Why The Planes Russia Lost In Ukraine's Drone Strike Are Such A Big Deal
Codenamed Spiderweb, the Ukrainian operation involved smuggling 150 first-person view (FPV) drones into Russia, which were then hidden within the roofs of wooden cabins. The cabins were then hauled off by cargo trucks by hired Russian drivers who had no idea they'd become accomplices in a strike against their own country. Once those trucks were parked near the target airbases [Kyiv Post], the roofs were remotely opened, allowing the drones to leap out and kamikaze themselves into the parked planes.
Reports indicate that a total of 117 drones assaulted four airbases across the breadth of Russia, damaging or destroying 41 aircraft. While this operation doesn't necessarily change the immediate situation on the ground of the war, it will leave a lasting impact on Russia and, very possibly, the future of warfare. It's a pretty big deal.
Read more: These Are The Cheap Cars That Consumer Reports Actually Recommends Buying
There are a lot of claims flying around about what planes exactly got hit, not all of which have been verified. Thus far, it seems like the losses definitely include Tupolev Tu-95s (pictured), Tupolev Tu22Ms, and Beriev A-50s.
Tu-95s (called "Bears" by NATO) are relics from the 1950s; they don't even use jets, just old-school propellers. Roughly comparable to an American B-52, it is a slow but sturdy heavy bomber. The Tu-22M (called "Backfires") is also a heavy bomber, but has the distinction of being supersonic, capable of flying over Mach 3. They are both capable of firing cruise missiles, and in fact have done so throughout the Russo-Ukrainian War. Critically, they are also nuclear-capable, making them a central part of Russia's claim to superpower status.
A-50s (called "Mainstays"), meanwhile, are airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) planes, analogous to the American E-3 AWACS. These are basically flying radar stations, able to detect enemy planes at vast distances and then coordinate friendly aircraft in the ensuing battle. Without them, fighters and bombers have to rely on their own (puny) on-board radar systems. If Russia ever wants to win an air battle, it needs its A-50s.
There's a saying that fighter pilots make movies, but bomber pilots make history. Strategic bombers are the planes that can deliver huge payloads into a wide area, causing immense devastation. They're how you take out, say, an entire enemy military base. They are also one leg of the so-called nuclear triad, the name of the three ways one country can nuke another: By intercontinental ballistic missile (the big ones in the silos), by submarine, or, in this case, by strat bomber.
To be a major global military power, you have to have a vast fleet of strat bombers. Without them, while you still might be able to conduct smaller strikes against smaller targets, you won't be able to seriously threaten hardened installations from the air, and your nuclear strike capability is curtailed. Operation Spiderweb, therefore, hasn't simply been "another" Ukrainian attack; it has struck a direct blow to Russia's ability to project military force at significant scale. That's bad enough for Russia on its own merits. But it's actually worse than it seems.
So Russia has lost some important bombers. Surely, it will just replace them, right? Well, the country has just one small problem: It can't. The Tu-95 and Tu-22M are not even in production anymore, given that they are both Cold War relics. Russia's modern(ish) strat bomber is the supersonic Tu-160 (called "Blackjack", pictured), somewhat similar to America's B-1B Lancer. The catch is that Russia hasn't actually built a Tu-160 in years, and it won't be cheap or easy to get production back up and running again.
That means the planes that Ukraine destroyed weren't just blows, but permanent blows. The little country has materially weakened the bigger one, not just for this war, but for the foreseeable future. By how much? According to Ukraine, Operation Spiderweb took out a whopping 34% of Russia's entire bomber fleet. One-third. Of its entire bomber fleet. That can't be replaced.
To be fair, it's not yet clear how many of these planes were merely damaged, not destroyed. Some of them will likely be repaired. Then again, there are also unconfirmed reports that Spiderweb also hit some of the precious Tu-160s. If those are also getting taken out, Russia's biggest, most expensive, most devastating planes are getting bombed back into the stone age... by cheap drones.
