Military Review

The National Interest: how B-21, B-2 and B-52 will be able to bomb Russia and China

43
A few days ago, official Washington published a new Nuclear Policy Review, which addresses various US security issues. Among other topics in the document are projects of a promising long-range bomber and a new weapons for him. The American publication The National Interest studied the available information and based on it tried to compose the current picture. The topic of his new article was promising means of destruction, which will have to use the American long-range aviation in the distant future.


An article under the traditionally screaming title “How can the B-21, B-2 and B-52 Can Bomb Russia or China” (“How America is going to be sure that B-21, B-2 and B -52 will be able to bomb Russia and China ") was written by the regular author of the publication Dave Majumdar. It was published on 7 February under the headings of The Buzz and Security, and without reference to a specific region. The title of the material does not fully disclose its topic, because of all aspects of the use of long-range aviation, only the topic of new ammunition is considered.



D. Majumdar begins his article with a reminder of current plans and their consequences. He points out that the Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider long-range bomber, which has not yet managed to exit the design stage, should ultimately become the basis of the air component of the American strategic nuclear forces. Nevertheless, even B-21, despite the newest developments in the field of stealth, over time will lose its potential to break through the enemy's air defense. Russia and China will continue their work in the field of air defense systems, and therefore B-21 with time will hardly be able to penetrate the protected area with impunity. In this regard, the Pentagon is currently developing a new Long-Range Stand-Off (LRSO) cruise missile, which will become the "partner" of a promising bomber.

Further, the author cites a fresh review of the nuclear policy, revealing the plans of the US military in the field of strategic aircraft weapons. The document states that the LRSO project is designed to ensure the ability of bombers to use strike weapons capable of solving problems in the conditions of the use of advanced air defense by the enemy. Such weapons in the future will maintain the combat effectiveness of the aircraft at the required level.

The new aircraft missile, as the author notes, will also be able to contribute to fleet available long-range bombers. Until a certain time, the basis of such an aviation group will remain “ancient” Boeing B-52 family vehicles in the amount of 46 units and 20 newer Northrop Grumman B-2A. This situation will continue until the troops receive a sufficient number of new B-21s.

A review of nuclear policy indicates that the rearmament of strategic aviation with Long-Range Stand-Off missiles is of crucial importance in the context of ensuring sufficient effectiveness of the bombers. This will preserve the desired potential even in the conditions of the development of the air defense of a potential enemy, as well as increase the flexibility of the use of aviation. In particular, the LRSO missiles will allow old B-52H aircraft to remain an effective element of strategic nuclear forces and to maintain their combat potential in case of unforeseen technical or geopolitical problems.

Long-range bombers B-52 and B-2 still retain the required combat effectiveness, but the defenses of the likely enemy are not in place. The development of air defense systems leads to an increase in their capabilities and turns out to be a serious conclusion for strategic aviation. As a result, the US Air Force needs a new bomber.

D. Majumdar again quotes the Nuclear Policy Review. This document indicated that the continued improvement and proliferation of air defense systems, combined with the gradual obsolescence of the B-52H and B-2 aircraft, as well as the ALCM missiles, necessitated the creation of new aircraft. All of these factors have become prerequisites for the launch of the next generation bomber development, construction and deployment program called the B-21 Raider. According to the Survey, in the mid-twenties, the first aircraft of this type will have to enter service. First, they will complement the equipment used in the troops, and then replace it.

However, the B-21 bomber, which has not yet been created, is already facing certain problems in the context of combat use. This was repeatedly mentioned in the past by US military officials; the same topic is raised in the fresh review of nuclear policy. Even an improved and sophisticated B-21 will not in all cases be able to break through a developed echeloned air defense system of a potential enemy. Over time, this problem will become increasingly urgent.

D. Majumdar recalls that the B-21 Raider bomber is actually created as part of a large shock system, including various means and equipment samples. Together, all elements of such a system will be able to penetrate the protected area and destroy the indicated targets. In this case, the Long-Range Stand-Off rocket, included in the B-21 ammunition, will, among other things, become a means of ensuring subsequent strikes of tactical or strategic aircraft.

A review of nuclear policy also indicates that B-21 will be able to use not only LRSO missiles. It will be possible to place free-falling bombs or other weapons into the cargo compartments of such an aircraft. In this case, the greatest combat effectiveness will be achieved precisely with the use of promising cruise missiles.

According to existing plans, the "debut" of a promising aircraft in the air force should be held in the middle of the next decade. Most of the information about the program B-21 is still classified, but now, as noted by the author of The National Interest, we can say that the pace of its implementation is far from the desired. The project may encounter certain problems in the context of graphics.

