US Strategic Bomber Aviation in Modern Warfare

45
US Strategic Bomber Aviation in Modern Warfare

Before the advent of land-based ballistic missiles and missiles deployed on nuclear submarines into service with the US Army, the main role in establishing US global dominance and creating a security threat to its opponents - the USSR and the countries of the socialist commonwealth - was played by the heavy bombers of the SAC Air Force. They were the main means of delivering nuclear strikes against strategically important enemy targets.

According to the Pentagon, it is the strategic bomber aviation (SBA) is the most universal component of the nuclear triad, capable of effectively solving a wide range of tasks in all types of wars and military conflicts using both nuclear and conventional weapons. It is designed to deter a potential enemy and destroy its critical targets during military operations using both conventional and nuclear weapons.



The leadership of the US Armed Forces rightly believes that The main advantages of the US Air Force strategic bombers include:

– significant flight range and duration, allowing operation in almost any region of the globe when based on the continental United States;

– flexibility of use due to the possibility of setting new combat missions already during the flight;

– large and multi-variant combat load, including equipping the security forces with high-precision aviation weapons;

– on-board equipment and weapons that allow you to hit targets with high reliability day and night in any weather conditions.

In general, in accordance with the views of the Pentagon leadership, strategic bombers (SB), being one of the elements of ensuring nuclear deterrence, remain an important means of solving problems when conducting combat operations using both conventional and nuclear weapons.

US Air Force Global Strike Command and preparing the SBA to carry out their assigned missions


In accordance with the strategy adopted by the White House, a war against an enemy of equal strength (Russian Federation/China) can begin with a surprise nuclear strike by the forces of combat service and combat duty of the triad from a tracking position when these forces are in combat mission areas (CDA). This provision constitutes the main content of an instant nuclear strike carried out without additional deployment of strategic offensive arms. Such a blow is delivered within 60 minutes. It then develops into a rapid global strike (GSA) against the enemy lasting 90–120 minutes.

Organizing such strikes requires clear coordination of the actions of forces and military command and control bodies in such a multifaceted scenario of combat operations covering global spaces and involving colossal forces, carrying out activities within a tight time frame, constrained by conditions of secrecy, and a huge amount of work to disguise one’s intentions and misleading the enemy.

Therefore, in order to coordinate combat operations (BA) and organize interaction between the forces participating in the strike, the Pentagon at the end of 2008 decided to create a Global Strike Command (GSC) within the US Air Force. In June 2009, the direct formation of this command began, which by September had already reached the initial level of operational readiness. KSU headquarters is located at Barksdale Air Force Base (Louisiana).


This is probably what the US Air Force Global Strike Command command post looks like

The Global Strike Command (GSC) included two main components of the American nuclear triad - ground, in the form of ICBMs in the silo (20th Air Force), and air, which included the SBA (8th Air Force). The new command was given responsibility for the safe handling of nuclear weapons located on ICBMs and SBAs, as well as for the preparation and training of personnel to operate them and related equipment.

If ICBMs played a leading role in the first two echelons of the BGU, then in the third and fourth echelons of the global strike, the role of the first violin was given to SBA aircraft.
Thus, according to the Pentagon’s plans, in the third echelon of the BSU, SBA aircraft should strike the command posts of state and military command and control bodies, RTV radars, air defense missile systems radars, space control system radars, communication centers, permanent deployment points and command posts of other troops. As a rule, 1–2 nuclear warheads are prescribed to defeat such targets.

The targets of strikes by SBA aircraft (together with TA and PA) of the fourth echelon of the BSU identified critical state infrastructure facilities in the operational depths of the Russian Federation. Such objects include: enterprises of the military-industrial complex; strategic industrial enterprises; the most important nodes of sea, river, aviation and railway transport; regional government bodies; main power plants, gas and petrochemical industry facilities, etc. Both nuclear and conventional weapons can be used here.

Flight missions and strike targets, even in peacetime, are communicated to the SBA forces, consolidated into the 8th Air Army of the US Air Force KSU.

Let's take a closer look at the composition of the 8th Air Force, which is part of the US Air Force.

Currently, the 8th Air Force of the US Air Force is armed with three types of strategic bombers: B-52H, B-1B, B-2A. The available SB are organizationally consolidated into aviation wings and are stationed at the following air bases (AvB):

– AFB Barksdale (Louisiana), 2nd Heavy Bomber Wing (B-52H aircraft);

– AFB Minot (North Dakota), 5th Heavy Bomber Wing (B-52H aircraft);


The heavy strategic bomber B-52N leaves for a combat training mission

– AVB Dyess (Texas), 7th Heavy Bomber Wing (B-1B aircraft);

– Air Force Base Ellsworth (South Dakota), 28th Heavy Bombardment Wing (B-1B aircraft);


B-1B supersonic bomber at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar

- AFB Whiteman (Missouri), 509th Heavy Bombardment Wing (B-2A aircraft).


Stealth bomber B-2A "Spirit"

In total, the 8th VA is armed with more than 100 strategic bombers (about 87 B-52H and 20 B-2A), capable of carrying approximately 850 nuclear warheads, of which: 528 are deployed on ALCMs equipped with W80 nuclear warheads, and 322 nuclear aerial bombs (YAB) types B61-11, B61-12(13) and B83-1.

