The B-1 departed from Norway and refuelled off the Scottish coast before ultimately overflying the Aegean Sea.

The U.S.AF say that the B-1B Lancer from the 7th Bomb Wing, Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, was involved in Bomber Task Force mission to the Aegean Sea.

“The U.S. Air Force routinely operates across the globe to remain flexible and agile so that it can support allies and partners and defend U.S. security interests. Bomber Task Force missions demonstrate U.S. commitment to the collective defense of the NATO alliance and are a visible demonstration of the U.S. capability of extended deterrence.”

Gen. Jeff Harrigian, commander NATO Allied Air Command and U.S. Air Forces in Europe-Air Forces Africa, was quoted as saying:

“Our commitment to regional peace and stability is unwavering. Missions like this are just one example of NATOā€™s ready, lethal force that can respond to any global threat at a momentā€™s notice.”

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

74 COMMENTS

  1. A very useful bit of kit that can carry up to 24 LRASM.

    We really do need a long range bomber that has the same capability and the missiles that can be launched from it!

    No doubt a cheaper and much better option than using our warships for such missions? Safer too!

    A Ukrainian Su-27 Flanker and MiG-29 Fulcrum escort two B1B Lancers during a training mission for Bomber Task Force Europe, May 29, 2020. Aircrews from the 28th Bomb Wing at Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota, took off on their long-range, long-duration Bomber Task Force mission to conduct interoperability training throughout Europe and the Black Sea region.

    Training with our NATO allies and theatre partner nations contribute to enhanced resiliency and interoperability and enables us to build enduring relationships necessary to confront the broad range of global challenges. (Courtesy photo by Ukrainian Air Force)

    https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/06/b-1b-train-lrasm-capability-during-usaf-bomber-mission-across-the-black-sea/

    • They would be wasted in Uk, one trick pony and with limited cash what would you give up for it? Fighters? Missles? We canā€™t afford to have one trick ponyā€™s, I would love them but we donā€™t have cash.

      • I can see the MOD bean counters sweating at only the thought of a single jet carrying 24 LRASM. Never even mind if they had the sheer reckless financial disregard & audacity to launch them all!

        They’d sh*t the bed! šŸ˜‚

      • One trick pony? The Bone dropped more tonnage in Afghan that any other aircraft. Could stay on station there for many hours longer than any strike aircraft for the grunts on the ground. Can carry up to 24 land attack cruise or anti ship missiles not too mention 24 land attack or anti ship stealthy cruise missiles, 8 2k lb anti ship mines, 24 2k JDAMs, ect. Just how do the Brits or the EU plan to knock down the door of the Chicom or Russian SAMs with their fighters that have limited range and payload? That’s right but sending US bombers and TLAM shooters to do it.

        • Dan,

          I donā€™t think the UK nor the EU have any plans to knock down the Chinese or Russian doors…..the EU doesnā€™t have any real military forces and the UK mindset is not for offensive operations against a peer adversary….

        • I think only three countries have long range bombers of any means, Uk donā€™t start wars any more as aggressors. We also have long range cruise missles and tomahawk to ā€œkickā€ in the door. France for instance have nuclear capable fighter bombers so itā€™s cheaper to use typhoon, f35, tomahawk than paying billions for heavy bombers.

    • My fantasy RAF has 2 small Sqns of these at Scampton having been supplied cheaply by GWB cheaply post Iraq support and as the US focussed on F35 and binned off the joint FB25 ā€œFOASā€ project to replace F-15E/Tornado, with the UK also joining the B21 program to replace them.

      Back in reality however, we could probably afford to run a few of these if we scrapped the entirety of our fast jet force.

      A saving would be closing the low flying noise complaints office as weā€™d practically never fly them and thus not annoy anyone.

      So great, but way, way beyond realistic UK resources.

          • Ha….. and Crikey mate, You might want to chill out a tad. Sorry If my reply wasn’t to your taste this time. lol.

          • If you think not understanding what I said initially “We really do need a long-range bomber that has the same capability“ and choose to make fun of the comment posted, expect to be corrected, it’s that simple!

          • About my post which was misinterpreted and your comment that followed.

            Best stick to watching little animated planes flying around the world and stay off my posts in future unless you have something useful to add if you don’t like being corrected.

      • As I said Rogbob, We really do need a long range bomber that has the “same” capability and the missiles that can be launched from it!”

