Strategic Aviation En Route to Updating
B-1B Lancer over Afghanistan
(no votes) |
(0 votes) |
Research Fellow at the Primakov Institute of World Economy and International Relations under the Russian Academy of Sciences, RIAC expert
Strategic bombers – the oldest and least common component of the nuclear triad – are only in service in the armed forces of the United States and Russia. In the mid-2010s, both countries simultaneously launched programs to update their Cold War aircraft fleet. In addition, China also wants to maintain a battle-worthy Strategic Air Force.
Strategic bombers – the oldest and least common component of the nuclear triad – are only in service in the armed forces of the United States and Russia. In the mid-2010s, both countries simultaneously launched programs to update their Cold War aircraft fleet. In addition, China also wants to maintain a battle-worthy Strategic Air Force.
In the fifteen years following the “debut” of nuclear weapons (NW) in Japan, aircraft appeared to be the only means of NW long-range delivery to destroy enemy administrative, military and industrial centers. Strategic bombers were designed and designated to carry out nuclear strike missions at intercontinental ranges. In the early 1960s, not only the US and the USSR, but also the United Kingdom maintained a large fleet of strategic bombers [1]. Strategic intercontinental bombers for use in a potential European war were complemented by numerous long-range bombers. The US Navy allotted the task of destroying strategic targets to these carrier-based long-range bombers. Both countries engaged in the development of heavy hydroplanes – nuclear bombers.
Rocket and missile engineering dealt a heavy blow to strategic aviation. It appeared that the emergence of intercontinental ballistic missiles made bombers no longer necessary. Contrary to popular belief, Khrushchev was not the only one to be “obsessed with missiles.” The emphasis on missile technology led the US to abandon the development of an advanced B-70 Valkyrie bomber and to replace the B-52 to quickly remove the supersonic B-58 Hustler from service. Moreover, the latest carrier-based bombers A-5 Vigilante were reclassified to be used as reconnaissance aircraft. The Navy concentrated nearly all of its nuclear potential on nuclear submarines equipped with ballistic missiles (SLBM).
The development of anti-aircraft missile systems was the main problem for this type of bombers, as these systems made the classic high-altitude penetration of the enemy’s defenses impossible.
B-52H and Tu-95MS, 1992
However, a solution was found fairly quickly: a low-low attack. Missiles with nuclear warheads increased the efficiency of strategic aircraft as well.
Nevertheless, Britain no longer deploys nuclear weapons for delivery by aircraft and like France has opted for SSBNs. After the “disgrace” of strategic aircraft in the 1970s-1980s, the United States and the Soviet Union began to establish new aviation complexes due to a number of unique features of strategic bombers compared to missile systems.
Some of these features are as follows:
- During a period of threat, strategic bombers can be secretly re-dispersed across multiple airfields, which increases their potential as a response weapon; there are no ways to assure their destruction if nuclear armed bombers are kept on airborne alert;
- Bombers, unlike intercontinental ballistic missiles, can be used numerous times, which makes them an indispensable instrument for “finishing off” the enemy;
- Unlike ballistic missiles, whose launch is almost immediately detected from space and unambiguously interpreted, an aircraft has the ability, under certain conditions, to carry out a surprise attack.
B-52H Stratofortress
Both the US and the Soviet Union faced the problem of the extremely high cost of developing and producing new strategic bombers, which explains why the old platforms that were updated, namely the B-52 and the Tupolev Tu-95, still remain in service. However, now the two countries have to address the problem of the physical aging of a large part of their aircraft fleets. Therefore, to maintain strategic aircraft capabilities at least at the same level, there is no alternative but to develop new aircraft.
The terms of New START (the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) are another incentive for the development of the strategic bombing component of the nuclear triad. According to the Treaty, one warhead will be counted per bomber regardless of how many cruise missiles or bombs it actually carries. Given this, any further justification of the benefits of developing the strategic bombers’ component for enhancing the overall defense capability becomes irrelevant.
