Two B-52 aircraft from Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, assigned to 5th Bomb Wing, commenced their Bomber Task Force (BTF) mission in Europe by performing a low approach flyby on Estonia’s Independence Day on February 24.
The BTF aims to strengthen the Trans-Atlantic relationship between the US and European Allies by enhancing Allied cohesion and interoperability through joint missions with various Allied fighters.
The B-52s will operate from Moron, Spain, during their stay in Europe.
“Today we celebrate with our friends from Estonia 105 years of independence. The United States and Estonia are close Allies and share a strong partnership based on a common commitment to democracy, human rights and the rule of law. We remain steadfastly committed to the freedom and sovereignty of Estonia and all our Baltic allies as we deter and defend against any threats to our shared security,” said U.S. Air Force Gen. James Hecker, Commander NATO Allied Air Command and U.S. Air Forces in Europe-Air Forces Africa.
These Bomber Task Force missions, say the U.S. Air Force, enable crews to maintain high readiness proficiency.
Excellent. Heightened & visible support for Europe from the US but without esculation?
I don’t think it escalates anything. b52s have been flying around for decades.
Russia can fly its bombers over its allies.
What is clear is that trying not to escalate has achieved very little in Europe. It has been seen as weakness
Perhaps less usual to be operating out of Spain instead of Fairford for a flight over the Baltic.
What is notable is that all NATO members & probably some non NATO members a keen to be seen to be cooperating in any way. We are all in this together.
Minot deployed 4 of their B-52s to Moron. Two of them were sent to Estonia on their way to Spain to participate in Estonia’s Independence Day celebration. All 4 will be participating in exercises in support of NATO while at Moron.
It’s Minot and barksdale. Everything else is just temporary they can go wherever the hell they want. And have through the last 50 years.
Ah troll arguing with troll, most amusing.
Two B-52s overhead? No problem. Twenty B-52s overhead? Problem. 😳
You think two b-52s is not a problem? You might want to rethink that you were allegedly in the US Air Force.. Just saying.
I think his point was two B52’s is a message, twenty is a very bad day.
👍
You have stated the case much better than I did! 😊
Just saying….chuff as normal!
👍👍
You have asked the Taliban and former Iraqui Army about their thoughts on just ONE B52 overhead, haven’t you?
😉
Apology due to those I respect on the site (this would specifically exclude ‘Esteban’) who may have misinterpreted an inelegantly phrased post. Memo to self: never indulge in deliberate ironic understatement on this site w/out signaling by an appropriate accompanying GIF. Quite aware the potential weapons load out for a Buff is ~ 70,000 lb.
Bud, don’t apologise. Hugs.
Flock of ducks in a row
Unlike their ocean-going counterparts (battleships) the old slogger goes on and on. The question I have to ask is why the UK and others ditched the heavy bomber when the Americans still had faith in the concept. Currently, the B52 offers two functions, one is to put the fear of God into any prospective foe and the other is to flatten entire cities with its bombs. The Vulcan could have proved valuable in a number of recent engagements and a replacement must have been on the cards in some dimly lit drawing office? Talking about battleships, is there still a… Read more »
Maybe the ethics of flattening cities trouble us more than it does the Americans.
not historically, it doesnt
You should acquaint yourself with British history. Ever heard of Arthur Harris and Winston Churchill?
I mean particularly because of our history. And thinking about it, perhaps it’s a luxury we can afford ourselves no longer being the world’s policeman.
Well the history of that was that even Churchill did his best to write Harris out of history post war even in the 40s and 50s it became deeply controversial (even late war) and as we know until recent years Bomber Command didn’t even get a memorial to their distasteful but very necessary role and even that was mostly privately financed. So the ethics have long been different.
Churchill tried to write Harris out of it because Churchill was always conscious of his own place in history and didn’t want the grim details of the Allied bombing of cities to mar his reputation as he knew it would. It wasn’t out of any ethical consideration or moral regret but to save his reputation. Let’s not pretend it was something else. And let’s not pretend that the absence of any memorial was anything but that. The idea of the saturation city bombing was a British initiative and a British priority; and this sanctimonious claptrap that Brits are somehow more… Read more »
An attempt was made with the Dieppe raid in 1942 to invade mainland Europe – it was a complete failure. The lesson was learnt that only overwhelming force could succeed. It took 2 years to build up that force. In the meantime what were the British to do to take on the Germans – throw bread buns at them? The strategic bombing of German cities was the only answer. Remember what the Germans did to cities. As Bomber Harris said ‘those who sow the wind reap the whirlwind’.