Officially, according to the START-3 Treaty, 16 B-2A and 44 B-52H aircraft are listed as carriers of nuclear weapons in the US Air Force. But in fact this is far from the case.

The Yankees found at least three ways to circumvent the treaty to increase the number of nuclear weapons carriers at the expense of “non-nuclear” strategic bombers (SB). And for this they have significant opportunities.

As of 2023, the KSU Air Force has 141 strategic bombers in service: 76 B-52N Stratofortress, 45 B-1B Lancer and 19 B-2A Spirit. In addition, another 18 B-52Hs are located with the 307th Heavy Bomber Wing at Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana, from the 10th Air Force Reserve Command. There are also about 80 units in storage. SB, of which about 13 B-52H and 4 B-1B can be brought into combat-ready condition relatively quickly.

The combat use of SBA requires serious logistical, airfield, combat and technical support. For this purpose, up to 300 transport and refueling aircraft of the Air Force Airlift Command and Air National Guard units may be involved.


Boeing KS-135A Stratotanker tanker aircraft

The US Air Force strategic aviation has developed airfield network. In addition to the main air bases on the American continent, 16 airfields of US allies in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region are used for the temporary basing of the security forces. If there is a threat of an attack on home bases, up to 50 airfields in the continental United States and Canada can be used to disperse SBA aircraft.

Information: in peacetime conditions, the US Air Force security forces are stationed at 16 air bases, of which 8 are located in the United States and 8 in other countries. In the Pacific and Indian Ocean zones and in the European theater of operations, 16 airfields can be used for temporary deployment of security forces. The dispersal of duty forces in the context of an increasing military threat and transfer to the highest levels of combat readiness is planned to be carried out at 35 airfields. An additional 11 airfields in Canada can be used as reserve airfields.


Parking of B-52H aircraft at Fairford AB, UK

In addition, after completing the task, it is possible to land the SB at airfields located in Asia and Africa. These airfields are already being actively developed in peacetime. Thus, up to 15 units are deployed at the Al-Udeid airbase (Qatar) on a rotational basis. SB B-1B, which monthly make about 75 sorties in the direction of the southern borders of the Russian Federation.

All this is part of the airfield support system for the SBA aircraft fleet and the training of flight crews to perform tasks from various runways of foreign air bases.

Measures to maintain SBA in the established degree of BG. Combat duty and combat readiness system of the SBA


The US Air Force has: 20 SB B-2A (19 units - as part of the KSU and 1 unit - as part of the Air Force Logistics Command. Of the combat-ready forces, 4 B-2A aircraft are in active reserve) and 76 units. B-52H, which can be used as nuclear weapons carrier aircraft.

In accordance with US Air Force standards, about 75% of the combat strength of the SBA is maintained in combat readiness. Active reserve aircraft (about 20% of the combat strength) contribute to maintaining the percentage of combat-ready forces in the Security Council air units. Active reserve aircraft are maintained in good condition and are ready to replace combat aircraft in the event of their loss or during repair or maintenance work. It takes about 14–16 hours to prepare one active reserve aircraft for a combat mission.

According to Western experts, out of approximately 500 nuclear warheads and 528 nuclear ALCMs, about 300 nuclear warheads and nuclear ALCMs are ready for combat use, which are stored in warehouses at three air bases (Minot, Whiteman and Barksdale). The remaining 700–800 units (“operational storage”) are located at the central Air Force warehouse – Kirtland Air Force Base (New Mexico).


Nuclear ammunition W80-1 before installation on the carrier

SBA combat duty and combat readiness system


To maintain the operational readiness of the SBA forces, a combat duty system is used and a system of combat readiness of the forces of the KSU Air Force has been introduced. Thus, combat duty of SBA crews can be at the airfield and in the air, in the form of patrolling along a specific route.

SB combat duty in the air organized with the aim of early withdrawal of part of the SBA forces from attack and reducing flight time to combat areas. It can also be organized when the international situation worsens or when a crisis situation arises and can be carried out along 6-7 routes. Since 1968 (after a number of disasters and accidents of the SB with nuclear weapons on board the SB), combat duty in the air was stopped. Since September 1991, XNUMX-hour SB combat duty at airfields in peacetime conditions, but when the US Air Force is brought to increased levels of BG, it can be resumed within 24 hours.


Probable combat patrol routes of the US Air Force SBA / “Giant Spear” program

The US Air Force adopted a five-speed combat readiness system (additionally there are two more stages in case of emergency). The transfer of SBA forces from one level of combat readiness to another is carried out by the Secretary of Defense or the President of the United States.

The highest level of combat readiness is combat readiness No. 1. As a rule, combat readiness is introduced in stages, from lowest to highest, but with a sharp change in the military-political situation, combat readiness No. 2 or No. 1 can be immediately introduced.

Combat readiness number 5. In everyday peacetime conditions, 70% of the SA combat personnel are maintained in a technically combat-ready state. The Security Service is not on combat duty in everyday conditions.