A Tu-160 heavy bomber costs about $500 million. A first-person view (FPV) drone, like the ones Ukraine used in Spiderweb, costs somewhere around $500. FPV drones are designed to be remote piloted using VR goggles so that you can see exactly what the drone sees, unlike more conventional camera drones that you might watch through your phone. This gives the operator a much more detailed view of where the drone is flying, making them a good choice for racing, exploring or, well, blowing up the nuclear strike capability of a major world power.
Once smuggled into Russia in wooden cabins hauled by unsuspecting Russian truck drivers, the drones were controlled remotely by Ukraine's operatives via Russia's own 4G and LTE cell phone services. Good thing those airbases had excellent reception (or bad thing, if you're Russian). As kamikaze drones strapped with explosives, all the operators had to do was fly them straight at the strat bombers' most vulnerable points, and then, boom.
For what it's worth, immediately after the attack, Russia claimed that it had captured these operators. Ukrainian officials found that interesting, as they replied by saying all the operators were already safely back in their home country.
Operation Spiderweb may well be looked back on as a turning point in the development of warfare. The fact that a global world power's nuclear bombers, some of the most important and expensive assets it has, can be successfully destroyed by a couple of cheap drones signals a sea-change in the balance of combat power. Generally speaking, warplanes were considered broadly safe once parked back at their airbase; that's clearly no longer the case. Countries may have to start investing in hardened aircraft shelters, which will be hugely expensive at scale; simply slapping car tires on the bombers clearly isn't enough. In other words, military aircraft are now getting even more expensive to field, while cheap drones are only getting more capable.
Meanwhile, on June 4, just three days after Operation Spiderweb, Ukraine's Military Intelligence (HUR) conducted a successful cyberattack against the United Aircraft Company, the manufacturer of the Tu-160 bomber and many other Russian planes. HUR made off with 4.4 gigabytes of classified information, leaving only one thing behind: a graphic image of a Russian plane being snatched by a (presumably Ukrainian) owl. First, strike the bombers; then, strike the bomber manufacturer. All with non-conventional weaponry.
Traditional views of military hardpower are being upended by the creativity and heroism of Ukraine's defenders. The future of our world may depend on how other countries, including America, adapt to these lessons.
Not surprisingly, Russian President Vladimir Putin has vowed to retaliate for Ukraine's daring attack. Indeed, on June 7, Russia launched a huge drone and missile strike across Ukraine, hitting the cities of Kyiv, Chernihiv, Lutsk, and others. On June 9, it then launched its single largest drone attack of the entire war; critically, it targeted an airbase far from the border, thus mirroring Spiderweb in that way.
Still, let's be clear: "Single largest drone attack of the entire war" means 479 drones, or just nine more than the previous record-holding strike on May 31, before Spiderweb even happened. In other words, Russia is throwing everything it has at Ukraine on a weekly basis anyway; at least so far, its "retaliations" have been just another day at the office. Putin's war has been so brutal that there may not be much more he can really do.
In the meantime, the ground war grinds on. Peace talks between the two sides in Istanbul continue, so far without much to show for it. The question for Putin is how much of a price he's willing to pay to keep the war going, in exchange for what gains. Spiderweb changes that calculus dramatically. Whether a dictator cares remains to be seen.
Want more like this? Join the Jalopnik newsletter to get the latest auto news sent straight to your inbox...
