Russia is stepping up Tu-95 flights near its allies. RAF Typhoons and F-16s are responding in Poland and over the Baltic Sea. Technical analysis.
Summary
Russia has stepped up patrols by Tu-95 ‘Bear’ bombers near NATO borders, triggering three successive alerts in three days. RAF Typhoons deployed in Poland and allied F-16s identified and escorted Russian aircraft operating in international airspace but close to the sovereign airspace of Poland and the Baltic States. These flights, sometimes combined with other platforms (Il-20 reconnaissance, Su-24/Su-35 escort, Tu-22M3), are intended to test Allied responsiveness, the quality of low-altitude radar surveillance and decision-making times. The operational impact for the Alliance is concrete: increased air alert frequency, consumption of technical resources (flight hours, fuel, maintenance), and adjustment of rules of engagement to avoid unintended escalation over civilian areas. This cycle of interception also feeds into Russian learning and forces NATO to accelerate sensor fusion and the densification of short-range defences.
The context: Russian patrols skimming Allied borders
The sequence observed corresponds to long-range Tu-95 flights, profiled at the edge of Allied FIRs, with segments over the Baltic Sea and passages tangential to the borders of Poland and the Baltic countries. These aircraft operate in international airspace, sometimes with their transponders inactive and their flight plans unreported or incomplete, in accordance with a practice of political and military pressure that has been in place for years. What is new is the frequency (three scrambles in 72 hours) and the combination of aircraft: ISR aircraft (Il-20), escort fighters and even Tu-22M3 bombers in the same time window. This orchestration broadens the spectrum of radar tracks and increases the correlation load on control centres.
On the allied side, alertness is ensured by NATO Air Policing detachments based in Malbork (Poland), among other locations. RAF Typhoon FGR4 aircraft operate there in QRA posture, supported by A330 Voyager refuelling aircraft, while allied F-16s reinforce coverage to the east. Each alert requires the ramp-up of a joint C2 chain: initial detection (ground radars, passive RF sensors), multi-sensor confirmation, political/military decision, then take-off of interceptors. Monitoring is carried out internationally, without violating civil aviation safety standards. The message is clear but measured: NATO controls its approaches without overreacting.
The vectors: what a Tu-95, a Typhoon and an F-16 will be in 2025
The Tu-95 is a four-engine strategic bomber with Kuznetsov NK-12 counter-rotating propellers. Typical cruising speed: ~830 km/h (≈450 knots), ceiling >10,000 m, range greater than 12,000 km with refuelling (open data). Its radar signature is significant, but its range and payload capacity (air-to-surface/air-to-sea cruise missiles) make it a relevant vector for ‘signalling’ Russia’s presence near key maritime corridors. The MS versions carry Kh-55/Kh-101 missiles with ranges of around 2,500 to 5,500 km. In a reconnaissance mission, the aircraft does not need to arm its payload: it simply needs to be detected.
The RAF Typhoon FGR4 is a supersonic multi-role twin-engine jet. Maximum speed Mach 2, ceiling >15,000 m, CAPTOR-E AESA radar (standard), long-range (Meteor) and short-range (ASRAAM) air-to-air weapons. Its agile airframe and high-performance radar make it an interceptor suitable for slow/low targets as well as fast bombers. The allied F-16 Block 50/52 present in Poland offers similar coverage: AN/APG-68 radar (or AESA depending on batch), maximum speed Mach 2, ceiling ~15,000 m, and AIM-120/9X weapons. In these missions, the primary role is not firing, but visual identification, photography, radio contact, and escort away from sensitive areas. The cost per flight hour is an issue: a Typhoon typically costs over €16,000–€20,000, while an F-16 costs around €7,000–€12,000 (order of magnitude), which explains the search for fine-tuned management of alert cycles.
The ‘how’: detection, scramble, interception and controlled de-escalation
The chain begins with multi-band radar surveillance (low and medium altitudes), supplemented by passive sensors (ELINT/COMINT) and, when engaged, AEW&C. A Tu-95 track is quickly recognised by its ground speed, altitude and signature. Once the track has been qualified, the national authority authorises the scramble. The interceptors climb as quickly as possible, refuelling if necessary, and join the flow to establish VID (Visual Identification). The interception takes place in international airspace, under strict instructions: lateral presentation, respect for separations, brief and professional radio communication. If other Russian aircraft are present (Su-35/Su-30, Il-20), each element of the formation is taken into account to avoid any interpretation of encirclement.