Leveling cities is hyperbolic.
The payloads carried by the B52 were frequently expended in operations over Syria and Iraq while combatting terrorism.
The B1 Lancer, another heavy bomber in the USAF inventory, regularly went “winchester”, as in, it had expended all of its munitions and had to return to base due to extremely target rich environments.
Here’s an article on the topic:
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2015/08/23/inside-the-b-1-crew-that-pounded-isis-with-1800-bombs/
But if it allows you feel morally superior to not have relevant military capabilities that your enemies have, so be it.
I had hyperbolic once but the cream cleared it up nicely. The fear factor is a big part of the B52 role and it does certainly pack a punch when and if it is used in anger. I still believe a fast big bomber with a considerably bigger payload than Typhoon and F35 would still have a role in air warfare and carrying multiple cruise missile packs, would be a huge addition to operational planning. Sabre rattling and posturing is still a useful military tool and one of the oldest tactics known to history and the B52 / Lancer do… Read more »
UK budgets wouldn’t allow it, but if the RAF were able to get six B21s alongside the US it would transform its strategic power. The Lancer is an amazing aircraft but will soon be retired. It still kinda surprises me the B1 Lancer will be retired while the B52 will stick around. The Lancer carries a larger payload, is obviously a newer design, has a much higher top speed, and is slightly cheaper to operate/maintain. If it were being modernized in the same way the B52 is, it would be a force to be reckoned with for decades to come.… Read more »
Certainly doesn’t trouble the Russians (e.g. Mariupol, Bakhmut?)
I wonder what type of ordnance it would have carried today?
https://live.staticflickr.com/5730/30108714784_ed4c09b39b_b.jpg
And what modifications it would require to keep it up to date?
A fantastic aircraft nonetheless!
https://images.fineartamerica.com/images/artworkimages/mediumlarge/3/avro-vulcan-raf-bomber-aircraft-rick-deacon.jpg
What a photo!
Seconded!
Charlie Thompson painted an almost identical shot.
Perhaps it would be carrying a more modern version of Blue Steel and a more modern version of Shrike?
More than likely! First flew on the 30 August 1952
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Vulcan_bomber_and_Blue_Steel_missile_-_geograph.org.uk_-_961278.jpg
A computer-generated image of Tempest.
https://www.pesmedia.com/uploads/pes/articles/2020/01/13/18776/Tempest-fighter-jet-engine-design-1.jpg
Wasn’t there some talk back in the day about the possibility of converting Concorde into a nuclear bomber?
That is a whole topic in itself. Some of the topic is just wishful thinking. Officially there was no such plan and in reality Concorde was a quite light payload aircraft with a relatively short unrefueled range that would have been super difficult to harden for a nuclear task. But I did, personally, hear Tony Benn state that he had cancelled the military version of Concorde and he did, I believe, repeat that in a radio interview late in life. There is, however, zero documentary evidence to back that claim up. The other side of the coin is that the… Read more »
I cant remember where I heard or read that, but thats a lot of good infomation you have there. Interesting read.
I think the Soviets stole a march on us – and their platforms are still going strong.
They stole some of the tech and used it for Concordski: that is well known. The issue was how did having a high fling and very fast bomber actually benefit your military strength: not much. If the opposition had reasonably high flying and fast fighters with effective missiles. As an exemplar of very expensive brute force it is OK. But it is very vulnerable to missiles never mind A30. The West went down the cruise missile route instead as it was realised that it was far cheaper and less vulnerable as well as more accurate to have a large number… Read more »
Oh! I thought the Bones were/are gone; the spirits are following.
And I do take your points about cruise missiles, however, would it be a counter factual to say that relying on missiles allows pollies to cut the budget and also order less missiles? Do the public give a hoot about less missiles being ordered – easy win for Treasury and the pollies.
It is much quicker and easier to ramp up missile production that to produce Mach 2.2 bombers!
I think the penny has dropped that Western values are under extreme threat from slightly unhinged autocrats.
Wasn’t the TSR2 the military forerunner of concord that got scrapped due to cost.
The b52 would be useless against a peer enemy in all roles except launching cruise missiles. Or nuclear Armed cruise missiles. Its not carpet bombing any serious enemy.
That’s why everyone else scrapped heavy bombers. It’s a niche capability that’s expensive.
Stealthy heavy bombers are hideously expensive for all but the US.