If the international situation worsens, it may be introduced combat readiness number 4. With its introduction, planned combat training ceases. SBs located in the air or at other air bases return to airfields of permanent deployment. Measures are being taken to restore the technical readiness of the Security Forces, and the composition of the combat-ready forces of the Security Forces is being increased. Up to 30% of combat-ready aircraft go on combat duty. The time to bring No. 4 into combat readiness is 1,5–2 days.

If there is a threat to start maintaining a database without the use of nuclear weapons, combat readiness number 3. In the SBA air wings, measures are being completed to bring the SB into a technically sound condition (up to 100% of the combat strength of the SA). All combat-ready security forces are being prepared for departure. The composition of the duty forces of the SA is increased to 50–60%, the dispersal of the SB begins, and their combat duty is organized at alternate airfields (4–6 SB). The headquarters, control and communications bodies of the SA are transferred to round-the-clock operation. Combat readiness restoration groups are formed and transferred to alternate airfields. The time it takes to bring SBA forces No. 3 to combat readiness is up to 3 days.

In the event of a further increase in the threat (at the start of hostilities without the use of nuclear weapons) and the introduction into the US Armed Forces combat readiness No. 2 Activities for the dispersal of the Security Forces are being completed, and checks are being carried out on the combat readiness of the Security Forces forces. Up to 60% of all combat-ready security forces are on combat duty. The time to bring forces to combat readiness No. 2 is up to 12 hours.

Combat readiness number 1 is introduced in the event of an immediate threat of a nuclear missile attack on the United States within the next few hours. The duty forces of the SA are brought to 100% of the composition of all combat-ready security forces. A backup SBA control system is being deployed from air and ground mobile command posts.

Plans for the combat use of SBA are being put into effect, according to which bombers can be used to carry out area and targeted air strikes with conventional or nuclear weapons.

With the participation of SBA at BSU (up to 80% of combat-ready forces) they can use nuclear weapons massively or in single strikes against designated targets. In case of a sudden strike, the number of SB forces can be reduced by up to 30% due to the short (up to 2 hours) period of emergency preparation of the SB forces for combat use. From the remaining SB, a second wave of attacks on targets is formed.


B-52N on the runway during training to apply BGU

Due to the long flight time of the SB to the strike line, their use is planned in the second (with the use of nuclear missile launchers) but, as a rule, in the third and fourth echelons of a fast global strike. Based on the experience of SBA operational preparation activities, bombers take off 5–15 minutes before the launch of ICBMs and SLBMs or simultaneously with them. The total time it takes to lift combat-ready aircraft into the air is about 15 minutes.

Algorithm for the operation of SBA aircraft when performing a combat mission at maximum range


Due to the significant distance of the attack targets from the SB airfields on the American continent, in order to complete the assigned task they need to be refueled in the air.

The first refueling of the satellite in the air is carried out 3 hours after takeoff, the second - after 4–6 hours. During long flights, SBs can be refueled along the route up to 5–6 times. Refueling is carried out at altitudes of 7 m and above at flight speeds of 000–600 km/h. The average refueling time for B-700H aircraft is 52–25 minutes.


Refueling B-52N in the air

In practice, this happens as follows.

After takeoff, the SB goes to the first refueling area, which is carried out using the escort method, i.e., the bomber and tanker follow the same course during the refueling process. After refueling, the bombers climb to an altitude of 9–000 m and follow their individual routes to the so-called “E” hour line (line of no return), but crossing the line is allowed only after receiving an order to use weapons. In the area of ​​this milestone, a second refueling is carried out.

Having received an order to use weapons, the SB proceed to the “H” line (the line for coordinating the time of striking). The accuracy of reaching the “H” line is set within 1–2 minutes. Between the “E” and “H” lines, the weapon control circuits are unlocked and the nuclear warhead is prepared for combat use.


The B-52N will approach the point marked with a red square with nuclear warheads already cocked and ALCMs ready to launch.

When the security forces approach the line of detection by enemy air defense systems, the bombers, as a rule, descend and carry out further flight at low and extremely low altitudes with jamming by on-board electronic warfare systems.

This is, in general terms, the tactics of using Security Council to analyze combat training activities and the use of Security Council in local wars and conflicts.

In relation to the Russian Federation, the Yankees have a number of features revealed during their training to carry out conditional SBA strikes on our territory.

According to combat use plans, the launch of ALCMs and nuclear missile systems during the first strike should be carried out by the Security Forces outside the border of the Russian Federation or on the border of its mainland (for the northern direction). Line “N” from the northern direction is located at a distance of 800–1 km from the state border of the Russian Federation. When carrying out airstrikes by SBA forces against objects on the territory of the Russian Federation, the conventional launch boundary of the missile defense system is located:

• in the northern direction – on the segment between the island. Bear and New Siberian Islands;

• in the southern direction – over the territory of Turkey, located at a distance of at least 100 km from the Black Sea coast;

• in the eastern direction – over the Pacific Ocean, at a distance of 500–800 km from the Kuril Islands.

According to Russian analysts, it is most likely that in order to reach the point of combat use of UAB and nuclear weapons against targets on Russian territory, the Security Service will use only northern routes running in the corridor between the island. Bear and New Siberian Islands.