The process includes de-escalation. The objective is not to prevent the flight — it is legal in international airspace — but to signal vigilance, prevent accidental penetration into sovereign space, and collect intelligence (photos, emissions, behaviour). Once the Russian aircraft has returned to Kaliningrad or the high seas, the patrol breaks off. The incident is closed, but it enriches the technical databases (reaction times, routes, profiles).
The ‘why’: what Moscow is seeking to learn and demonstrate
Russia has three objectives. First, to assess NATO’s response: detection times, interception routes, altitude of engagement, patrol composition. Second, to ‘normalise’ the Russian military presence near trade corridors and critical infrastructure in order to test the Alliance’s political endurance. Finally, to feed into real-time tactical learning: which radar band detects earlier, where do coverage ‘valleys’ appear, how do rules of engagement vary between states.
Moscow’s calculation is low cost. A Tu-95 flight mobilises seasoned crews and consumes engine cycles, but weighs much less than a surface naval demonstration. On the other hand, each alert draws on fuel stocks and airframe life hours, and puts pressure on standby crews. It is a hybrid strategy below the threshold: making the enemy pay a logistical and political price without crossing the red line of flagrant violation of sovereign space.
The impact on NATO: operational burden, doctrine and public communication
NATO has to deal with three issues: sustainability, civil flight safety and credible deterrence. On sustainability, the solution lies in pooling resources: alternating assets (Typhoon, F-16, JAS 39, F-35), staggering teams, and integrating more low-cost sensors to reduce dependence on heavy platforms. On security, the priority is low altitude: densifying short-range sensors around sensitive areas, cross-referencing RF/optronics to limit false positives, and integrating fusion algorithms that are resistant to intermittent tracks.
In terms of doctrine, the Alliance is refining alert thresholds and presentation rules to avoid incidents: no aggressive manoeuvres, no radar illumination in firing mode, no unnecessary decoys. In terms of communication, information must be provided without fuelling weariness: publish the facts, reiterate the international nature of the airspace flown over, and avoid sensationalism. The aim is to maintain control of the narrative while showing that capitals remain ready to take stronger measures if a sovereign penetration occurs.
Concrete lessons: what everyone can learn from these three alerts
Russian forces validate planning assumptions: ‘off-peak’ hours perceived by the allies, more sensitive routes, detachment combat readiness times. They also observe the electromagnetic footprint of interceptors and the presence of refuelling aircraft, which is useful for estimating the possible patrol depth. The allies, for their part, are learning lessons about real interoperability: the fluidity of transfers between control centres, the efficiency of supply corridors, the availability of critical parts, and the relevance of pre-deployment simulations.
Another lesson learned relates to the domino effect. Close alerts create a risk of decision fatigue. It is therefore necessary to shorten the detection-decision loop, standardise playbooks according to profiles (slow bomber, fast fighter, ISR aircraft) and provide for graduated responses (short escort, multinational relays, in-depth extension). The more repeatable the response, the less costly it is in terms of decision-making capital.
Immediate prospects: closing the gaps without causing escalation
In the short term, the priority is to fill the gaps detected by these flights: reinforce gap-filling radars below 1,000 m, increase the number of passive sensors on the coastline, and make the bubbles around ports, bridges and air bases more reliable. At the same time, the Alliance must calibrate a response that is ‘predictable for the adversary, sustainable for us’. This means publicly acknowledging that these flights will continue, but that interception will remain systematic, professional and documented. This is the operational language that Moscow understands.
In the medium term, the ramp-up of Eastern Sentry and increased coordination between Poland, the Baltic states, Germany and the United Kingdom should produce a scale effect. If Russia further broadens the spectrum (more Tu-95s, more Tu-22M3s, mixed profiles with drones or Il-20s), the Alliance will have to consider temporary ‘exclusion windows’ around sensitive events and a hardening of naval postures in the Baltic to limit the risk of maritime incidents correlated with air incidents.
Live a unique fighter jet experience