The punishing sword of freedom
To maintain strategic aircraft capabilities at least at the same level, there is no alternative but to develop new aircraft.
B-2A Spirit
This affection is due to the fact that the Stratofortress carries the widest range of aircraft weapons; in particular, it is the only US carrier of cruise missiles with AGM-86B ALCM nuclear warheads.
The nuclear-capable strategic bomber force is operated by a separate USAF command, the Air Force Global Strike Command [3]. The strategic aircraft fleet includes the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress subsonic heavy bombers, the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit stealth bombers and the Rockwell B-1B Lancer supersonic bombers.
For many decades, the B-52 has been the “backbone” of the US Strategic Air Command. B-52 bombers of the latest modification were produced in 1961-1962 and are still in service. Therefore, the newest ones are more than fifty years old. However, this aircraft continues to be updated on a regular basis and is scheduled to remain in service until the mid-2040s. The U.S. military has needed to get quite creative to maintain the size of the fleet. So in 2015, the U.S. Air Force resurrected a B-52 bomber that had been in long-term storage at the “aircraft cemetery”, where the military sends aircraft that have been retired from the fleet. This affection is due to the fact that the Stratofortress carries the widest range of aircraft weapons; in particular, it is the only US carrier of cruise missiles with AGM-86B ALCM nuclear warheads. There are 76 bombers currently in service. This is about a tenth of what was produced in the 1950s-1960s (1, 2).
Another symbol of US Strategic aircraft – the B-2A Spirit bomber – is a genuine masterpiece of engineering art. It is the world’s most expensive military aircraft as well. Due to its cost and the collapse of the Soviet Union, only 21 such bombers were produced. Since one B-2 was destroyed in a crash in 2008, a total of 20 B-2s are currently in service in the US Air Force. The bomber’s main armaments are the nuclear gravity bombs B-61 and B-83. It is assumed that its stealth characteristics enable it to penetrate an enemy’s defenses without being observed [4] and to conduct a surprise attack. Attempts were made to equip the bomber with cruise missiles, which encountered not only technical, but political problems as well, related to the reduction of nuclear capabilities (for example, in 2012, the AGM-129 ACM cruise missiles were withdrawn from operational status) [5]. Over the course of regular updates, major efforts have been made to expand the range of conventional weapons on the B-2 platform. It has been planned to make sure that the upgraded B-2 is both flying and relevant through the end of the 2050s.
B-1B training flight
Today the B-1B is probably the best American bomber in terms of effectiveness in local conflicts.
Apart from subsonic B-52s and B-2s, there are 66 supersonic Rockwell B-1B Lancer bombers in service with the US Air Force (25 more are in storage). The situation with this aircraft is somewhat more complicated. It was originally planned that this aircraft would be the main strategic bomber and would replace the B-52 as the carrier of cruise missiles. However, due to a number of difficulties during its development, by the early 1990s, the bomber could confidently carry only nuclear and conventional gravity bombs as well as AGM-69 SRAM missiles, which had a relatively short range and were removed from combat duty in 1990 [6]. Later, many efforts were undertaken to improve its tactical possibilities, and today the B-1B is probably the best American bomber in terms of effectiveness in local conflicts.
At the same time, the importance attached to this bomber as a nuclear deterrent has declined steadily: on the one hand, unlike the B-52 Stratofortress, it cannot carry long-range missiles, and on the other, it can not penetrate the enemy’s defenses without being observed as effectively as the B-2A [7] does, but was taken into account in the overall count of the number of carriers. This explains why the decision was made not to deploy nuclear weapons on the B-1B platform. In agreement with the Russian side and in accordance with New START, after the examination by Russian inspectors, the B-1B will no longer be taken into account in the calculations of the number of carriers. The B-1 bombers’ SIOP (Single Integrated Operational Plan) commitment of the United States ended in October 1997, [8]. The bombers were even withdrawn from the Air Force Global Strike Command, but in 2015, were transferred from ACC to AFGSC under realignment.
