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 NATO’s ready, lethal force that can respond to any global threat at a moment’s notice.”

5 2 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
74 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
20 days ago

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… Read more »

Andy a
Andy a
20 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

They would be wasted in Uk, one trick pony and with limited cash what would you give up for it? Fighters? Missles? We can’t afford to have one trick pony’s, I would love them but we don’t have cash.

Rfn_Weston
Rfn_Weston
20 days ago
Reply to  Andy a

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! 😂

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
20 days ago
Reply to  Rfn_Weston

More than once! 😂🤣😂

dan
dan
19 days ago
Reply to  Andy a

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… Read more »

Andrew
Andrew
19 days ago
Reply to  dan

Dan,

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

Andy a
Andy a
19 days ago
Reply to  dan

I think only three countries have long range bombers of any means, Uk don’t start wars any more as aggressors. We also have long range cruise missles and tomahawk to “kick” in the door. France for instance have nuclear capable fighter bombers so it’s cheaper to use typhoon, f35, tomahawk than paying billions for heavy bombers.

Andy a
Andy a
19 days ago
Reply to  dan

For the cost our fast jet force is far more use for cash, attach, CAS , air policing……

Rogbob
Rogbob
20 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

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 “FOAS” 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 we’d practically never fly them and thus not annoy anyone. So great, but way,… Read more »

captain p wash
captain p wash
20 days ago
Reply to  Rogbob

lol…. a great post mate.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
20 days ago
Reply to  captain p wash

What’s great about it apart from not understanding what I said in the first place???

Captain P Wash
Captain P Wash
19 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

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

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
19 days ago
Reply to  Captain P Wash

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!

Captain P Wash
Captain P Wash
19 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

I was talking to Rogbob, WTF is your issue ?

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
19 days ago
Reply to  Captain P Wash

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.

captain p wash
captain p wash
16 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Oh dear, looks like another Asshole has emerged.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
15 days ago
Reply to  captain p wash

YOU, TOTAL AND STUPID WITH IT.

Look Shipmates, I’ve just spotted a Rivet Joint, it was over there an hour ago and then it was over there an hour before that.

I must inform me matelots aboard the UKDJ, I’m sure they’ll be really interested. NOT

Get the Horlicks on lads, it’s going to be a long day, full ahead Masterbates!
comment image

Last edited 15 days ago by Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
20 days ago
Reply to  Rogbob

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!”

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
19 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Try reading this for a better understanding of what I’m actually talking about.

https://wavellroom.com/2020/09/10/the-uk-and-long-range-strike/

Captain P Wash
Captain P Wash
19 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Mate, You seem to keep replying to yourself here…… You OK Hun ?

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
19 days ago
Reply to  Captain P Wash

You mean correcting others mistakes.
Thanks for the reply by the way lol

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
19 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Check out DaveyB’s comment below, someone I take seriously on this website.

Captain P Wash
Captain P Wash
19 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

See, Talking to yourself again…. Are you lonely ?

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
19 days ago
Reply to  Captain P Wash

I’m not a sad little man like you no!

Captain P Wash
Captain P Wash
19 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Well I guess you must crave the attention of replying to your own Posts then.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
19 days ago
Reply to  Captain P Wash

No, I’m replying to your pathetic replys.

Robert Blay.
Robert Blay.
19 days ago
Reply to  Captain P Wash

Nigel gets awfully upset very easily. Ask him about F35. He loves it 😄

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
18 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

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!

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
18 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

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.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
18 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

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!

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
18 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

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

How many faults will it have left by then🤣😂🤣

Lockheed Martin F35 deficiencies: two fewer in 2020, 871 issues remain. Lockheed Martin managed to reduce the total number of identified problems with its F35 Lightning II stealth fighter by two in 2020 – though 871 deficiencies remain. … The F35’s problems included 10 category 1 deficiencies, three fewer than in 2019 …14 Jan 2021

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
18 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

How faults with the J20? How’s that going for you.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
18 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Well, I hope, given the number of problems we currently have with the F35 and counting! 🤣

Last edited 18 days ago by Nigel Collins
Robert Blay
Robert Blay
18 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

How many with the J20??

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
18 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Do some research for once and come back with the facts you total bore.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
18 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

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

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
18 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

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

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
18 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

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.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
18 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

other forms of therapy are available Nigel. Just so you are aware

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
18 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

As I’ve politely reminded you before Robert, If you can’t handle my factual replies don’t reply to my posts unless….
comment image

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
18 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

I’ll leave it there! 😂

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
18 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

You triggered Nigel, that’s not like you.

captain p wash
captain p wash
16 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Yes i have noticed your Clown like Attributes Nigel

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
15 days ago
Reply to  captain p wash

Now, where’s the South China Sea again mates? I can’t find it on me map.