“The b52 would be useless against a peer enemy in all roles except launching cruise missiles”
That’s essentially what it’s used for these days. A bomb truck with significant range and payload capacity. Last time I checked one b52 can carry up to 20 jassm-er and that will sober any adversary up peer or not.
I think the jury is still out on this one Marked. As Ukraine has clearly shown old military scenarios don’t really change we just believe too much in push-button warfare and that is far from being assured reasoning.
Is it though? Yes sure it might have the ability to flatten entire cities however in reallity would it not be looking to lauch stand-off weapons aiming to destroy specific targets a long way away. Today the mantra is eliminating targets which allow the enemy to wage war. The concept of demorolising the civilian population by destroying cities failed on numerous occasions and is failing for Russia now. Always wise to have that in your back pocket though. Would it have not been necessary to rebuild the vulcan from the ground up? A British equivelent to the B2? The Vulcan… Read more »
The Vulcan due to its hidden engines and delta wing planform was quite stealthy during its time. There were numerous occasion when on exercise it flew through US search radars without being spotted. It was pure cost savings and short sightedness that scrapped the Vulcan just as a weapon was coming in to production to male it relevant again. In 1980 the AGM-86 air launched cruise missile (ALCM) came in to service. Being first deployed on B52s and replacing the SRAM, where it could carry 12 ALCMs. To make the Vulcan more stealthy is possible. but will come at a… Read more »
Not sure what happened there?
The Vulcan due to its hidden engines and delta wing planform was quite stealthy during its time. There were numerous occasions when on exercises it flew through US search radars, without being spotted. Setting up bombing runs over Washington and New York. It was pure cost savings and short sightedness that scrapped the Vulcan, just as a weapons was coming in to production to make it relevant again. In 1980 the AGM-86 air launched cruise missile (ALCM) came in to service. Being first deployed on B52s and replacing the SRAM, where it could carry 12 ALCMs. Imagine what a Vulcan… Read more »
The mightiest battleships of all time were taken out with WW2 weaponry in the end as a weapon they have little value like the B-52 they were seen as a visual indicator of might. The B-52 is still useful in that regard as here but it’s main asset is it’s carrying capacity for stand off weapons it’s an accident of technology really that makes it still useful when no one is going to design a new aircraft of the sort so they keep it going to serve that purpose of old school capacity combined with new world weapons at scale,… Read more »
There could be some logic in having large manned platforms (Vulcan 2) that could launch various weapons from a considerable distance and do it whilst loitering and awaiting further targeting. A large airframe with long-range fuel and a payload, say twice or three times that of a Typhoon could have extended operational envelopes, especially in and around the SCS. The fleet would not need to be more than 10-15 and stationed strategically and ready to undertake lengthy operations when required. In essence, a squadron of six planes based in Quata would be a considerable deterrent and in operational terms, the… Read more »
The difference is that it is a bomb truck load of precision weapons with incredible accuracy.
You cannot compare that to WW2 where you tipped a load of bombs out and some might, if you were lucky, hit the target.
The whole reason why Black Buck dropped a cross runway string at Stanley was the imprecision. Most of Vulcan’s systems were WW2 in origin including the targeting radar based on H2S.
There comes a point where flying antiques becomes both very expensive (no parts support as the components to make the parts are no longer made) and pointless.
Vulcans worked well against Indonesia when deployed to Singapore and also worked well against Argentina after they hit the FI and they feared attacks on BA they pulled back much if their Airforce.
A small buy of 7 B21’s for the RAF would be top of my shopping list right now if I was in charge. Strategic bombers can have a effect well outside of their actual capability. A modernised Vulcan would have been very useful just like B1 today.
Yeah that’s not really true at all. The Vulcan was not useful in the Falkland all. All the black buck missions were PR stunts. B-52 has always been a completely different deal.
Clueless as ever Estebaninski
Designed as a medium-range bomber, they managed to put a crater into the runway which, was the sole objective of operation Black Buck and inflict widespread damage to Argentine troops’, facilities, aircraft, ammunition and fuel stores.
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjgwMTE5YmItNzM2ZS00M2NmLWE4ODYtYzIwN2VhMTdiZGU3XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNzA1OTI4NTM@._V1_.jpg
Yes Vulcans role was limited in the wider scheme of things, but I’d not go as far as to say they were PR stunts. They had psychological impact. If the RAF can hit Stanley it can hit Argentina. It sends a message.
An SSN or a Carrier sitting off your coast sends a similar one, which is why I’m such a big supporter of both SSN and Carriers.
