Military Review

Unspeakable details of the Lancers strategy at the Australian Tyndal airbase: China’s containment is only a small part

17

In the photo, the next on the runway canvas is the strategic bomber B-1B “Lancer” and the strategic air tanker KC-10A “Extender”. These types of strategic aviation they may soon be flown to Australian air bases with the goal of "containing the Chinese threat." But to carry out combat duty in the air near the Chinese coast, the B-1B does not at all need additional refueling from the Extender, since the distance to the South China Sea from the Tindal airbase is 4000 km and the range of the Lancer is 5500 km. Consequently, the list of likely targets for B-1B is far from being limited to China alone.



Dozens of analytical publications on many years of territorial disputes over the Spratly and Diaoyutai island archipelagoes, whose strategic importance is gaining momentum for China and the US literally every month, can not even draw attention to the fact that among the top ten plans of the US Air Force there was a rather interesting point about the forthcoming redeployment of US strategic bomber-rocket carriers B-1B "Lancer" to the air base in the Northern Territory in Australia. The information on this topic on the network is quite scarce, as well as the statements made in early March by Lieutenant Colonel of the US Air Force Damien Pikart and published on theaviationist.com website.

With the accusatory rhetoric of the American power and foreign affairs agencies already accustomed to everyone, D. Pikart caught the Celestial Empire in expansion in the Indo-Asian-Pacific region, and also focused attention on the need to take retaliatory measures, which, in fact, is the transfer of "strategies" B-1B to the Australian continent. The American lieutenant colonel also noted the significant operational and strategic advantages of delivering global attacks in this region after the appearance of the Lancers. Information, as you can see, is absolutely standard, typical for the American central media, and does not carry any information about the details and consequences of the use of these aircraft in the south-east IT from the Eurasian continent. The fact that for all sorts of tactical maneuvers to contain the PLA in the APR, the Americans have simply impressive arsenals of various types of rocket armament pushes towards reflections. Naval and air bases in Okinawa, Guam, the Philippines, an entire military city in South Korean Pyeongtaek, covered by several Aegis-destroyers (armed with tens-hundreds of Tomahawks) and dozens of Patriot PAC-2 anti-aircraft missiles / 3 ”, hundreds of tactical fighter aviation units with all types of high-precision missile weapons (JASSM-ER, SLAM-ER, etc.), RQ-4“ Global Hawk ”strategic reconnaissance unmanned aerial vehicle squadron. All the Chinese coast is in the radius of action of this weapon. Then the question arises: why is there also a strategic attack aircraft, and with a full-fledged wing of the tanker aircraft?

To answer it, you need to remember that strategic aviation is a delicate matter, and when it comes to any redeployment or new concepts of its application, global changes are the reason for this, and every tiny Spratly and Senkaku immediately appear in the background the role of minor issues. It is worth looking at the development of the armed forces of Australia itself, which takes place on the American-Japanese technological base, as well as on the geographical location of this continent.

Due to the lack of information on the number of B-1Bs planned for redeployment, we will proceed from the exact location of the transferred machines. Based on open sources, it can be determined that they will be deployed at the RAAF Tyndal air base (northern part of the state of Northern Territory, 260 km from the Timor Sea). The northern part of the continent was not chosen by chance: after all, this is 2000 km closer to Eurasia than Amberley and Edinburgh airbases, which adds another 1% to the radius of action of B-30B. The Avb Tyndal’s relative proximity to Australia’s northern coast, while being in the deep enough of the continent to cover an object with a layered aerospace defense made of Patriot PAC-3 and THAADs, also plays into the hands of the US Air Force. Onshore military facilities are less insured against massive missile strikes by SLCMs from enemy multi-purpose nuclear submarines. The proximity to the Pacific and Indian oceans will allow the Lancers to be quickly involved in the possible performance of anti-ship operations (B-1B are carriers of the low-profile AGM-158C LRASM anti-ship missiles).

But it is more alarming that a year earlier, all 63 of the B-1B missile carrier were transferred from the staff command of the US Air Force to the 8 Army of the Global Shock Command, which belongs to nuclear forces. “Lancers” are again in the nuclear triad, and both conventional ALCM / JASSM-ER / LRASM and strategic AGM-86B / C can be used (the latter will require installation of specialized suspension points, which were dismantled in 1996 year, when, in the eyes of the West, Yeltsin Russia was not a threatening geopolitical enclave in Eurasia). The penetration of these missile carriers into the so-called “nuclear test”, based on the Tyndal base, dramatically changes the geostrategic situation not only in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region, but also in Central and Western Asia. And this already speaks of the threat to the southern borders of the CSTO. The intricacies of using this region as an air bridgehead for planning a possible strategic aerospace offensive operation by the US Air Force are a whole lot. Each of the 63 B-1B is capable of carrying strategic ALCM AGM-20B ALCM strategic armaments in the internal armaments compartments and external 86 hangers, and all Lancers can take 1260 missiles, which exceeds the official number of ALCMs in the US Air Force.

