2024, two Tu-22M3s were damaged in an attack on the Olenya Air Base in the Murmansk Region. There was no confirmation from the Russian Ministry of Defense, but there was video evidence from surveillance cameras. drones This can't be taken as 100% certain, as will be discussed below. So, it's impossible to claim that the planes were actually damaged.
In August 2024, a Tu-22M crashed in the Irkutsk region. The loss is undeniable.
April 2025, Tu-22M crashed in the Irkutsk region.
June 2025, Operation "Spiderweb." The Olenya, Belaya, and Dyagilevo airbases were attacked. According to the Ukrainian side, 12 Tu-22M3s were destroyed and at least 10 damaged at the three bases.
Here, where the greatest losses are on paper, things are very complicated. Even the Americans and British, analyzing the undoubtedly successful and impressively complex operation, noted that the Ukrainian drones misfired numerous times. That is, the drone actually landed on the plane, but there was no confirmation of fire, debris, and so on.
Therefore, the data varies depending on who compiled it.
On June 3, the General Staff of the Ukrainian Armed Forces announced the destruction of 41 Russian aircraft during the attacks on June 1. This is one extreme.
Pro-government Russian Telegram channels estimated losses at four Tu-95s, five Tu-22M3s, and one An-12. Let's take these figures as the second pole; the Russian Ministry of Defense, naturally, didn't surprise anyone with these figures.
And the analysis by the British International Institute for Strategic Studies could be taken as the middle ground, that is, as what could be called an independent assessment. It's an old organization, and it doesn't like us very much, but they know how to count; we've used their data more than once when calculating air losses on both sides. It's very close to the truth, confirmed.
An employee of this organization, Joseph Dempsey, published an analysis of satellite images from Planet Labs, Maxar, and SBU video recordings, according to which the confirmed losses of Russian aviation amounted to four destroyed and two damaged Tu-22M3.
Dempsey's data is fully consistent with the assessment of NBC News military experts: three Tu-22Ms at the Belaya airbase and one at the Olenya airbase. Both sides agreed that video evidence is missing for approximately 15 impacts.
Total: 4 aircraft.
June 2026, Tu-22M3 crashed in the Irkutsk region.
So what's the bottom line? Looking beyond the Ukrainian lens, out of the 24 destroyed Tu-22Ms, only nine remain. And yes, some of the aircraft are undergoing long-term, or even very long, repairs. Perhaps there are more than five, perhaps not.
Moreover, the Aerospace Forces lost four aircraft in accidents due to technical reasons, and five to enemy action. Overall, the situation is dire, because when you lose almost as many to your own forces as to the enemy, it's a very, very serious matter. Especially considering that all four accidents were apparently caused by engine failures.
There have been numerous reports that the NK-25 engines powering the Tu-22M are experiencing a severe shortage of spare parts, which cannot be replenished due to a lack of production. Engine production took place at the Kuibyshev Engine Plant (Kuibyshev NPO Trud) from 1977 to 1996, after which the assembly tooling was dismantled and scrapped as unnecessary.
And in general, there's some truth to those who said that a damaged Tu-22M is practically destroyed. It depends on where the damage is.
How deadly is it for Long-Range Aviation?
As of February 2025, The Military Balance estimates that the Russian Aerospace Forces had 55 Tu-22M3 bombers in service. This is consistent with our own data. Since then, the Aerospace Forces have lost another six of these aircraft destroyed and up to four damaged in crashes and attacks by the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
This means that the Russian Aerospace Forces may only have 45 Tu-22M3 bombers remaining in service. However, it's worth noting that some of these are currently inoperable, undergoing repairs, and some may have been used as spare parts donors for others, but are still considered operational on paper.
Some foreign experts estimate the number of Tu-22M3s in combat readiness at 27-33. The remainder are undergoing various repairs following damage in an attack, routine maintenance, major overhauls, modernization, and so on.
Given this scenario, the losses inflicted by Ukrainian drones are, of course, significant—essentially 10% of the total number of bombers.
But the losses from natural wear and tear of aircraft are no less impressive.
Even if, to the great delight of the enemy, we assume that all Tu-22M3s that were destroyed on the ground as a result of Ukrainian forces' operations were in good condition, and the damaged aircraft could not be repaired, the Aerospace Forces could currently have approximately 30–35 operational bombers of this type.
Whether this is a lot or a little is a difficult question. It's not numbers that make war, but people and equipment. For people and aircraft to fight effectively, many things are needed, first and foremost, the ability to maintain combat-ready equipment.
Forty years isn't that long for a bomber. The question isn't the number of years, but the amount of money and spare parts spent on a particular aircraft over those 40 years. The accidents and disasters that occur with enviable regularity with the Tu-22M indicate that not all is as good as hoped. The situation with engines is particularly distressing, as it's unlikely that a completely destroyed production facility will be revived, as happened in Kazan.
In reality, drones and special forces from the other side aren't as scary as they make out. For every special forces force, there's a counterforce; drones are shot down, and aircraft are hidden in shelters and hangars, if they exist. In other words, some resistance can be put in place, and it is being put in place.
It's hard to say what can be done against engines that have no power and, worst of all, will never have any. Flying on willpower is not an option; technology doesn't understand the word "necessary." Since 2022, five aircraft accidents and crashes have claimed the lives of six people. That's an unacceptable number.
The saddest thing is that there's absolutely nothing to look forward to: the PAK DA project was canceled, or rather, Putin ordered it canceled, without much explanation. Apparently, things are really bad there, though our aviation industry hasn't had much success in a long time.
So, what's with Russia's Long-Range Aviation, as the title suggested? It's alive. It operates to the best of its ability and according to orders, and it's effective. But the fact is that the Russian Aerospace Forces' Long-Range Aviation is practically wearing out its last Soviet-era aircraft. Of the 500 Tu-22Ms of all variants, only one-tenth of the original number remains. There won't be any new ones; there's simply nothing left to assemble them from.
They say there is a fairly large backlog of fuselages, which would allow for the assembly of a number of new aircraft, as happened with the Tu-160, but the question of engines...
The issue of aircraft engines has been a curse, from the first Soviet aircraft to the present day. But it must be addressed, because without engines, long-range aviation won't just cease to be long-range—it will cease to exist.
Information