Probable direction of reaching the strike line of the US Air Force SBA on targets on the territory of the Russian Federation

The remaining directions have not been planned until now due to the need to make a long flight over the territories of the Russian Federation and the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) (part of the joint air defense system of the CIS member states), saturated airspace control systems and air defense systems.

In any case, the SB must reach the range of guaranteed target destruction with a portable weapon, and this is usually 0,75–0,8 of the maximum range. Therefore, the real, and not advertised, ranges of the use of high-tech weapons carried by the US Air Force SB are somewhat different.

Thus, the actual combat range of standard precision-guided ammunition with which the above-mentioned SBs were equipped is:

• Long-range ALCM AGM-158 JASSM: up to 980 km;
• Long-range ALCM AGM-86C CALCM: up to 1 km;
• Medium-range ALCM AGM-84H SLAM-ER: up to 270 km;
• glide bomb AGM-154 JSOW: 130–560 km;
• short-range anti-ship missiles AGM-142 Have Nap: up to 80 km;
• UAB with JDAM-ER guidance system: up to 72 km;
• UAB with JDAM and LJDAM guidance systems: up to 28–30 km.

However, it should be noted that The US Air Force conducts extensive R&D to create new types of weapons and means of destruction, including high-precision hypersonic weapons.


Until March 183, GZ RVB AGM-2023A was one of the leaders of the ARRW programs

From an analysis of foreign media, we can conclude that after the failures that befell the AGM-183A RVB, its further funding has been stopped. Lockheed Martin's ARRW, which was considered the most advanced version of the air-launched GZO, also fell out of the race after unsuccessful launches in March 2023.

The leadership of the US Department of the Air Force now places its main hopes on the product of the RTX company (formerly Raytheon, a subsidiary of the Northrop Grumman corporation), developed under the HACM program. It is known that in 2022, $2,4 billion was allocated for its implementation from the budget of the US Department of the Air Force. The new weapon is planned to be equipped with a nuclear warhead based on the W80 or W84 nuclear warhead.

The adoption of this weapon will contribute to a significant increase in the firepower of the US Air Force SBA aviation complexes and an increase in their combat capabilities.

The long-term operation of aviation systems currently in service with the US Air Force has put on the agenda the issue of creating a new bomber that meets the requirements of modern warfare. According to the US Air Force command, such a machine should be the B-21 Raider strategic bomber.


First display of the new B-21 Raider bomber

Such a moment came on December 2, 2022, when Northrop Grumman presented the first produced copy of the B-21 strategic bomber, presenting it to the US Secretary of Defense. According to the company's management, in addition to this model, five more aircraft of this type are at various stages of production.

Due to the fact that the promising aviation complex B-21 “Raider” made its first flight on November 10, 2023, a number of publications appeared in the press regarding the prospects for the further use of US Air Force SBA aircraft. According to plans, the B-21 bomber will be adopted by SBA aviation units after 2025, and by 2040 the Air Force should purchase up to 100 units of such bombers. At the same time, the cost of one car should not exceed $550 million.

As a result, the US Air Force's fleet of strategic bombers should increase to 175 units. However, the Pentagon believes that due to the growing threat to US interests (primarily in the Asia-Pacific region), the Air Force will need at least 270 aircraft to maintain the world hegemony of the White House.

Thus, the well-informed American publication 19FortyFive notes: “Currently, the US strategic bomber force has only 141 manned platforms, about half of which are B-52 Stratofortresses, built in the 1960s. According to analysts at the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, only 59 bombers are ready to immediately carry out combat missions.

It is noted that the purchase of hundreds of B-21s will slightly increase the total number of bombers, since the B-2030 Lancer and B-1 Spirit aircraft are planned to be phased out by the mid-2s. In this case, the US Air Force will have 175 bombers, including 75 modernized B-52s.

From the above publication it is clear that supersonic “Lancers” and ultra-expensive “Spirits” are ending their flight life. history, giving way to the stealthy and relatively inexpensive B-21 Raider.

However, the flying age of the old B-52 Stratofortress continues: 75 vehicles will undergo another modernization and will continue to remain in combat service with the US Air Force SBA. Enviable longevity of a Vietnam War veteran!

Let me remind you that, in addition to the Vietnam War, the B-52H were actively used in the Persian Gulf (1991); in the US Army's Operation Desert Strike (1996); in the Western coalition's Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003); in the Syrian conflict (2016). As a rule, all B-52Hs participated in the destruction of ground targets using high-precision ALCMs AGM-86 and AGM-158 JASSM.

The US Air Force command is aware that the large EPR of the B-52N requires the use of these SB either in conditions of complete suppression of the enemy’s air defense system, or in conditions of maximum cover of the Stratofortresses by TA aircraft. It is obvious that Pentagon strategists assign the B-52N the role of bomb carriers, dropping their deadly cargo from a great height on targets with completely suppressed air defense and in the absence of enemy intelligence in the area of ​​the attacked target.

Apparently, the future appearance of the US Air Force SBA is being formed for these tasks, in which the B-21 and B-52 of the next moderation will remain.


Expected dynamics of improving the combat capabilities of the US SBA

Conclusions


Thus, summing up the topic, we can draw the following conclusions:

1. The strategic bomber force of the US Air Force remains one of the leading elements of the state’s nuclear triad, which continues to improve and poses a real threat of destruction to the most important targets of the opposing enemy; causing him unacceptable harm.