          • Another clown on here when proven wrong resorts to smart arse comments.

            The sad little man that you are. I’ll remember to post some links to your comments from days past about how successful the F35 is and the amount of jobs it’s going to sustain once the US reduces its order, not to mention how UCAV’s will not be flying until the 2030s. Only one year left and counting!

            All lined up and ready to go.

            Stand By Stand By!

          • You really are a very strange guy Nigel. Stick to bigging up the Chinese and Russians, that is what you are best at. I fully expect F35 orders will reduce. Just like F22, Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen……. You get the idea. Pick holes in J20’s instead of the equipment that will be protecting your sorry arse. Equipment that will be in service for the next 40 years. So get used to it.

          • I fully expect F35 orders will reduce. 

            Stand By Stand By, it’s going to come on top in your own words with links attached!

          • “Equipment that will be in service for the next 40 years.”

            How many faults will it have left by thenšŸ¤£šŸ˜‚šŸ¤£

            Lockheed Martin F–35 deficiencies: two fewer in 2020, 871 issues remain. Lockheed Martin managed to reduce the total number of identified problems with its F–35 Lightning II stealth fighter by two in 2020 ā€“ though 871 deficiencies remain. … The F–35’s problems included 10 category 1 deficiencies, three fewer than in 2019 …14 Jan 2021

          • Well, I hope, given the number of problems we currently have with the F35 and counting! šŸ¤£

          • How’s the SU57 going these day’s?? bet that’s got a cracking snags list. Do share with us Nigel?? Don’t be shy

          • Go to bed Robert, you’re making a complete fool of yourself again and I’m being very polite.

          • Really? After calling me a silly little man and sharing cartoons. And also not being very nice to Captain P Wash. You are anything but polite Nigel. Defects, cost & technical delays for the SU57 & J20 please?? I’m sure you can find a website that shares such information, and I don’t mean Wikipedia.

        • As I said, that capability is insanely expensive.

          It is ā€œcancel dreadnoughts and nuclear subs or cancel all other fast jetsā€ expensive.

          It is way beyond our means and all it does it duplicate what the US has, whilst removing true strategic defence or the entirety of our air defence, CAS, attack/strike capability.

          All for being able to attack a small subset of targets, targets that with our existing assets, AAR and LR missiles – we can pretty much hit anyway.

          Again, in fantasy world yes, in the real world no and never.

          Hell the article is a single bomber the USAF sent. In the 1960s itā€™d have been a wing. In the 70s/80s a squadron. Even they can barely afford this these days.

          • Seriously? A bomber? Look up what the US spends on them.

            In contrast, weā€™ve had to believe impossible things maintenance and upgrade wise to ā€œfindā€ budget to integrate a single AESA radar on our primary fast jet.

          • The capability does not need to be hugely expensive. It depends on the mission requirements. Will it be a stand-off bomber or a penetration bomber. The penetration bomber will need cutting edge radar absorbent materials (RAM), if there is any hope of it reaching its target or passing through multilayered air defenses. It certainly doesnā€™t need to overfly its target when loaded with precision guided cruise missiles. However, it will be extremely expensive much like a B2/B21.

            The stand-off long range cruise missile carrier is the cheapest option for a strategic bomber. Large cargo aircraft like the A400M have been mooted as possible carriers. Lobbing the missiles out the back off the ramp. However, that would mean that aircraft canā€™t be used for its primary role of logistics. Which will have serious knock on effect elsewhere. Something like the P8 Poseidon could also be used. It could carry a number of cruise missiles (about 10 max). Yet we have so few, it would also detract from its primary mission of anti-submarine warfare.

            I believe Russia have shown the possible route with the PAK-DA prototype. We can be pretty sure the RAM is not in the same league as the B2/B21. Yet it will be relatively stealthy due its overall flying wing design. Significantly better than the current Tu22 and Tu160 aircraft. The design of the PAK-DA lends it a large volume bomb bay but also the ability to house lots of fuel. The PAK-DA is not a penetration bomber, but a cruise missile carrier designed to get much closer to its launch point before its detected.

            The PAK-DA is I feel a very good example of what can be done on a reasonable budget. It will deliver (if actually made) a very effective stand-off cruise missile carrier. This is what the UK should be looking at if it wants to get back in the strategic bomber game. Could we build an equivalent PAK-DA type bomber, yes most definitely.

