Three U.S. Air Force B-1B Lancer bombers assigned to the 345th Expeditionary Bomb Squadron deployed in support of Bomber Task Force Europe at Ørland, Norway.
The bombers, assigned to Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, deployed with a total force integration team composed of roughly 30% active-duty and 70% Reserve Airmen under the command of the 489th Bomb Group.
Routine deployments, like BTF 25-4B, sharpen fighting readiness by training in conditions shaped by anti-access and area denial threats (A2AD), where freedom of maneuver could be limited.
“We’re training for today’s modern warfare,” said U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Eric Alvarez, 345th Bomb Squadron commander. “There are challenging obstacles – whether on the ground, in the air and beyond – areas that may not allow freedom of maneuver. Ultimately, we are preparing to be resilient and postured for the future.”
By training under these conditions in this geographical area, U.S. and Allied forces enhance survivability, improve joint integration, and demonstrate the ability to operate freely and target effectively in complex, high-threat airspace.
“We have the F-35, which is a multi-role fighter jet, which you might say is a jack-of-all-trades, master of none,” said Royal Norwegian Air Force Maj. Morgan, acting 332nd Squadron commander. “We are able to defend other aircraft, we are also able to drop weapons onto the ground. Whereas the B-1 is more specific and has long range and high-speed capabilities. Hopefully we are able to be there with the F-35 to assist in fulfilling the role of the B-1 and help by protecting them but also have their support in the air-to-surface portion of warfare training.”
The mission exercised how 345th EBS Airmen train with NATO Allies to find, fix, track, and target threats, a tactical process called F2T2, in real time to counter A2AD conditions.
“A2AD is like a protective layer an adversary puts around itself,” said Capt. Lane Musgrave, 345th EBS project officer. “They want us to stay outside that layer, and we want to be able to get inside it to employ our effects.”
He went on to explain: “The B-1B Lancer can’t get close enough alone to poke a hole in that layer, but the F-35s can. So, this Ally-led training with the Royal Norwegian Air Force is incredibly important.”
Training under NATO Ally leadership and preparing for shared challenges across the region builds lasting security. It reflects a commitment to strengthening relationships and reinforcing readiness through sustained cooperation.
“This training is vital—not only for refining our skills, tactics, and procedures, but also for strengthening our relationships with Allied partners,” said Alvarez. “It allows us to build familiarity, identify and address weaknesses, and enhance our overall proficiency. Ultimately, it makes us better, more capable personnel, and more adaptable as a force.”
I don’t fancy Russia’s chances in a shooting war when even the smallest NATO countries are operating large fleets of advanced fifth generation aircraft.
What chances woukd any Russian platform have in the air against F35.
What could Russian ground forces do if they were under constant air attack from large modern fighter jets carrying thousands of pounds of precision guided munitions when they can’t do anything against Ukraine that has almost no Air Force but still managed to win the air battle.
Jim,
Slightly different (glass half empty) perspective: The Norwegians are/will be renovating Bardufoss Air Station and Olavsvern Naval Base, evidently featuring aircraft shelter facilities carved out of mountain(s) and equipped w/ blast doors. Will the bases also be equipped w/ robust, layered GBAD? If so, could be an ideal place to park some B-21s in the future to maintain a reasonably survivable second strike capability. Certainly should be resistant to most current conventional munitions. Would certainly be in concert w/ the NATO Agile Combat Employment (ACE) concept of dispersal and enhanced survivability. Only moderately concerned re capabilities the Orcs will bring to the next dust-up, vastly more focused on the party favors the rest of the CRINK alliance may bring to the festivities. Impossible? Ahem…please note NK activity in RU/UKR. Unfortunately deficient in knowledge of NATO infrastructure topography. Hopefully (🤞) other candidate facilities exist elsewhere in ENATO. For example, even the submarine pens at Brest should provide some level of protection. Believe someone has stated previously on this site that there are no naturally occurring, fortifiable areas w/in UK borders, but perhaps feasible to tunnel w/in Gibraltar to create HAS and/or submarine pens. Cyprus a fesiblbe candidate w/ AAR? NATO will theoretically be expending 1.5% of aggragate GDP w/in 10 yrs. on defenc(s)e infrastructure. Wonder whether anyone in NATO hierarchy is able to think outside the box, and lso willing to risk coloring outside the lines. 🤔🤞
…also…🙄
Interesting perspective there. History records that in times of conflict, To defeat a fortified shelter, you use overwhelming force. Always has been the case. Apart from the few recent embarrasing examples of the Maginot line and the Channel Islands,where vast amounts of Time Effort Money and Materials were expended.