According to the Nuclear Policy Review, delays in work on the B-21 or advanced weapons designed for this aircraft will reduce the potential of the US Air Force. These problems, first of all, will limit the possibility of long-range aviation in the matter of breaking through enemy air defense. In addition, the choice of options for action in certain conditions will be limited. Finally, the ability of the American army to send "visible signals of containment" to a potential enemy, which is precisely what strategic bombers are best suited for, will be under attack.

After reviewing the latest figures provided by official sources, Dave Majumdar draws conclusions. He believes that the Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider program is important to the security of the United States. It is imperative that this project succeed and lead to the desired rearmament of the air force. Even if the project requires extreme pressure and a lot of effort from the Air Force, it should be completed.

***

The article “B-21, B-2 and B-52 Can Bomb Russia or China” once again raises the topic of promising American projects B-21 and LRSO, and again examines their importance for the development of US forces in the desired direction. At the same time, it takes into account the latest official reports on two projects published in the framework of an extensive document on the nuclear weapons policy.

The conclusions of D. Majumdar, made on the basis of known and new data, are obvious. Having received the B-21 Raider bomber and the LRSO rocket, the United States Air Force will retain the possibility of an advanced enemy defense lay-through of a potential enemy, including with a reserve for the distant future. If the promising project does not end in success, the American army will face serious problems and lose some of its strike potential. For this reason, according to the author, the work must be completed without thinking about the difficulties and problems.

It is curious that the title of the article mentions hypothetical attacks on objects of Russia and China. In the publication itself, however, a similar topic is raised only indirectly. The topic of attacking targets covered by a developed air defense system is repeatedly raised, but to whom they belong is not specified. However, the well-known information about the programs of building air defense leaves no doubt and makes you remember the screaming title.

Recall, the current plans of the Pentagon include the development and launch of mass production of the promising long-range bomber B-21, in fact, representing a further development of the already known ideas. The basic concept of this machine is based on the refined ideas of the existing B-2 aircraft. Like its predecessor, the new B-21 will have to secretly go to a given area and launch rockets or drop bombs. Its main objectives in this case will be objects of air defense. Suppression of anti-aircraft systems will ensure a more secure operation of other attack aircraft.

The contract to create the project B-21 was signed in October 2015. By now, according to various sources, the Northrop Grumman development company has managed to do some work, but overall the project is still far from completion. Construction and testing of the first experienced bomber is attributed to the first half of the twenties. By the middle of the decade, it is planned to build and transfer to the customer the first production machines of a new type.

In mid-January, the command of the US Air Force announced a possible shift in deadlines. At that time, there were disagreements among congressmen on the future defense budget. Excessive activity of supporters of reducing spending on the army could lead to a reduction in the costs of promising projects. Among other things, the result of this could be the inhibition of work on a B-21 bomber with a certain shift in timing.

One of the main armaments of the aircraft B-21 Raider should be a Long-Range Stand-Off cruise missile (LRSO). Work on these weapons started at the beginning of the current decade, but has not yet reached the final stages. So, it was originally supposed to start designing a rocket in 2015, but for a number of reasons, the launch dates for development have shifted. Preliminary study of the project continued until the 2017 year. Only in August last year, contracts were signed for the creation of preliminary projects.

In accordance with the agreements from 24 August 2017, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon to 2022 will have to develop and present their options for a promising cruise missile, after which the Pentagon will choose the most successful one. All the necessary research and development work is planned to be completed over the next decade. Not later than 2030, the United States Air Force plans to receive the first LRSO serial missiles.

In terms of tactical niche, the LRSO rocket will be a replacement for the existing AGM-86 ALCM. At the same time, a promising product will have the most serious advantages. The current ALCM can only be used by B-52H bombers, while the LRSO project provides full compatibility with existing B-2A vehicles and the promising B-21 Raider.

Both promising projects are still at the stage of shaping the appearance and elaboration of technical documentation. In addition, most of the information about them is still classified. The developers of the bomber have already published his image, as well as clarified some technical characteristics. Accurate information about the rocket for the new aircraft has not yet been given.

Like any other promising projects, the B-21 Raider bomber and Long-Range Stand-Off cruise missiles face certain challenges. At the same time, such projects relate to the field of strategic armaments, and therefore differ in particular importance for national security. As D. Majumdar noted in the finale of his article, these projects must be completed in any conditions, even if they require special exertion of forces.


