By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following a significant Ukrainian drone attack on June 1st, Russia has relocated its Tu-160 strategic bombers from airbases in Irkutsk and Murmansk to more geographically dispersed locations. These relocations, confirmed via satellite imagery analysis by AviVector, include bases in Anadyr, Kamchatka, and Tatarstan. The move suggests a response to the increased vulnerability of previously positioned bombers following the unprecedented range of the Ukrainian operation. This strategic repositioning aims to improve the security of Russia’s long-range aviation assets.
Read the original article here
Russia’s relocation of its strategic bombers following Ukraine’s daring drone attack, dubbed the “Spider’s Web,” highlights the evolving nature of modern warfare. The attack’s success, striking targets up to 6,500 kilometers from the border, underscores the vulnerability of even seemingly well-protected assets to asymmetric warfare tactics. This long-range capability renders the concept of a truly “safe” location questionable, particularly when facing sophisticated drone technology.
The Russian government’s response, while possibly motivated by genuine security concerns, also carries significant implications for domestic messaging. The significant damage inflicted and the difficulties faced by Russian state media in downplaying the event likely contributed to the decision to relocate these valuable assets. The move is predominantly viewed as a cost-cutting measure – avoiding the destruction of multi-million dollar bombers by relatively inexpensive drones.
One immediate consequence of this relocation is the increased logistical challenge of launching attacks against Ukraine. The longer distances involved will inevitably lead to increased wear and tear on the aircraft, higher fuel consumption, and a greater need for maintenance, potentially resulting in more aircraft being out of service. The concentration of these bombers in a new location also presents a tempting target for future attacks, negating any perceived safety gained through relocation.
The narrative surrounding the relocation suggests a certain degree of desperation. Speculation abounds regarding the ultimate aim of the move. Some believe it was a strategic blunder, effectively presenting a more concentrated and vulnerable target. Others posit that the move was a deliberate attempt to concentrate the bombers near supporting infrastructure and away from the existing, compromised sites.
Despite the risk, the relocation is not simply about reducing losses. It reflects the necessity of maintaining Russia’s strategic air power for multiple purposes. These bombers are essential not only for offensive operations against Ukraine but also for deterring perceived threats from NATO and China. The uneven distribution of bombers created by the Ukrainian attack disrupts this balance, forcing a re-evaluation and readjustment of strategic deployments.
The situation mirrors the strategic positioning of US F-22 interceptors in Alaska, a location not primarily intended for operations in regions like Afghanistan or Iraq, but rather for countering threats from Russia and China. This illustrates the complexities of modern military strategy, requiring a balance between reacting to asymmetric threats and maintaining a credible deterrent against peer rivals.
However, the belief that relocation solves the problem is naïve. The initial attack showcased the limitations of traditional defense strategies in the face of advanced drone technology. It highlights the significant challenges Russia faces in protecting these expensive assets against increasingly sophisticated and long-range drone capabilities.
There is a consensus that any relocation will be temporary, and the relocated bombers will remain vulnerable. The potential for future attacks remains high. The difficulty in securing these new locations against covert drone deployments will likely force the adoption of new defensive strategies, focusing on better detection and defense technologies and enhanced protective measures for the aircraft themselves. Even hardened bunkers and keeping the bombers out of sight are seen as temporary solutions. The entire relocation effort might, in the end, boil down to a costly temporary fix.
Ultimately, the relocation of Russia’s strategic bombers exemplifies the changing dynamics of modern warfare and the persistent challenge of protecting high-value assets in the face of advanced, asymmetric threats. The effectiveness of the Russian response remains to be seen, but it’s clear that the “Spider’s Web” attack has fundamentally altered the strategic calculus of the conflict. The long-term implications for Russia’s military posture and its ability to project power are significant and uncertain.