The knowledge that a shelter/target has been built to withstand current munitions drives the development of new weapons. Think WW2 Grand Slam, Upkeep, Fat Man.
N weapons cancel out any fortifications, if used.
I think the nuke needs to make a direct hit, or near miss, to be effective against some hardened or deeply buried targets.
The Russians and Chinese still believe in the value of underground protection, from what I read the Chinese are building and from what one reads is around and under Moscow.
Russia also has some veery big mountains, granite, with Kosvinsky and Yamantau hidden beneath them.
Targets our forner USAF friend will be well aware of if he was in SAC!
Direct hits are not required at all and It all depends on the type of explosion and Yield.
Even If these shelters/bunkers survive, the horror has only just started for the survivors.
Even the Cheyenne Mountain Complex is not a safe place. Nothing in the UK is either. It was known in the 60’s when the sheer destructive power of the H bomb was clear to see. Hence no shelters.
Sure. And yet, they’re being built elsewhere as I briefly mentioned.
One issue is our country is small.
Also, if a location isn’t known, it won’t be targeted directly.
So dispersal is also relevant. And I’m quite happy that there are some things that I suspect haven’t been revealed on this subject.
I’d be moving to the Falklands If younger !
Other Countries do build and provide shelters but there are limitations based upon the basics, Food, Water, Sanitation, medication, hygene and breathable air. They all share the same Issues such as Entrances. Once you are Inside, you are basically trapped whilst everyone else (If still alive) will be trying to get in.
Virtually all public shelters will be targets in one way or another.
Same really for Military sites, known or not.
The US B61-13 gravity weapon has been designed specifically to address this scenario. However, the important caveat is that there is a limited inventory of these weaps., and this probably includes the CRINKs. Build enough sheltered airfields across 32 countries and some air power will survive. Then the old adage, “Payback is a Bitch,” is operative. Really do not want to be in the path of aircrews w/ nukes after dumping buckets on sunshine on the homeland. Guaranteed.
Quite familiar w/the issue. 👍
HAS, combined w GBAD (eventually including DEW) is the current standard of protection available. Airborne alert (w AAR) increases initial survivability, but incurs additional risks.
Do those mountain entrances have the width for a B21 wingspan?
I’d be surprised, maybe they do.
You might secure the aircraft, but they’re marooned there if the runway is out.
So as noted, comprehensive GBAD and things like 39RE with the old stockpiling of materials and plant for ADR needed at MOBs.
Fortifiable areas? Plenty of mountains in the UK, and plenty of bunkers, though maybe not next to RAF airfields.
Gibraltar is already riddled with tunnels, storage areas, POL stores, munitions stores, an old NATO C3 site ( now a Data Centre ) and other stuff.
I think you’d have to demolish some of the residential areas if you’re going to create HAS inside the rock! RAF Gibraltar is not next to the rock face.
I don’t think the 2 SBAs in Cyprus have much scope for the type of infrastructure you have in mind. There is some, but standard stuff AFAIK.
Corsham !
No good for B1’s though unless they come in a *Box*.
Ha! I for one know what you did there referencing Box and Corsham.
Corsham. It’s mostly in the old Beaverbrook aircraft factories built in the various Quarries, and shallow.
A look at the old London Underground escalators gives an idea of the depth.
Turnstile, Burlington, Site 3, whatever name you decide to use, is in the Spring Quarry part, the name itself implies it probably leaks like a sieve.
Other sections with other users, like Browns, might be better, and in Tunnel, there is a purpose built section from the late 80s.
All still quite shallow, long known, and as you say totally irrelevant to nukes hitting nearby or directly.
Now, if the money was there, there are deep mines in Wales, under mountains. Two of which at least were used in WW2, and earmarked In the Cold War.
One for storing treasures and paintings, and one contaminated by gas.
Nothing is invulnerable, unless its several miles deep. And the US is said to have looked at those as well.
Yup, subtle ain’t I ?
As you say, *Nothing is invulnerable*, they all have weak points such as Airshafts and Entrances, It doesn’t matter how deep either, Blast and percussion cause huge damage.