2. The US Air Force command pays close attention to maintaining the SBA forces at the established level of combat readiness. This is achieved by the clear organization of combat training of crews, the system of combat duty of the Security Council and the combat readiness of the forces of the Security Forces for action in any situation.

3. Maintaining numbers, constantly updating and modernizing the Air Force bomber fleet, equipping SBA aviation units with new types of aircraft, adopting aviation systems and the latest types of weapons and weapons are the priority tasks of the US Air Force SBA.

The efforts of the leadership of the Pentagon and the US Department of the Air Force to improve strategic bomber aircraft are a real threat to the Russian Federation and China, the countries of the world majority. Therefore, it is vital for our country that the military-political leadership of the Russian Federation create an effective air defense and aerospace forces system as quickly as possible.
45 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +12
    12 June 2024 04: 49
    Very detailed and interesting article! The number of planes and airfields is impressive; you understand the enormous power of the state, both technical and financial. I once watched an emergency takeoff of a B-52, how they took off one after another with a minimum interval, it was certainly spectacular. In 15 minutes, everything at the airfield takes off.
    1. +3
      12 June 2024 05: 37
      In 15 minutes, everything at the airfield takes off.

      It is clear that the advantage will go to those who decide to strike first. The second one may not have time to rise.
      1. +3
        12 June 2024 07: 27
        They will have time to get up. The parties have an early warning system that will track the launches of the enemy’s strategic weapons, and a counter-strike of nuclear weapons will follow.
        1. -2
          12 June 2024 11: 10
          They will have time to get up. The parties have an early warning system that will track the launches of the enemy’s strategic weapons, and a counter-strike of nuclear weapons will follow.

          I meant whether the bombers would have time in response to run through all the command procedures, load up and fly out of the base before the poison arrived at it. rocket?
          1. +1
            12 June 2024 20: 14
            So they showed on Discovery that at the launch of our missiles, all B-52s, without any procedures, take off from squibs and take off at intervals of 100-200m; by the time our missiles fly, 80-90% of the aircraft should take off
      2. -3
        12 June 2024 07: 41
        Quote: Former soldier
        It is clear that the advantage will go to those who decide to strike first.

        And our Supreme about the same thing: - “Father taught: if a fight is inevitable, you need to hit first!” And now he promised to “correct” the state’s nuclear doctrine. I wonder if the editors of the leading foreign media conveyed this message to their listeners/readers, or again pretended that they had not heard the GDP?
        1. +10
          12 June 2024 10: 11
          Rest assured that everyone has heard about GDP and its great genius. Just like he was heard whining that he was deceived (Minsk agreements). They also heard about how wonderfully Russia is developing, exemplified by the decline of the Russian population and the arrival of foreigners terrorizing the native Russians. They also heard about the growing poverty of ordinary Russians and the growing wealth of oligarchs. These are the undeniable achievements of a great chess player. You can read about all this on VO.
          1. -5
            12 June 2024 10: 22
            Dear, it follows from your post that you doubt the correctness of the chosen course and believe that nothing is being done to correct the situation. But is it? If you are not blind-deaf-mute, then you cannot help but notice that even in the conditions of unprecedented sanctions, our country is developing, maybe not as quickly as we would like, but already in 4th place in the world in terms of PPP!
            But what you are writing about are problems that did not arise today. But today the forces of the Government of the Russian Federation are aimed at their elimination... So, you are wrong!
            1. +2
              12 June 2024 13: 08
              Boa Constrictor KAA (Alexander) - Dear author, I am a Pole who supports Russia in its fight against Nazi NATO. I look at Russia from the outside and see that things are going in the wrong direction. I remember the USSR and its power, its industry and army. What exists now is just a shadow of its former glory. Of course, you can blame Gorbachev and Yeltsin, but they both ruled for less time than the current tenant of the Kremlin, who has been in power for 24 years. From 1945, 24 years later, it is 1969. The country was recovering and developing. Now, after 24 years of Liberal rule, the country is in decline. And the chess player draws red lines. Belgorod is being bombed, people are dying, the main thing is that bombs don’t fall on the Kremlin and Rublyovka. And propaganda says: we are in 4th place. And I ask: what do ordinary people get from this? How much money do they have in their wallet? In Poland, the propaganda is exactly the same: things are getting better, but more and more people are losing their jobs, and prices in stores are rising. So, author, my request: less propaganda. Leave it to the Bandera drug addict. Maybe instead of reading government propaganda about success, read articles from VO. https://topwar.ru/236310-buduschee-rossii-bednost-i-arhaizacija.html https://topwar.ru/227540-kapitalizm-stal-dlja-rossii-strashnee-vtoroj-mirovoj-vojny.html https: //topwar.ru/226424-afrikanizacija-rossii.html https://topwar.ru/243578-demograficheskaja-jama-sokraschenie-russkih-degradacija-semi-i-bednost-est-li-svet-v-konce-tunnelja .html https://topwar.ru/232485-32-goda-bez-sssr-itogi-reform-gde-my-nahodimsja-i-kuda-idem.html
              1. +1
                12 June 2024 13: 51
                1. You might and a Pole, but write suspiciously well in Russian. Probably they became a “Pole” recently, with the beginning of the Northern Military District...
                2. Being a “foreigner”, have respect for the leadership of the neighboring country, which still tolerates the Polish “arrogance”, which has long gone beyond the norm of relations between sovereign states.
                3. On the VO website, authors have the right to express their opinions. Why did you decide that I was denied this right?
                4. I am a professional military man, with a higher military education, which allows me to judge from a professional position the strategy, military capabilities and tactics of the armed forces of my own and any other foreign state. In the article, I did not touch upon issues of geopolitics, and, dear fellow, I also do not advise you to do so when discussing the opus on the US Air Force SBA. Still, this is only a strategic level.
                1. +4
                  12 June 2024 21: 07
                  I am Polish and learned Russian at school 50 years ago. Why does a Russian think that a Pole cannot speak Russian? I use Yandex translator to write correctly.
                  Respect must be earned. I did not respect Gorbachev, Yeltsin, PKB, Medvedev and never will, because I believe that they all led to the collapse of the USSR, and now Russia. I respect ordinary Russians and Russian soldiers fighting against Bandera and NATO.
                  I'll ignore the mention of Polish arrogance because I could say the same thing about some Russians.
                  Since you are a military man, tell me why Russian troops were withdrawn from Kyiv and other liberated Russian lands. Now Russian soldiers fight and die to liberate these lands again. Who is responsible for this?
                  Regarding point 4, I did not criticize the article in any way, I only referred to the comment that the respected author posted.
                  1. 0
                    12 June 2024 21: 19
                    Quote: kroskar99
                    tell me why Russian troops were withdrawn from Kyiv and other liberated Russian lands.