The article "How America is going to be sure that B-21, B-2 and B-52 can bomb Russia and China":
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-america-plans-make-sure-the-b-21-b-2-b-52-can-bomb-24398
Author:
43 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Vard
    Vard 12 February 2018 07: 41
    +5
    Yeah ... Like in a fairy tale ... Everything is more and more frightening ... But one thing calms down ... What they have tomorrow .. We ... TU-160 is already flying ...
    1. Dimontius
      Dimontius 12 February 2018 16: 53
      +3
      "Step to the war", "War is just around the corner" ... maybe something simpler will you write in the browser notification? During the Cold War, every day would shout "War !! War!" ??? Slow down, I would not want to delete you from the browser. stop PS all the more observing Mundjabar from NI lol
  2. tchoni
    tchoni 12 February 2018 08: 23
    0
    Again, "passion for the strategist"! -) Which the star-striped little robots, in fact, do not need ... But the grandmother to beat out the Congress ...
  3. prior
    prior 12 February 2018 09: 17
    +6
    "B-21, B-2 and B-52 will be able to bomb Russia and China" - maybe they can do it, but who will give them ?!
    They can even take off, and then there will be nowhere to land .....
    1. alstr
      alstr 12 February 2018 10: 42
      0
      By the way, the translation is incorrect. OR is an “or,” not an “AND.”
  4. astepanov
    astepanov 12 February 2018 09: 36
    +10
    I remember when the Americans "effectively" bombed Vietnam, they dropped a fair share of the bombs on Laos, because they were afraid to fly to their airfields with unexpended ammunition. In this regard, Europeans should think: will they not receive “gifts” from their partners?
  5. fighter angel
    fighter angel 12 February 2018 10: 23
    +4
    Ahhh, so the author of the article is Dave Majumdar ... That's it. Seriously, in principle, few take it. I immediately recall Mikhail Nikolsky in AiK, wow and he loves to “carry” it very much and bring this “X-fart” to the clear water ...
  6. Firework
    Firework 12 February 2018 11: 09
    +1
    we have a Tu-160M ​​they have a B-21, they also reasonably decided to update the old one, it’s not impressive, but it’s real
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 12 February 2018 11: 39
      +7
      Quote: Salute
      we have a Tu-160M ​​they have a B-21, they also reasonably decided to update the old one, it’s not impressive, but it’s real

      Yeah .. V-21 how much?
      1. Firework
        Firework 12 February 2018 12: 03
        +1
        there is nothing fundamentally new in B-21, the difference between B-2 and B-1 is noticeable
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. Firework
            Firework 12 February 2018 13: 22
            +1
            Avatar from Generals?
            1. The comment was deleted.
          2. sgrabik
            sgrabik 12 February 2018 14: 02
            -1
            On any nut there is always a bolt with the desired thread.
          3. Sergey39
            Sergey39 12 February 2018 14: 42
            0
            This is the coating - which is peeling off from the rain?
          4. meandr51
            meandr51 12 February 2018 17: 56
            0
            What, and after the rain?
          5. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 12 February 2018 20: 59
            +3
            Quote: Westfshoke
            The new RAM CTN absorbs all wavelengths efficiently and meter including

            And even meters? Wow, this is nonsense ... did the Americans manage to deceive the laws of physics? Can you read the link about this wonderful cover?
      2. Lycan
        Lycan 12 February 2018 16: 43
        0
        Quote: NEXUS
        Yeah .. V-21 how much?

        Wouldn't they print if not enough? smile
  7. NEXUS
    NEXUS 12 February 2018 11: 38
    +5
    "How America Plans To Make Sure the B-21, B-2 and B-52 Can Bomb Russia or China" ("How America is going to be sure that B-21, B-2 and B-52 will be able to bomb Russia and China ”) was written by the regular author of the publication, Dave Majumdar.

    And after that we are Axis of Evil? Let these bombers first go through our air defense and missile defense, and then we'll see. It has long been no secret that stealth is not a hindrance to our air defense and missile defense systems, from the word at all.
    Well, for now, on the basis of X-101/102, we will make extended range missiles and see who will bomb anyone there.
    1. sgrabik
      sgrabik 12 February 2018 14: 01
      -1
      After the adoption of our new S-500 air defense systems, they will lose the very last meager chances to overcome our air defense.
  8. Old26
    Old26 12 February 2018 12: 12
    0
    Again this one by Dave Majumdar. Some kind of graphomaniac. A lot of letters and a minimum of thoughts ..

    Quote: tchoni
    Again, "passion for the strategist"! -) Which the star-striped little robots, in fact, do not need ... But the grandmother to beat out the Congress ...