B-52 Bomber Air Refueling
Russian experts have repeatedly criticized the decision not to take the B-1B into account as carriers when doing calculations in line with the terms of New START. They pointed out that shifting the B-1B to nuclear missions presented no serious technical difficulties. Letting this statement pass unquestioned, it is worth noting that such actions would be extremely aggressive and provocative (especially if done in secrecy), and would yield little practical results. The nuclear capabilities of the B-1B are quite modest, and the development of air defense systems has made them even more limited.
Hypothetically, if the Americans wanted to secretly increase their nuclear potential, replacing false targets with more warheads on their ballistic missiles appears to be a much more effective measure to this end.
The nuclear capabilities of the B-1B are quite modest, and the development of air defense systems has made them even more limited.
B-2A and two F-22A
Together with the Navy, they make it possible to rapidly project power virtually anywhere in the world.
The above-mentioned three platforms, by complementing each other, play an important role in US military strategy. Together with the Navy, they make it possible to rapidly project power virtually anywhere in the world, and they have the potential to do it even more quickly and with less dependence on the geographical location of the target country. To demonstrate and test such a possibility, during the regional conflicts in recent decades, air strikes have been made not only from the air bases in the vicinity, but from the United States as well. As an example, during Operation Desert Storm, seven B-52Gs took off from Barksdale Air Force base (Louisiana), fired 35 cruise missiles against targets in Iraq and returned home. This turnaround took 35 hours [9].
Several years later, similar raids were carried out by B-1Bs and B-2As during operations in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq. B-2As raids in 2001 set records that still stand. Bombers took off from Whiteman Air Force Base (Missouri), crossed the Pacific Ocean, delivered firepower from the air against targets in Afghanistan, landed on the Diego Garcia atoll in the Indian Ocean, and after a crew change and refueling, returned to Missouri. The flight to the intermediate landing lasted more than 44 hours, and the return home after a 45-minute stop took another 30 hours.
It should also be noted that the striking power of a strategic bomber is significantly higher compared to a tactical aircraft: the former can easily carry the armament of two flights of fighters. A instructive example is as follows: over the first six months of Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq and Syria, a small contingent of B-1Bs stationed in the region flew 18 percent of all strike flights and accounted for 43 percent of the total tonnage of munitions dropped in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. It should also be noted that bombers equipped with modern navigational and sighting containers, electronic warfare systems, and significant reserves of fuel, can do without needing the services refueling and jamming aircraft, as well as those of target designators.
LRS-B Concept image by Northrop Grumman
The US government regards strategic bombers primarily as a tool of conducting conventional weapon strikes quickly, destructively and anywhere in the world. Nuclear capabilities are maintained at the minimum essential level and allocations to them are the first to suffer from budget cuts. The several examples of reducing the number of cruise missiles with nuclear warheads to save money and the costly parallel development of programs to enhance the non-nuclear capabilities of bombers speak for themselves.
The dawn of a new era
The future of US strategic aircraft is closely linked to the acronyms of LRS-B and LRSO.
The LRS-B (Long Range Strike Bomber) [10] is a program to create a long-term strategic bomber, the future B-3, to replace the B-52 and the B-1 bomber fleets. The purchase 80-100 LRS-B aircraft has been planned. The US Air Force plans the bomber’s initial operational capability for the mid-2020s, although this term seems overly optimistic.
B-2A Production, Northrop Grumman
Nuclear capabilities are maintained at the minimum essential level and allocations to them are the first to suffer from budget cuts.
Details of the LRS-B are not currently available due to the utmost secrecy of the program. According to information leaks and stovepiping, it is likely to be a subsonic stealth aircraft, smaller than the B-2. There is little doubt that in the long term, the LRS-B will be optionally-manned, i.e. be able to perform most of its tasks in an unmanned mode, which will further increase the duration and range of the flight. Its certification to carry nuclear weapons will be approved after several years pass from its initial operational capability. The LRS-B will have an open architecture for future features to be developed in phases to save money, as well as to simplify and to speed up development. Despite this, the program is quite expensive: the US Air Force is planning to spend 41.7 billion USD on the LRS-B over the next ten years, i.e. before its mass production. The target price of one bomber is estimated at 550 million USD, although the real figure will certainly higher.