The AGM-86B range is 2780 km, which, when launched over Pakistan, allows them to reach military sites in any of the southern countries of the CSTO (Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan), as well as strategically important cities like Novosibirsk. The importance of this city for the military industrial complex of the country can be judged by only one “branch” of the production of high-precision Su-34 front-line fighter-bombers and participation in the PAK FA program of NAPO them. V.P. Chkalov. And to the territory of Pakistan and other Asian countries, the Lancers will be safely helped by entire squadrons of the strategic KC-10 “Extender” air tankers, some of which can be used from bases in Australia itself, and some from Arabian air bases. The threat also appears for strategic sites in the Caspian Sea and on the Black Sea coast.

The Tyndal B-1B covers the whole territory of the Middle Kingdom and the Far East, where the actions of the American air tankers are absolutely not constrained by anyone, under the cover of dozens of island objects of the Air Force and Navy of the USA, as fish in the water. A clear and cunning “party” of the United States with the B-1B shipment to the Australian Tyndal airbase, played out today, provides for many years of deployment followed by the transformation of Australia into the largest stronghold of American interests in the southern hemisphere. It is not by chance that the Royal Australian Navy abruptly went into quantitative and technological growth (purchases of Poseidon patrols, agreements with Japan on unique Soryu SPSTs), and the Air Force acquired a logistics base to service the F-35A in the APR.



The militarization of the Australian continent is not at all surprising. Washington has long understood that the efforts undertaken by Russia to control the Arctic region are several times more effective than the demonstrative flights of the air defense aircraft “NORAD” or occasional ascent of the submarines of the classes “Sea Wolf” and “Los Angeles”. The Russian Space Forces and the Russian Navy create here a powerful military infrastructure with several air defense / missile defense lines based on C-400 and MiG-31BM interceptors in Tiksi, Avb with anti-submarine aircraft and other equipment for reconnaissance and destruction of naval targets. The Americans in Alaska and Greenland, in terms of distance from the continental logistics facilities with equipment and provisions, have more scarce opportunities than our bases on Franz Josef Land, Novaya Zemlya and other islands. All operational missile-prone areas located in the Arctic are known to us.

When planning an aviation "strategy" through Australia and Central Asia, everything is much more complicated, since most of the states here have an unstable military-political situation related both to religious differences and to various territorial disputes and actions of terrorist organizations "fed up" by the States themselves. You can expect a “stab in the back” from any side, and having gotten your strategic link to this vague geopolitical “mess”, the Americans very skillfully create a new “puzzle” for Russia and its allies, requiring the use of additional military technical tools in the “cold” war.
Author:
17 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Limon1972
    Limon1972 31 March 2016 09: 31
    +2
    As for the "puzzle", the author just noticed, besides Australia, it is full of bases and closer to Russia. Japan for example and South Korea.
  2. vvp2412
    vvp2412 31 March 2016 09: 41
    0
    Since when did Lancer become a missile carrier? He carries freely falling bombs!
    1. silver_roman
      silver_roman 31 March 2016 10: 32
      +1
      Apparently they finished the BIUS, new suspensions for bombs and missiles.
    2. Bersaglieri
      Bersaglieri April 1 2016 16: 07
      +1
      JASSM can carry.
      So, the missile carrier is, but is not strategic.
  3. engineer74
    engineer74 31 March 2016 10: 02
    +2
    B-1Bs were transferred from the US Air Force full-time command to the 8th Army of the Global Strike Command, which is owned by nuclear forces.

    START-3 agreement ordered to live long? Then the answer is simple: more ICBMs and SLBMs fellow , good and different, so that the "Lancers" were enough before takeoff! So that no one leaves offended, including Australopithecines! wink
    IMHO
  4. silver_roman
    silver_roman 31 March 2016 10: 28
    +2
    It would be good if all the concerns described in the article did not come from the author, but from the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation and the General Staff.
    Then it would be possible to draw conclusions that the Russian Federation begins to think strategically, and not just tactically, i.e. beat, interfere and displace the enemy at distant approaches.
    I hope that a reaction will follow at the official level as well. Every time when there is a displacement of the army in the world, our media are simply obliged to shout at the top of their lungs about the threat of militarization of the region and the growth of threats, about the intensified revolutionary movement in regional countries, etc. It is impossible to give a break at all, but unfortunately our media is "OUR"!
    1. Razvedka_Boem
      Razvedka_Boem 31 March 2016 12: 22
      0
      I assure you that smart people sit in the General Staff and see the picture not in the form of a mosaic like us, but in its entirety. Countermeasures are being taken, but as in the case of Syria, everything is done without undue noise.
      In the West, there is now a real anti-Russian hysteria, where the common man is brainwashed so that Russia in their eyes again becomes an "evil empire", which will help them justify a possible preemptive strike.
      1. Mooh
        Mooh 31 March 2016 17: 05
        +3
        On the contrary, it is necessary to redirect something nuclear to Australia with noise and fanfare. These cunning Australians expect to quietly sit out the third world on their separate continent. And if a company passes in the press that it will not work out, and the United States is to blame for this, then at least constant pickets of the base and spitting in beer are guaranteed to staff. Or maybe a change of government to a more peaceful slip through this sauce.
  5. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 31 March 2016 11: 11
    +4
    But to carry out combat duty in the air near the Chinese coast, the B-1B does not at all need additional refueling from the Extender, since the distance to the South China Sea from the Tyndal air base is 4000 km, and the range of the Lancer is 5500 km.