    He is needed. Technology has a tendency to become obsolete. The old B-52 is already under 70, the B-1 is already around 40, and the B-2 is also already 30 years old. Change is necessary.
    But do we need a new PAK YES or do TU-95MS, why build a new TU-160M2, when you can upgrade the old ones to the level of 160M. However, we plan to adopt it. Just like them
    1. Lock36
      Lock36 12 February 2018 13: 12
      +6
      Quote: Old26
      Why build a new TU-160M2, when you can upgrade the old ones to the level of 160M.

      The problem is that the Tu-160 is very, very small ....
      1. sgrabik
        sgrabik 12 February 2018 13: 52
        -1
        By the time of creation and adoption by the Americans of their V-21, we will already have more than enough new modifications of the Tu-160M2, since this whole thing will drag on for 7-8 or maybe for all ten years.
        1. Lock36
          Lock36 12 February 2018 16: 10
          +2
          I do not mind - there a friend asks why new to build, I answered him.
    2. sgrabik
      sgrabik 12 February 2018 13: 57
      +2
      PAK YES is a distant prospect, not earlier than 2030, until this moment a new modification of the Tu-160M2 will be produced, but we have almost nothing to upgrade, the Tu-160 is in flight condition with only 15 aircraft, and it is necessary to have at least 55 - 65 of such bombers .
  9. Sharikov Polygraph Poligrafovich
    Sharikov Polygraph Poligrafovich 12 February 2018 12: 32
    +3
    But about 10 years ago, if anyone remembers, the exact same praises as the non-existent B-21 today were sung by the current poor-flying hippo F-35 :-)))))
    The reality turned out to be completely different ...
    And I also remembered at first the booster and soon buried helicopter "Comanche" ... :-)))
    Ahahahaha ...
  10. sgrabik
    sgrabik 12 February 2018 13: 47
    -1
    Majmudar forgot to mention one thing, but the most important fact, while this virtual bomber with its even more virtual new weapons appears in the metal and is adopted by the U.S. Air Force, by this moment we have already implemented and tested means of effective counteraction and destruction of all this American expensive trash, the American program for the creation and implementation of the B-21 will be very expensive and will stretch for decades, but we, too, will not sit idly by and indifferently watch all this.
  11. groks
    groks 12 February 2018 14: 44
    0
    There is a wonderful story online about how the British bombed the Falklands. It is a strategist.
  12. krokus792
    krokus792 12 February 2018 15: 11
    +1
    Neither Russia nor China is a banana country. And with impunity they will not allow mattresses to bomb themselves. This is an axiom. It's time to drive it into their heads with a "mace" for example.
  13. gromoboj
    gromoboj 12 February 2018 15: 17
    0
    And what about the B21 cruise missile will enter already? I didn’t get into B2 and he just threw bombs.
  14. Gogi bresner
    Gogi bresner 12 February 2018 15: 53
    +1
    it's time for the Yellowstone volcano to gasp.
    1. tol100v
      tol100v 12 February 2018 17: 07
      0
      Quote: Gogi Bresner
      it's time for the Yellowstone volcano to gasp.

      "Craving" is not necessary, he is smart! And everything shows that he was tired of the "exceptional"!
  15. Aleksandr Rubin
    Aleksandr Rubin 12 February 2018 17: 03
    +1
    The United States will never fight against RUSSIA, I mean there will be no armed clashes.
    The Russian Federation may say that the bones will not collect their own.
    And in terms of the economy and in all spheres of influence, they can, because they know that Russia cannot answer with anything substantial.
  16. istepanov
    istepanov 12 February 2018 17: 11
    0
    This is our hypersound, This is our Stalingrad!
    In conceptual logic, there is an airplane explosion (70 people) with the shamelessly insolent allegations of the Sledkom and the Ministry of Transport about the loss of the second recorder and the explosion of an airplane when it hits the ground, when all the details indicate the opposite. Such an appropriate fire in the Cosmos hotel is the most reliable links in one chain, deliberately showing the Russophobic roots of the criminal system of government of the country for which 70 people are killed in order to cover WHAT ???
    A ousted tractor driver or an incomprehensible PMC incident in Syria?
    Not important! In any case, this is manifested - the anti-Jewish Jewish gut, slightly adhering to the framework of the law, in order to ensure state security, must be removed from the structure of state administration. And to replace the liquid-minded chair, transparently convened by the Imperial Intellectuals, the Higher Governing Council of Ministers (the new supreme authority) with the real Sochi Putin, and not this Zhid-Peskov puppet, composed of N. Azarov, A. Lukashenko, R. Kadyrov, S. Shoigu, D Rogozin, V. Volodin, P. Tolstoy, with Grudinin and Zyuganov (without boldyrevshchina)
    This is our hypersound, This is our Stalingrad!
    1. businessv
      businessv 12 February 2018 20: 08
      +1
      Quote: Istepanov
      Ministers (the new supreme authority) with a real Sochi Putin, and not this Jew-Peskov puppet, composed of N. Azarov, A. Lukashenko, R. Kadyrov, S. Shoigu, D. Rogozin, V. Volodin, P. Tolstoy, with Grudinin and Zyuganov (without Boldyrevshchina)