As of today, the program is at the stage of selecting a general contractor: the companies competing for the contract are Northrop Grumman and Boeing/Lockheed Martin. A decision is expected soon. This contract appears likely to be awarded to Northrop Grumman on political and economic grounds. The reason is that today the US military aircraft industry has three “programs of the century” that can ensure the contractor a comfortable existence in the coming decades. Two of them have been awarded to Lockheed Martin (the mass production of the F-35 Lightning II multirole fighter jet) and Boeing (the KC-46 Pegasus multirole tanker). Should Northrop Grumman fail to receive a third contract (LRS-B), there is a high probability of its takeover by one of the winners and of the growing monopolization of the market, which the Defense Department usually tries to avoid. Given the lack of information about the contenders’ proposals, such considerations come to the fore.
The LRSO (Long Range Standoff Weapon) is a program to create a main weapon for the bombers, namely a challenging cruise missile. Two versions are planned – one tactical packed with conventional explosives for non-nuclear attacks and another strategic to carry a nuclear warhead. In the second half of the 2020s, the LRSO is envisioned to replace the Boeing AGM-86B air-launched cruise missile at the ratio of 1:1, which means a total of about 500 “nuclear” missiles. Information about this new missile is scarce: it is known that it would be stealthy, but it is not even known whether it will be a classic subsonic or a supersonic one. However, we can say with confidence that these missiles will be carried not only by the B-52Hs, but by the LRS-Bs, B-2As, and B-1Bs (at least, in the latter’s tactical version). This poses a certain threat, because carrying a modern cruise missile with a nuclear warhead will dramatically enhance the B-1B’s nuclear strike capability. This will necessitate a more serious monitoring of the bomber’s “non-nuclear” status.
Taking all things together, US strategic aviation is set to undergo a major transformation, but in combat units, it will begin no earlier than in 10-15 years. In Russia, such transformation is at the door.
1. The British V-Series (Vickers Valiant, Avro Vulcan, Handley Page Victor) bombers had a rather small range by Soviet and American standards, more suitable for long-range bombers, but thanks to the UK’s geographical position, this range was sufficient to strike the European part of the Soviet Union. In the author’s opinion, this is enough reason to classify these bombers as strategic (by way of exception).
2. The submarine is counted as an n carriers where n is the number of ballistic missiles on it.
3. The Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC) was established in 2009 and is the direct descendant unit of the Strategic Air Command (SAC) (1946-1992). Apart from strategic bombers and their support, AFGSC, as previously SAC, has assumed responsibility for silo-based ICBMs. The United States has no separate branch of the armed forces similar to Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces.
4. According to estimates of the expert community and to certain comments made by the US Air Force representatives, due to the maximized use of the stealth technology, it is more difficult to detect the B-2A than the much smaller in size stealthy F-117s, F-22s and F-35s.
5. Withington Th. B-2A Spirit Units in Combat // Osprey Combat Aircraft. 2006. Vol. 64.
6. Difficulties in its development account for fact that the bomber’s “debut” took place only in 1998 during Operation Desert Fox, although its operational capability was officially recognized in 1986; even then, it dropped unguided gravity bombs Mk.82.
7. The B-1B is equipped with sophisticated tools and instruments of radar-eluding technology. It is believed that in terms of radar signature, the bomber surpasses average fighters, which are much smaller in size. However, this is not enough to effectively penetrate high-tech countries’ air defense systems.
8. In 1961-2003, the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) was a set of operational documents regulating the use of nuclear weapons. In fact, it was the United States’ general plan for nuclear war.
9. United States Strategic Bombers 1945–2012. Defense Lion Publications.
10. This program was previously known as the Next-Generation Bomber (NGB).
(no votes) |
(0 votes) |