Exactly
Agreed. Two full sized carriers would have cost the UK £2-300m back in the 1960’s. In 1982 we spent £3bn retaking the Falklands.
Would Argentina have attacked if they knew they faced 36 Phantoms, 36 Buccs and 8 AEW Gannets?
Rethink maybe 🤔
Oh dear, more Brit squaddie socks found in your dirty laundry, time for a sad rant.
I’d actually buy another Astute.
For the cost of that program you could buy Astute, T32 and make the RAF very happy with Typhoon T4 to replace T1.
I’m confused as to how Vulcan II would overreach that lot?
It would probably cost Tempest money to develop.
Actually, you could not.
Well aware of sub building limitations at Barrow, Bob.
Seems it’s more of a reactor problem than a capacity problem unfortunately, I would have wished for a couple more myself.
There’s a queue on your wishes 😉
Beautiful aircraft the Vulcan. It had a far lighter payload though than the B52, so not really equivellant, but the heaviest we had. Why risk mega bombers when we can send hordes of cruise missiles with precision strike rather than obliterating innocent civilians, or risk highly trained crews.
Fair point
It was all due to politics between the navy and RAF, with a diminished defence budget. It was decided that the RN being equipped with Polaris was the way ahead, probably aided by America pushing the sale of Polaris, for which they retained the codes.
Nice flyby I guess, although what purpose it serves, well I for one have no idea.
If the US/NATO/Western Europe are too shit scared to tackle Russia once and for all.
We know that and so does Russia. So time to save all that aviation fuel, put the ‘big toys’ back in their boxes, and focus on fighting the poxy proxy war!
Unfortunately that’s all the west is really good for. Hopefully this ‘war’ will finish, before China decides to flex it military might in the Taiwan straight?
When shall we attack Russia then?Through Finland or Poland? Take your pick,all the way to Moscow or carry on to Siberia?🙄
You don’t seem to have a point to make, unless its ‘hiding behind the sofa’, while the Ukrainians do the dirty work, at a cost of 1000’s of lives.
And someone else’s paying for it.
Well as you want NATO to attack Russia I thought you could give us a clue where and when!As to hiding behind the sofa where were you in the 70/80s when I was sitting in Germany waiting for the hordes to come across the IGB with a life expectancy of 24hrs? Still a twinkle in the eye I expect🙄
👍
24 hours?
What we’re you, a RCZ cook?
I went RMP, we had 36 hours 🙂
Armoured engineers in Munsterlager mate😄
That’s something I would have loved to have tried.
My Dad came out after, 26years ish, and at Catterick did a ‘Labouring’ resettlement course, working for the Earl Cadogan, in his spare time he was able to perform lots of handyman jobs from brick laying to total house refurbishment; Bodger Barry and Son was created in Chelsea and we worked every free day; but, I loved it.
You had a life expectancy of 24hrs? Wow I wish I had been in your shoes. What were you… REME?
To be honest, I cannot remember what our ‘life expectancy’ was in the Artillery. I served in the late 70’s to mid 80’s, on an OP crew, and I do recall it wasn’t anywhere near 24hours!
Thanks ever so much.
To be quite honest then you should know better than to even call for NATO action as you should know what the score is!
REME, front line units and rear area locations, high value depth target for the Russians during the BAOR days. OPs, RA, pretty much the same life expectancy in the first 24hrs as everyone else Tom. Unless you were stay behind OPs, then your initial liefex was longer, but then after the Reds had rolled by, very short. Come on mate, lets get over this “my job was harder/more dangerous/wetter/scarier than yours” etc…..everyone was and still are, on the same team.
You can Foxtrot Oscar your last statement.
I faced PARA off after their session at the Ratpit. I win.
😉
Ah the ratpit, long and thin, hard to extract from if the enemy holds the main entrance!!!!! many a good night in there kicking your boys arses back up hospital hill…..😂👍!
NATO is a defensive alliance. The message to Russia is simply confirmation that all the allies including the most powerful ones and those furthest away will defend every inch of NATO soil. Proxy war it is not. Individual nations see an agressor who is bullying his neighbour. Those nations are staying out of the fight but evening up the odds a little so Ukraine is able to defend itself. Whilst I am sure China will excert pressure on Taiwan I hope they will remember that anything they gain from force is likely to be outweighed by the rest of the… Read more »
I doubt B-52s can do anything other than make the Russians yawn. S-300 and S-400 missile systems would down those aircraft instantly after crossing into Russian airspace.
B-52s only strike fear in goat herders and farmers, like those in Afghanistan.