      He himself understood what he wrote ?! The second recorder was found, the fire was extinguished long ago, the incident with PMCs in Syria - it is generally unknown whether it was? There is a lot of controversy and ambiguity about this, including "documentary gaps." I think that a little more work needs to be done on the material that you plan to present to the public. We are talking about the planes of the Amer triad, so it is necessary to talk mainly about them!
  17. Simon
    Simon 12 February 2018 17: 28
    +1
    What B-21, B-2 and B-52 will be able to bomb Russia and China ?! - Let them fly, get a hot kiss from our air defense! negative
  18. kolber
    kolber 12 February 2018 18: 00
    0
    what is the point of discussing it when there is a nuclear submarine fleet and ground mobile missiles
  19. businessv
    businessv 12 February 2018 18: 25
    +1
    I wonder why our military observers are embarrassed to miss similar headlines? For example, "The Russian Armed Forces took on the sights of the southern coast of the USA! Let's discuss!" In my opinion, the worse the headline, the more important the topic !? Or "Our" sleeping "submarines of the first strike are ready to inflict it!" Why should we only worry about a hypothetical attack? Let them worry too! Zadolbali partners with their permanent strain on our threat! Let's create a real threat and see how it actually comes around! I don’t think it will be worse than it is now.
  20. g1washntwn
    g1washntwn 13 February 2018 06: 52
    0
    B-21 is a restyling of the same B-2, LRSO = ALCM with a couple of new reflectors on the bumper. But money will be torn off as for a new project from scratch. Prior to adopting hypersound, any gestures are meaningless, while the Americans have something to say about the waverider. It would be correct for us to create a distant two-stage CD with a subsonic subtle carrier and a detachable hypersonic part based on zircon. From this point of view, PAK-DA will be on duty just with what is needed on board, and until that moment x-101s with calibers are sufficient.
  21. Siberia 9444
    Siberia 9444 13 February 2018 09: 12
    0
    Reassured themselves lol well well hi
  22. The comment was deleted.
  23. SEER
    SEER 16 February 2018 03: 00
    +1
    “How America is going to be sure that the B-21, B-2 and B-52 will be able to bomb Russia and China”) was written by Dave Majumdar, the regular author of the publication ...
    You can not read further ...
  24. Olegi1
    Olegi1 19 February 2018 17: 20
    0
    I've less and less understood the meaning of a strategic bomber - a carrier of nuclear weapons. As long as it flies, and, on subsonic, until it launches, while the cruise missile launched from it flies, the war will end (with the help of ICBMs and SLBMs). Isn’t it easier, and not cheaper, is it possible to build how much an ICBM costs a bomber + weapons + pilot training? Shoot it down again is easier than an ICBM. To drive the Barmaleevs with carpet bombing from a height - still back and forth, and even then it is doubtful, given the cost. Can anyone clarify?
  25. halva
    halva 19 February 2018 19: 15
    0
    All American planes and missiles fly either on Windows XP-7-8-10 Secure Host Baseline, or mac os, which means they are all vulnerable, just like the Americans used to destroy Iraq’s nuclear program through update windows os binary exploit codes ...
    1. KCA
      KCA 21 February 2018 11: 20
      0
      The network into which they sent the worm was isolated, in Iran, not stupid people are engaged in the atomic program, they brought the worm on a flash drive, which clearly indicates the presence of a traitor or an embedded agent
  26. Olegi1
    Olegi1 19 February 2018 19: 39
    0
    Quote: halva
    All American planes and missiles fly either on Windows XP-7-8-10 Secure Host Baseline, or mac os, which means they are all vulnerable, just like the Americans used to destroy Iraq’s nuclear program through update windows os binary exploit codes ...

    I don’t know where you got it from. I worked for 24 years in collaboration with a large American corporation in the field of avionics, of course, only for civilian aircraft. And for 14 years we collaborated with another organization competing with them. There are completely different OSs, and in military applications, they were not available to me (well, partly ...). Do not write nonsense, plz.