          • The PAK-DA looks like a good fit with a range quoted at 12,000km-7,450miles and a payload of around 25/30tons.

            Due to the advancement of ground to air missiles (S-400 and S-500) area access denial needs to be considered so standoff munitions would be the answer delivered, in sufficient numbers, particularly against large naval forces in far-reaching parts of the world.

            A very useful deterrent too!

            It was also interesting to note how the US will be using their B52’s to deliver hypersonic missiles, first flown on April 15, 1952.

          • So billions on a handful of aircraft to lob missiles slightly further than we can already? The is the madness of Nimrodeconomics, except it doesnt even offer something we actually must definitely have, and cant do any other way.

            I also doubt we could actually, there is a major recruitment drive to do FCAS/Tempest, so where are the facilities and people to do something else?

          • You kind of missing the point. If we had for example a strategic bomber based alongside a Squadron of Typhoons in Marham, both equipped with Storm Shadow. With the bomber carrying 24 missiles, whilst 12 Typhoons are used to carry a pair of missiles each. For arguments sake, let’s say the target is near Moscow, in Russia. We would first look at forward basing the Typhoons closer to the target. We would also need to forward deploy a tanker. Then include a F35 strike package for the SEAD role, to clear a path for the Typhoons to get through. Because of where and how far the target is, the Typhoons will have little margin for attacking from different directions (Norway/Baltic states). Thus making their “ingress and egress” routes predictable. If we had a PAK-DA type of bomber with its 7000nm range. This one bomber has the opportunity to attack the target from pretty much any direction, making its attack less predictable. Furthermore, it would need a huge support package or need to be forward based close to the target.

            These are the clear advantages of using a strategic bomber over relying on a larger force of smaller aircraft.

          • No. There isnt a point to miss.

            We dont have a need to hit Moscow with 24 Storm Shadows for a start. That died as a requirement half a century ago!

            We do however have a need to put fast air in a multiplicity of places- north UK, south UK, baltics/romania, cyprus and syria, south atlantic. And thats before we send them to places for training exercises.

            That fast air needs to do everything from air superiority, sead, cas and strike.

            This bomber does one thing, and it does it at overkill levels for the resources the UK would throw at anything.

            Yeah it could drop 20 Paveways over Syria in one sortie, but do we need to? Dont we actually need just a handful up there at any time? Would we need 4 such aircraft holding 80 bombs to sustain one? The cost is going through the roof now as we do not have 80 bombs ready to send up.

            Whats more this bomber cant defend itself, nor is it a ā€œpenetratingā€ one anyway so the gamut of supporting assets is still there.

            A bomber is a one trick pony, and a ferociously expensive one at that. It doesnt do anything that we cant do using more flexible assets. Yeah sure, like my fantasy its on a list of ā€œnice to have / has some benefitsā€ but that list isnt reality for the UK. For the US and China yeah crack on as it offers efficiency over otherwise unaffordably vast tactical fleets, whilst Russia, well weā€™lp beleive it when we see it, and Iā€™m pretty certain we dont want their militaristic bent anyway.

          • Can I ask you again Rogbob what the price of this bomber is that you elude to against the cost of sending the same amount of aircraft DaveyB has mentioned?

            Clearly, I haven’t factored in the potential for loss of lives or fuel. I assume we are still talking about launching standoff munitions LRASM which was my point to begin with.

            12xTyphoon Ā£110M per aircraft.
            2x F35B Ā£80-100
            2x Tanker Ā£150m (should have been Ā£50m each cost increase due to leasing costs)

            Most expensive option: B21 Raider $550 million (Ā£400) per unit.

            “Yeah it could drop 20 Paveways over Syria in one sortie, but do we need to? Dont we actually need just a handful up there at any time? Would we need 4 such aircraft holding 80 bombs to sustain one? The cost is going through the roof now as we do not have 80 bombs ready to send up.”

            On the morning of 7 April 2017, the United States launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles from the Mediterranean Sea into Syria, aimed at Shayrat Airbase controlled by the Syrian government. … The Syrian Air Force launched airstrikes against the rebels from the base only hours after the American attack.

          • Really? You seriously think sticker price has anything to do with this?

            How much do you think the US has spent collectively on the B21 program? 30 years of R&D, black, white and grey, an entire industrial base for instance.