                    It was a political decision. And even those forces that were deployed far from the supply base could find themselves in a very difficult situation. What is done is done. And nothing can be changed. You can only fix it. This is what our soldiers do. And I'm sure we can handle this. Victory will be ours.
        2. +1
          12 June 2024 18: 02
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          And our Supreme about the same thing: - “Father taught: if a fight is inevitable, you need to hit first!”

          Stop making up legends about non-existent events. He was taught by the street, completed by the mayor's office of St. Petersburg and the corridors of the Kremlin...
          1. 0
            12 June 2024 18: 04
            You can promise, but you can’t beat
          2. -2
            12 June 2024 18: 23
            Quote: ROSS 42
            He was taught by the street, completed by the mayor's office of St. Petersburg and the corridors of the Kremlin...

            Look at GDP's biography. University, law school, KGB higher school, perfect German, good English... Director of the FSB, positions in the Presidential Administration, President of the Russian Federation... No, with “street” training and “corridors” you won’t jump that high!
            1. 0
              13 June 2024 14: 32
              Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
              Look at GDP's biography.

              Well? Do you know many people who immediately after school go to the KGB headquarters to decide on the issue of entering the “school of intelligence officers”?
              What about joining the CPSU, what goals were pursued?
              What about:
              Subsequently, many of those who worked with Putin in the mayor's office of St. Petersburg (I. I. Sechin, D. A. Medvedev, V. A. Zubkov, A. L. Kudrin, A. B. Miller, G. O. Gref, D.N. Kozak, V.P. Ivanov, S.E. Naryshkin, V.L. Mutko, etc.), in the 2000s they took senior positions in the Russian government, the Russian presidential administration and the management of state-owned companies. ..

              And what did these “our people” become famous for?
              Why did Putin need a dissertation on a topic with which he was not a priori connected?
              * * *
              Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
              No, with “street” training and “corridors” you won’t jump that high!

              Give it up...You forgot about the National Agricultural Service...And the curator himself (EBN) also jumped into a chair right from under the bridge...Barely had time to take off his head bag...
              * * *
              I don’t want to go through all the nuances of the ex-lieutenant colonel, who IMMEDIATELY became director of the FSB. Rare generals achieved such an appointment. The conversation was about “fatherly instructions” regarding the fight. I pointed out to you that these are street laws. I don't want to say anything more. The video says it all...
    2. 0
      15 June 2024 11: 19
      Quote: Vadim S
      detailed and interesting article!

      But the question arises - is it based on an outdated list of targets, or does the United States really not understand the primary importance of striking the villas of oligarchs, the mooring sites of their yachts, and places of compact residence of corrupt officials?
  2. +2
    12 June 2024 04: 56
    Even from open access information inspires. It is interesting that everything known about Russian forces also comes from the Western side.
    1. -1
      12 June 2024 08: 14
      Yes, and about foreign aircraft they always say only what appeared in the open press so as not to burn the source of information. With the advent of “closed” data, counterintelligence immediately begins to look for where the “leak” is and who picked the hole. So, for example, it happened when the combat patrol areas of our strategists lit up in the west. When the "plumbers" found a leak at the headquarters of the Northern Fleet, the Yankees' percentage of "discoveries" of our boats sharply decreased.
  3. +2
    12 June 2024 05: 24
    Thank you dear author for this article. hi
    Very educational and informative.
    1. +2
      12 June 2024 08: 17
      Thank you. hi
      I tried not to be an empty talker.
  4. +1
    12 June 2024 05: 31
    The article partially uses material from the previously published article "Prompt Global Impact. Part 2."