Read the original article on Jalopnik.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Politico
27 minutes ago
- Politico
Inside Trump world's reaction to the Zelenskyy reset
3. Trump offered to go straight to a trilateral meeting. The senior administration official told POLITICO that when Trump called Putin to offer his presence at a meeting between Zelenskyy and the Russian leader, Putin said, 'You don't have to come. I want to see him one on one.' Trump's team 'started working on that,' the official said. 'Steve Witkoff has the assignment to get it figured [out].' 4. Alaska paved the way for the 'security guarantees' discussion. If there was any concern within the administration about how the Putin meeting in Anchorage went down, Monday all but evaporated it. 'After Alaska, we were excited that Putin was at least talking and there were signs we could negotiate,' a second senior administration official told POLITICO. One of those signs came on the topic of security guarantees: Putin was 'engaging on a conversation about security guarantees instead of, 'Nyet, nyet, nyet,' this second official said. 'If Alaska was not successful and Putin didn't give us a little bit of an opening, we wouldn't have [had] the Europeans at the White House.' Of Putin: 'He'll drive a hard bargain, but that opening is huge.' 5. Those security guarantees could be a sticking point internationally. It remains unclear just how big a commitment the U.S. has on the line here. 'We haven't even started [that discussion] other than a commitment,' the first senior administration official told POLITICO. 'The question is, 'Who participates to what percentage?' But the president did commit that we would be a part of it. No specifics. And then he said he would also help it get organized. And he alone could sell that to Putin. I don't think Putin would pay any attention to the others, and I'm not sure the others would do it without him.' 6. And those same guarantees could be a problem for Trump domestically. Does the administration have a red line when it comes to committing U.S. troops to keep a peace in Ukraine? 'I don't think there's a red line,' the first senior official told POLITICO. 'So I think it just kind of remains to be seen. [President Trump] would like the Europeans to step up. But I think if the last piece of the puzzle was for a period of time to be a part of a peacekeeping force, I think he would do it.' Meanwhile, as European leaders arrived at the White House, MAGA coalition minder Steve Bannon took to his influential 'War Room' podcast to warn about the U.S. security guarantees in Ukraine. 'I'm just lost how the United States offering an Article 5 commitment for a security guarantee to Ukraine is a win for the United States,' Bannon said on his show Monday morning . 'President Trump has done more than enough to bring the parties together,' Bannon told POLITICO late Monday night. 'Once again, this is a European problem; we have all the leverage here. If we don't fund this, it stops happening. The only way this goes forward — the only way this continues every day — is American money and American arms. The Europeans don't have enough either military hardware and/or financial wherewithal.' Bannon said he hopes Trump 'eventually stops listening to the [Sens.] Lindsey Grahams and Tom Cottons and the Mitch McConnells, and realizes that there can't be any guarantee here from the United States, because that's going to inextricably link us to this conflict.' In a Truth Social post on Monday about the next steps, Trump said 'Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, are coordinating with Russia and Ukraine.' That callout was striking. 'That's the first time JD and Marco have been dragged into a big foreign policy issue together,' the second senior administration official told POLITICO. 'If it's JD and Marco and Witkoff, who gets the credit and who gets the blame if it fails? This could be the first test of 2028.' Like this content? Consider signing up for POLITICO's Playbook newsletter.


New York Post
29 minutes ago
- New York Post
Putin and Zelensky could meet within next two weeks thanks to Trump's attempts to end brutal war
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky could meet within the next two weeks thanks to President Trump's efforts to bring an end to the war, according to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. Putin agreed to the potential meeting, which would take place at a location to be determined, during a phone call with the president on Monday, said Merz, who was among a delegation of European leaders who met with Trump and Zelensky in Washington to pledge their support for Ukraine. During a break in the discussions, Trump called Putin who 'agreed that there would be a meeting between the Russian president and the Ukrainian president within the next two weeks,' Merz told reporters. 4 Zelensky visited the White House for a meeting with Trump on Monday, August 18, 2025. 4 Vladimir Putin meets with Yury Slyusar on August 18, 2025. He traveled to Alaska on Friday, August 15, 2025, to meet with Trump. 4 Smoke rising over Kremenchuk, Ukraine, following a Russian attack. via REUTERS Trump proposed such a meeting so that peace negotiations could 'truly begin' three-and-a-half years since Russia's full scale invasion of Ukraine, added Merz. 4 Trump greets Zelensky at the White House on Monday, August 18, 2025. REUTERS However, the announcement about a possible meeting between the warring world leaders comes as Russia unleashed its largest drone attack on its neighbor this month Monday night, sparking concerns that Moscow is not ready for peace. With Post Wires