He couldn’t find his own ass with both hands if he tried and that’s on a good day!

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/1Idzr0azKSSqOlRMhZsRleZiiHDRyzIUZsrbP-7heObF8eOvgE7UsByzkgEABKoOyhW4sURUlo8

Last edited 15 days ago by Nigel Collins
Rogbob
Rogbob
19 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

As I said, that capability is insanely expensive. It is “cancel dreadnoughts and nuclear subs or cancel all other fast jets” 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… Read more »

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
19 days ago
Reply to  Rogbob

How much and what platform are you talking about?

Rogbob
Rogbob
19 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

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

In contrast, we’ve had to believe impossible things maintenance and upgrade wise to “find” budget to integrate a single AESA radar on our primary fast jet.

DaveyB
DaveyB
19 days ago
Reply to  Rogbob

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 doesn’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… Read more »

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
19 days ago
Reply to  DaveyB

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.

Rogbob
Rogbob
19 days ago
Reply to  DaveyB

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?

Daveyb
Daveyb
19 days ago
Reply to  Rogbob

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… Read more »

Rogbob
Rogbob
19 days ago
Reply to  Daveyb

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… Read more »

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
18 days ago
Reply to  Rogbob

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 £110M per aircraft. 2x F35B £80-100 2x Tanker £150m (should have been £50m each cost increase due to leasing costs) Most expensive option: B21 Raider $550 million (£400) per unit. “Yeah it could drop 20 Paveways over Syria in… Read more »

Rogbob
Rogbob
18 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

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.… Read more »

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
18 days ago
Reply to  Rogbob

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… Read more »

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
18 days ago
Reply to  Rogbob

Nigel doesn’t understand money. He thinks defence is paid for with fairy dust.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
18 days ago
Reply to  Rogbob

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 🤦 We have come up with 2 Billion for Tempest, which in reality is about a tenner when it comes to fighter design.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
19 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

“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.” 

Steve R
Steve R
19 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

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?

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
19 days ago
Reply to  Steve R

Quite possibly, it seems to fit with the suggestion DaveyB made in relation to the PAK-DA above.

It would serve as a very useful deterrent against larger naval forces for one.
Australia could make a useful partner in this regard and help to reduce production costs.

“Australia has been missing an effective long-range strike platform since the retirement of the F-111 and finding the right platform to fill the role is proving difficult, however, building on the early success of the Loyal Wingman and BAE’s Taranis means allied collaboration on a long-range UCAV could do the trick.”

https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/strike-air-combat/6273-filling-australia-s-aerial-long-range-strike-gap-with-a-ucav

Steve R
Steve R
19 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

If we went down the route of Taranis as an unmanned long-range bomber/strike aircraft, I wonder if other versions could be done for the FAA; an A2A refuelling version and an AEW version; it’s large enough, has the endurance and from what I’ve read, would fall within the specified takeoff and arrest weight for the proposed drone catapults.

Could save money; for the A2A refuelling it would just replace bombs in the bay with a fuel tank or bladder.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
19 days ago
Reply to  Steve R

More than possible I would have thought.

Hot-swappable sections to accommodate weapons, AEW, EW or fuel could well be on the cards.

And with the development of the new engine for Tempest, you only have to imagine what can be achieved in terms of stealth and longer ranges.

https://www.raf.mod.uk/what-we-do/team-tempest/news/rolls-royce-develops-world-first-electrical-technology-for-next-generation-tempest-programme/

Paul T
Paul T
19 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

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

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
18 days ago
Reply to  Paul T

There’s one sitting at Southend airport ready to go!

Herodotus
20 days ago

Useful but aren’t the B1s going? Still a great looking aircraft from whatever angle you look at it!

RobW
RobW
20 days ago
Reply to  Herodotus

The B1s and B2s are being replaced by the B21, possibly B52s eventually too according to the USAF.

expat
expat
20 days ago

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.

James
James
19 days ago

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

20210410_085136_001.jpg
MikeB1947
MikeB1947
19 days ago
Reply to  James

Perhaps a joint training exercise with US Special Forces?

Airborne
Airborne
19 days ago
Reply to  James

Nope mate not as yet operated by UKSF, as its own assets.

Ian M.
Ian M.
19 days ago
Reply to  James

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.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
19 days ago
Reply to  James

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.

MikeB1947
MikeB1947
18 days ago

“American bomber refuels of Scottish Coast”

My brief comment is: So What’s New.

Watcher Zero
Watcher Zero (@william_p_griffiths)
11 days ago

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’.