    https//topwar.ru/116313-bystryy-globalnyy-udar-chast-2.html

    PS The author should provide a link to the material used from other articles. This has already been discussed in a “softer” form, when material from part 1 was used...
    1. +3
      12 June 2024 09: 03
      The author used the article by Velyaminov and Ilyin, published in the Western Military District. From now on I will be more correct and respect copyright. feel
      PS To be fair: Mr. aKtoR in 2017 also did not bother to link to the original source. Yes
  5. +3
    12 June 2024 08: 20
    An insightful article, very professional and deep. Thank you, Alexander.
    1. +2
      12 June 2024 09: 06
      Thank you. But there is room for improvement: in the future I will indicate sources of information and respect copyright.
  6. 0
    12 June 2024 11: 21
    When the security forces approach the line of detection by enemy air defense systems, the bombers, as a rule, descend and carry out further flight at low and extremely low altitudes with jamming by on-board electronic warfare systems.
    The B-52 does not have the equipment to fly at extreme lows or the G-force capability required to do so. The B-1B has all this, but is no longer a strategic bomber. And the B-2, if it is trying to work as a stealth, you need to climb higher, since the higher, the further from the radar.
    Expected dynamics of improving the combat capabilities of the US SBA
    The graph is interesting, but unclear. I wish I could decipher...
    1. 0
      12 June 2024 13: 32
      Quote: bk0010
      The B-52 does not have the equipment to fly at extreme lows or the G-force capability required to do so. The B-1B has all this, but is no longer a strategic bomber. And the B-2, if it is trying to work as a stealth, you need to climb higher, since the higher, the further from the radar.

      1. B-52s practice low-altitude flights. In following the terrain - only B-1B.
      2. B-1B refers to SAC, flight characteristics:
      The maximum flight speed of the B-1B at high altitude is 1 km/h (M-330), the service ceiling is 1,25 m. The flight range with a normal combat load at high altitude reaches 15 km. The B-240B can carry JDAM (GPS guided) bombs, free-fall bombs ranging in caliber from 9 kg (600 ft - GBU-1) to 227 kg (500 ft - GBU-38).

      In addition, it can be equipped with an in-flight refueling system.
      3. The higher the VT flies, the farther it is visible: the radio horizon is further away.
      1. +1
        12 June 2024 14: 49
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        B-1B refers to SAC
        SAC was disbanded in 1992.
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        The higher the VT flies, the farther it is visible: the radio horizon is further away.
        So it shouldn't be visible.
    2. 0
      12 June 2024 18: 41
      Quote: bk0010
      The graph is interesting, but unclear. I wish I could decipher...

      I couldn’t find what article or topic the graph relates to. request
      But by “method of elimination” I came to the conclusion: histograms by color = blue - N (practical flight altitude); red - D (flight range without refueling); green - V (flight speed max); yellow -- m (payload mass). Perhaps something else.
      Abbreviations: GZUS - hypersonic universal aircraft; VKS - aerospace forces. And what do the numbers on the y-axis mean - HZ! This might be height, mass, or something else. I don't know.
      Somehow, however. hi
      1. 0
        12 June 2024 21: 26
        Thank you. GZUS - especially interesting: where did they get it from?
        1. 0
          12 June 2024 21: 31
          Quote: bk0010
          Thank you. GZUS - especially interesting: where did they get it from?

          They are working on it, but the timing... is not in their control. However, they and China have the X-37B “space” aircraft, which carries up to 900 kg of payload. Experts believe that it may well rise to 6 units. SBP with a capacity of 100-300 kt. And this is already dangerous.
  7. -1
    12 June 2024 12: 03
    A little clarification.
    There are no exact data on the US plans for the use of nuclear weapons.
    There are only a few articles/interviews in “profile” publications (of dubious reliability), from which it follows that at present there are “a large number of good plans for the use of nuclear weapons in different situations,” including those based on the principles of “nuclear uncertainty” and “ gradual escalation."

    Unofficially, bombers are divided into two categories: those that “penetrate” the enemy’s air defense zone and those that do not.
    In terms of nuclear weapons, “penetrators” are subject to the requirement to independently “penetrate targets” and find, identify, and hit targets (with unknown coordinates) such as PGRK, first of all. These are B2, B21; probably F117 and very likely F35A (although not a bomber, formally; and there is no reason why not F35B and F35S).
    B52 and, probably, B1 in the nuclear weapons part are carrying out a mission to use ALCMs outside the enemy’s air defense zone. ALCMs are used, of course, against targets with known coordinates.

    The amount of nuclear weapons on bombers is unknown; the official principle of classification was “1 carrier - 1 charge”, which is unlikely. Some numbers are given by the "Federation of American Scientists", but as a source it is like a circle of "hot rod enthusiasts of the state of California".
    About the B83 - its status is unclear, it seems that the military is removing/removing it from service, and politicians are demanding that it be left as the only means against “bunkers beyond the Urals” (for obvious reasons, google it yourself).

    The article is interesting, I added it.
    1. 0
      12 June 2024 14: 35
      Quote: Wildcat
      The article is interesting, I added it.