Daniele,
Thanks for your informative posts. Gibraltar was simply a hypothetical proof of concept example. Some, not all, have not yet realized that 1.5% of aggregate ENATO GDP will permit significant defence infrastructure development (including airbase hardening) across potentially 30 countries. Sufficient, perhaps, to complicate targeting by the CRINK general staff (including the ChiComs).
No worries mate.
Nordic countries not only have serious rock foundations and civil engineering expertise to work that at scale. A friend of mine did his day job to build many kms of four tunnel bores through granite. So plenty big enough for B21 or B1B HAS being 8 lanes.
At weekends he serves with the biggest collection of Artillery in N.Europe, so would like nothing more than some milspec infrastructure projects.
Bring it on!
PS: local building regulations are that every building must have NBC shelter and facilities for extended stay. People shopping groceries talk about war stocks. So there’s been a survival mentality since 1960s.
Lonpfrb,
Thanks very much for your post, suspected that the Norwegians and Finns take planning and preparations seriously. The Swedes may now be preparing as well. Actually, perhaps the majority of northern tier ENATO states, to varying degrees, will become more serious. Hopefully in time. 🤞🤞
The recently neutral Nordic countries were such quick applicants for NATO membership because they took it seriously long term, including defence spending above the NATO 2014 2% GDP target. If you don’t have allies, you have to be responsible for your own security.
I would see that investment continuing as aside from the security logic there are virtuous circles in defence industry capacity and capabilities.
That’s evidenced by the many agreements with Ukraine for collaboration on emerging tech and tactics. Putting in $Bn of AFU support shows commitment too.
The Joint Expeditionary Force engagement and more assertive maritime policing are further actions to confirm serious intent.
Anchor tossers are getting their days in court to show that the shadow fleet may not act against critical infrastructure without accountability.
Similarly the Enhanced Forward Presence in the Baltics with Nordic Airforces back-stop is effective in pointing lost bears to the exit with QRA missions. Then there’s the multinational exercises building readiness and interoperability.
It’s all going on…
Extended stay in most countries relates to 28 days duration with stores of food, water meds and other vital items. Toilet waste capacity is a huge issue for longer periods. Having been lucky to have survived a large scale exchange, the real issues begin upon exiting these shelters and that’s if the exits are still viable.
I’m keeping it simple.
Indeed. The Nordic tradition for ‘summer cottages’ in the wilderness, usually with no utilities nor infrastructure, means that they have ready skills for living off the land, aka survival. If anyone can …
PS: due to the Chernobyl nuclear accident, Nordic countries have experience with that too, being down-wind..
And all very impressive too, Lonpfrb.
You Finns have little or no need of much of the defence equipment that a country like the UK requires.
But what you do need, you clearly excel at.
And you have long memories regards Russia as well.
I recall travelling in Essex, UK, seeing a road sign for the Secret Bunker. Apparently built for Cold War civil defence, and now retired according to the Peace Dividend delusion.
So times change, along with the aggressors threats, and we must react accordingly.
Fortunately shelters in the building basement are still effective against drones, and leave nothing to see, mostly.
Not having CCP communication infrastructure and decent security should prevent civilian CCTV becoming a remote ISTAR asset.
#StrongerTogether
#WeAreNATO
That will be Kelvedon Hatch, one of the network of RSGs – Regional Seats of Government, and away from the fat target at London.
There were many others.
Another open to the public is in Scotland at Anstruther.
Others became data centres and are a bit more low key, others were left to rot, and some are still on MoD estate.
There was a great wave of bunker building in the 50s on. Stupidly, in the 2000s some of our defence infrastructure left these holes in the ground as it was more efficient to work in a surface building.
Cheaper too, without the costs of refurb of the bunkers beneath.
I though that folly, and still do.
I’m in favour of as much hardening and underground build as we can, new and repurposed/refurbished.
I read that HMG have a clause to requisition places like Kelvedon but seeming as it is no longer a “secret” ( it was to most up till being sold off, to all save certain researchers and those who read certain books mentioning its location! ) then not much use.
Amusingly, the tech bros have done their business continuity planning and concluded that their data centres must be capable of surviving a commercial transport aircraft strike similar to the terrorist incident that fell on Scotland.
So building underground with redundant heat, light, and power is standard for them, typically multiple sites per country.
Ironically as government buys Cloud Computing they are going back underground so probably don’t need to requisition as they’re already there..
I get you.
Data, yes. Like Ark at Corsham.
But I want our military and intell infrastructure protected too.
May as well seeing as they are about as stealthy