Chicago Tribune
29 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Jonathan Zimmerman: Liberals have also censored history
In 1874, during the brief era of Reconstruction, white people staged a racist uprising in New Orleans. Angered by the presence of African Americans in law enforcement and other government posts, members of the Crescent City White League stormed the local customs house and killed 11 police officers. Two years later, a contested presidential election led to the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the South and the end of Reconstruction. In 1891, New Orleans erected a memorial to White League members who died in the 1874 riot. And in 1932, the city affixed a plaque to the memorial stating that the 1876 election 'recognized white supremacy in the South and gave us our state.' But you can't see the memorial — or its plaque — in New Orleans any longer. It was taken down in 2017, following years of protest by civil rights advocates. I've been thinking about that episode over the last few months, as President Donald Trump's administration steps up its efforts to purge our historical landscape of anything remotely negative about the United States. In March, it ordered the Smithsonian Institution to eliminate 'improper, divisive or anti-American ideology' from its museums. And in my hometown of Philadelphia, over a dozen displays about slavery at Independence National Park — including an exhibit describing George Washington as an enslaver — have been flagged for review. Like other liberal historians, I'm outraged by Trump's cowardly attacks on our guild. A nation that really believed in its 'greatness' — a term the president loves to use — wouldn't be afraid to confront its worst chapters. But I think my fellow liberals have been complicit — to borrow the term du jour — in historical censorship too. Nobody on my side of the political aisle objected when the New Orleans monument came down. Instead, we celebrated a victory over hate and bigotry. I'm not saying that racist memorials should remain on their pedestals. But when they're pulled down, they should be placed somewhere else where we can see them. Otherwise, we won't learn the awful history they embody. Consider the fate of Silent Sam, the Confederate statue that stood for over a century on the campus of the University of North Carolina. It, too, was built to extol white supremacy: At its unveiling in 1913, a UNC trustee said that Confederate soldiers had 'saved the very life of the Anglo Saxon race in the South.' But in 2018, demonstrators pulled down SIlent Sam. And when UNC Chancellor Carol Folt proposed that the statue be displayed in a museum, the university erupted in yet more protest. In a statement, the university's psychology department said that preserving Silent Sam in any form on campus would 'create a hostile learning environment for black students.' The monument 'undermines our shared community values of equality, respect, and acceptance of all people,' the department added. A few months later, Folt caved and declared that Silent Sam would be removed from campus. Its presence at UNC — even in a museum — posed a threat to the 'well-being of our community,' she said. Sound like anyone you know? In his fulminations against allegedly 'divisive' history, Trump insists that it threatens the entire American community. By casting the United States 'in a negative light,' Trump warns, historians are promoting 'a sense of national shame.' Instead, we should be 'instilling pride in the hearts of all Americans.' In other words: smiley faces only, please. Some things are just too troubling to see. So let's take them down, or blot them out, so we can all feel better. False equivalence alert: Trump is clearly seeking to suppress knowledge of white racism, while the statue protesters were trying — in good faith — to protect nonwhite races from hateful symbols. And he's the president, of course, so he has vastly more power than anybody else. But the upshot is exactly the same: History gets censored. And we condescend to Americans when we imagine they can't handle it. We see a similar dynamic in the ongoing debate over book bans in schools and libraries. I am appalled by recent efforts by right-wing ideologues to remove works by Toni Morrison, Maya Angelou and many others. But where were my fellow liberals when schools were dropping 'The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn' because it uses the N-word 200 times? Sitting on their hands or cheering from the sidelines, as another reminder of racism bit the dust. That was the 'good' kind of censorship, because we did it. And we are good. But every act of historical suppression is bad news, for all of us. That's why I was glad to read that the New Orleans monument will be part of forthcoming exhibit at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles. The exhibit 'reflects on the histories and legacies of post-Civil War America as they continue to resonate today' by displaying 'monuments in the exhibition will be shown in their varying states of transformation,' a museum news release declares. That's precisely why we need to see these symbols: to understand who we are, how we got here and where we need to go. We are in a state of transformation, too, and we must not look away. That's what Trump wants us to do.