      Thanks for the plus. But for me this is not important. The main thing is response, discussion and answers to questions.
      There are no exact data on the US plans for the use of nuclear weapons.
      You and I don't. But I’m not sure about the GOU General Staff of the RF Armed Forces...
      The amount of nuclear weapons on bombers is unknown
      But we can guess what typical load they have and with what load they will take off on their last flight. The maximum number of nuclear warheads that can be lifted into the air is:
      B-2A — up to 16 nuclear aerial bombs (YAB) B61 (various modifications with a power of up to 350 kt) and (or) B83 (yield of up to 1,2 Mt);
      B-52H - up to 20 long-range nuclear cruise missiles (NCM) AGM-86B (2500 km, 200 kt) and (or) AGM-129 (3000 km, up to 150 kt).
      But nuclear warheads can also be carried by TA (PA) aircraft: F-15E - 3 units; F-16S/D, (A/F-18E), F-35A - 2 nuclear warheads each. But, most likely, in addition to the F-35A, the I-B TA will carry 1 nuclear warhead. Considering that the Pentagon plans to increase tactical nuclear weapons, the situation is not very ... rosy.
  8. +4
    12 June 2024 16: 35
    It’s been a long time since there have been such good, relevant review materials on VO. No pseudo-science fiction, everything is clear and to the point. Some comments made by commentators do not spoil the overall picture. The only thing is that the last graph is not deciphered and is not very clear. Respect to the author hi
    1. 0
      12 June 2024 18: 05
      Quote: Adrey
      It’s been a long time since there have been such good, relevant review materials on VO. No pseudo-science fiction, everything is clear and to the point.

      The article is more than good. Only after her respect did I get the impression that Russia has no strategic aviation at all...
      1. -1
        12 June 2024 19: 04
        Dear ROSS 42! In military affairs, you can’t always rely on “impression”... Russia has strategic aviation, but of very modest “size”.... Years of building capitalism, in Russia, with the “Gagarin smile”, Gorbachev-Yeltsin military doctrines and unprecedented corruption, “bled” the country, destroying everything and everyone... And strategic aviation, in particular (design schools, production, training of engineering personnel, etc.)... There is hope for the revival of heavy aviation - there is light at the end of the tunnel.. ...
      2. +1
        12 June 2024 19: 12
        Quote: ROSS 42
        The article is more than good. Only after her respect did I get the impression that Russia has no strategic aviation at all...

        It is not clear on what information from the article you formed this impression.
        1. 0
          12 June 2024 20: 01
          Dear Adrey! In short, based on information from Alexander Avellanov’s article, ROSS42 has the following opinion...
    2. +1
      12 June 2024 21: 42
      Quote: Adrey
      The only thing is that the last graph is not deciphered and is not very clear. Respect to the author

      Andrey, thank you for your rating. The article was difficult, even a crisis... I edited for three days after moderation by V. Smirnov. Special respect to him: he made me master the website graphics.
      Regarding the last chart. I dug everything, but did not find its roots. I had to analyze it. I wrote what I think based on this chart, but this is not 100% fact. This is my guess.
      Sincerely. Boa.
      1. +1
        13 June 2024 09: 58
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        The article was difficult, even crisis-ridden... I edited for three days after moderation by V. Smirnov. Special respect to him: he made me master the website graphics.

        Congratulations, you have Пit worked out. Thank you for the article, with all the rules in design, good pictures, to the point and in sufficient quantity (no more, no less than necessary).
        God bless him with the schedule).
  9. +2
    13 June 2024 07: 41
    Very interesting article, thanks to the Author.

    I hope our management will not think of testing the effectiveness of this machine on us.
  10. +1
    13 June 2024 16: 55
    Dear Author, it would be nice to indicate the original source - https://publishing.intelgr.com/archive/Afonin-Makarenko-Mikhailov-Byistryiy-globalnyiy-udar.pdf
    Undoubtedly, we wrote this monograph in order to familiarize broad layers of the military community about the issues of BSU and the current concept of using the US SNA (including strategic aviation), but the issue of correct citation should be observed. By the way, in our work we honestly indicated links to primary source materials, incl. articles on Military Review when the materials for the book were being compiled.
    1. 0
      15 June 2024 13: 51
      Quote: Mak-2007
      It would be nice to indicate the original source -
      I actually used your monograph in the article. The work is magnificent, deep and multifaceted. This will not happen again in the future. I will be more correct when using works such as yours. Please accept my sincere apologies and assurances that this will not happen again. With deep respect to the team of authors.
  11. +1
    13 June 2024 17: 59
    Pay attention to the priority of targets; the Americans are doing well with an understanding of what needs to be struck and in what sequence. This is “we are not like that”, they are “like this”
    1. 0
      15 June 2024 11: 26
      Quote: Cympak
      on the priority of goals, the Americans are all x

      Unfortunately no. The word starting with the letter X suggests itself, but it’s different. This is a list of targets for the USSR. And for the Russian Federation, the first place is places of compact residence of corrupt officials, villas of oligarchs, centers of human rights violations. I note that the tax, pension and 1s data centers are located outside of large cities, and if you choose the correct warhead power and detonation height, radioactive contamination will be quite moderate. That is, those goals whose defeat will make the population of the Russian Federation an ally of the United States.