    With such a difference in combat radius and range to the area of ​​duty, carrying out continuous combat duty in the air without refueling is impossible.
    Without "Extenders" "Lancers" can only fly to the district, spin there for 2-3 hours - and it's time to go home.
  6. Großer feldherr
    Großer feldherr 31 March 2016 14: 41
    +1
    Sorry, I read a lot of dubious articles here, but this certainly does not fit into the framework of sanity.
    Strategic aviation in the modern world is assigned the role of "finishing off" after the heavy hand of the Strategic Missile Forces, is there any point in placing aircraft on the other side of the planet (in the literal sense of the word !!!) if the very concept of their use does not imply the presence of an enemy in the air defense zone and weakened ...
    Everything is much simpler.
    The Yankees have been ramming up (or doing) with the Chinese lately, and they have a lot of equipment, but they didn’t have TKR mobile carriers, and this is in a country where they put all their power on aviation!
    And refuellers are needed just for patrolling, it’s rightly noted — without them, only a couple of hours of flight remain on patrol.
  7. maiman61
    maiman61 31 March 2016 16: 10
    +2
    It was not for nothing that the other day there was an infa that we are going to build something on our islands near Japan!
  8. old Muscovite
    old Muscovite 31 March 2016 19: 57
    +1
    The transfer of strategists to Australia, the supply of other new armaments by many of which are not even armed with the United States Army, the construction of bunker-palaces in Australia and New Zealand, the attraction of the most talented young people to study at universities in the countries listed below, various benefits and low tuition costs, the prevention of refugees on your territory do not lead to any thoughts?
  9. Gippo
    Gippo 31 March 2016 21: 10
    +1
    Since when did Lancer become a missile carrier? He carries freely falling bombs!

    What enchanting nonsense. It is you who are talking freely falling nonsense, not Lancer. Have you been banned in Google?
    Under the article, well, not against Russia, that's for sure. Novosibirsk and the Far East are closer to Japan and Alaska. There are many countries that need to go through "transit". It's like scratching with your right foot behind your left ear. I think it's still China.
    the supply of other latest weapons, many of which are not even armed with the us army, the construction of bunker-palaces in Australia and New Zealand

    And here it is possible in more detail and with proofs? And that is very similar to Ren-TV and grandmother's tales on the bench at the entrance. And yet yes "new Zealand" with your permission.
    1. Fulcrumxnumx
      April 1 2016 20: 13
      +1
      He apparently forgot about the "LRASM", "JASSM-ER" and the possibility of quickly adapting the suspension points to the AGM-86B ALCM. But HE would not say about a more convenient "tapping" of our territory from Japanese and Alaskan. If missiles are fired from these directions, then our Aerospace Forces will have at their disposal hours for their detection with the A-50U and further interception by the Far Eastern Su-30SM, Su-35S, MiG-31BM and ground-based air defense systems with a radius of damage covering the trajectory, since almost the entire the way of "Tomahawks" to these IT lies through our territory, but through the South of Tajikistan-Kmrgizia ... once or twice - and our airspace! Krasnodar Territory with Stavropol Territory is even closer
      1. Gippo
        Gippo April 2 2016 01: 58
        0
        Do you think the A-50 squadrons hang in the air around the clock and close the entire eastern corridor?
        What a naive fallacy ...
  10. Dekabrev
    Dekabrev April 3 2016 23: 32
    0
    Not. Something is sophisticated and sophisticated. I think that even for attacks on the territory of China, accommodation in Australia is not the best. Their goal, apparently, is to control the oceans. Of course there are aircraft carriers, but bombers will not hurt to train. They may even return home soon, but if something happens they will be ready within a few hours to return to Australia and work on the already familiar program. The Chinese, by the way, have lately paid great attention to the development of the Navy. The Americans, in turn, demonstrate their willingness to repeatedly increase their military presence in the region. The Chinese at sea still have more Americans before ... And across Russia from Australia to work - it's like pants over your head - you can, of course, but somehow it's not very convenient.