            As a teaser, we spent 400million upgrading Warrior without producing a single Warrior. We spent 3 billion over a decade failing to upgrade Nimrod, producing 3 prototypes. We spent about 20 billion developing Typhoon (a further 50-60 Billion coming from partners), and have put all of our money into creating a 2 billion fund to move Tempest forward a bit.

            And this is before we get into running and upgrade costs which make the above look small. Noting in 2008 we signed a 500milliom sustainment contract for deep maintenwnce on Harriers, and 200million to integrate the latest version of Brimstone. Typhoon getting Brimstone and Stormshadow was held back, but the best part of a billion.

            This bomber thing is so far out of our reach Iā€™m gasping with incredularity that anyone even wants to discuss it.

            The clue in how completely irrelevant your Tomahawk Dit is that it wasnt us doing it. It was the US. That character case should speak for itself, I dont have the time or inclination to speak further for it.

            Iā€™m sorry if this rains on a parade, but operating bombers would require giving up huge areas of current ongoing expenditure (eg all fast air) whilst developing one is just stupid in terms of the numbers it would cost vs the number produced vs benefit gained.

          • You seem to miss the point, we haven’t spent the money developing the B21 Raider, so an off the shelf buy (2030) plus, we already have Brimstone and Storm Shadow with Spear 3 already budgeted for, not forgetting Perseus of course.

            4x Typooons equals 8x Storm Shadow and the likelihood of the B21carring up to 24. I’d say that looks like a very useful deterrent and quite cheap too!

            And don’t forget, The B21 was the most expensive platform quoted in the article I sent to you in the above link with the capacity to carry 30,000lbs of ordnance.

            “According to the US Air Force, the B-21 is a “new, high-tech long-range bomber that will eventually replace the Air Forceā€™s ageing bomber fleet” and “must be able to penetrate highly contested environments, have top-end low observability characteristics and loiter capability”.

            Australia is already considering it along with a tie-in with future UK developments.

            A very useful deterrent given the likelihood of how things are panning out in the South China Sea and the beginning of another Cold War with Russia.

            Again I ask, What aircraft are you referring to exactly?

          • Even after the realities of the defence review, with the equipment budget especially, and what we realistically can afford over the next 10 years. Like you said, we have had to make cuts just to afford an AESA radar for Typhoon. Yet some are coming up with thoughts of buying strategic bombers šŸ¤¦ We have come up with 2 Billion for Tempest, which in reality is about a tenner when it comes to fighter design.

        • “For the UK, there are four broad options for a long-range strike capability: a stand-off missile carrier; a penetrating bomber; an unmanned combat air vehicle; or an off-the-shelf acquisition. A stand-off missile carrier would provide perhaps the most affordable approach to the acquisition of a bomber capability and could either utilise an existing airframe or a purpose-built design.” 

    • To be honest if we’re going down the long-range bomber route then we should just develop BAE Taranis into a production model and get a dozen or so; they’re intercontinental range and although they can’t carry as many weapons, how often really do you need to have 24 bombs or missiles?

    • If push came to shove perhaps a Couple of Vulcans can be rustled up from Museums without the hindrance of CAA Red Tape.

  3. So would an independent Scotland allow Nuclear capable US bombers into its airspace or let tankers capable of refuelling them use Scottish bases. Can’t see an independent Scotland being allowed into Nato without concessions on US use of bases. All kinda making the ‘an independent Scotland could remove nukes from its soil’ irrelevant.

  4. Sorry I know this has nothing to do with this but figured someone here might know?
    Saw an V22 osprey land at oke camp on the weekend and a few people on the FB group I’m on are convinced that this is operated by UKSF. Any truth to this? I know they don’t comment on anything but surely couldn’t hide that in the budget

    • Often see Ospreys flying around at low altitude where I live in the Brecons. Certain chaps have a “facility” quite nearby. They have US markings (they fly that low) so one can deduce they’re offering lifts to our guys.

    • Oke? Okehampton Camp?

      I don’t think DSF operate them. They’d be seen operating from their home station too often and tongues would wag, even if only for night flying, and no point in keeping them tucked in a hanger. However, the infrastructure to use them at a certain place has been built, so I believe we have access to them if necessary.

  6. The US Air Force has now admitted why this B1 spent a month longer in Norway while the rest of its squadron returned in March. Was a ground incident where a tablet computer was ingested by one of the engines and ended up totally destroying two engines which had to be replaced. The maintenance commander responsible was relieved of command after ‘loss of confidence’.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here