monitor
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 8,570
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
The long rifle was the great weapon of its day … today this B-52 is the long rifle of the air age.
-Gen Nathan Twining, March 18, 1954
It seems increasingly likely that there will be a B-52 flyby for the retirement of both the B-1 Lancer and the B-2 Spirit. The venerable bomber, which first flew in 1952, remains the primary component of the USAF’s bomber force for both nuclear and conventional missions. Lacking the stealth of the B-2 and the speed of the B-1, the B-52 remains a frontline combat aircraft because of its exceptional range, unmatched versatility, and flexible payload options. It is debatable whether today’s aviation industry could re-create an airplane with this essential mix of capabilities, but a fully modernized B-52, in combination with the new Long Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B), would provide the USAF with an asymmetrical advantage over both China and Russia that neither is likely to match. Far from being obsolete, the Stratofortress could well serve into the 2050s, making an updated bomber well worth the effort and expense, and ushering in the B-52J Centuryfortress – the 21st century bomber.
Background
Oddly enough, it is the substantial increase in the military capabilities of both Russia and China that make the B-52 an attractive prospect again. China’s pursuit of a comprehensive anti-access/area denial (A2AD) capability has not only resulted in a threat to air operations, but a threat to airbases as well. China has over sixty military airfields just in the four military districts closest to Japan and Korea, some of which are hardened to a standard that no U.S. base has ever achieved. Matched against this are six U.S. fighter bases in Japan and Korea. All of the potential U.S. fighter bases are subject to overwhelming attack by ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and combat aviation from a country that has more missiles, more aircraft, and the ability to rapidly and overwhelmingly mass effects against very few fixed U.S. targets. Combined with a major investment in ship-killing missiles, including the DF-21D antiship ballistic missile (the first of its kind), Beijing has the ability today to make it very difficult for the U.S. to operate aircraft or surface combatants in China’s front yard.
From a tactical standpoint, China clearly intends to negate the U.S. investment in air dominance by attacking the weak points presented by dependence on nearby airfields. This is a deliberately asymmetric strategy that offsets the fighter-heavy approaches preferred by the USAF and the only remaining carrier-based option for naval aviation. The Chinese target analysis is easy – if they inhibit the ability of the U.S. to fly aircraft and dock ships, then the U.S. will be effectively neutralized in the western Pacific.
The obvious response to this strategy is for the U.S. to engage in some asymmetry itself, including a number of options which entail fighting from a distance. In the old European model, where NATO and Warsaw Pact air forces squared off over compact territory, speed, survivability and maneuverability were the attributes that largely described the utility of combat aircraft, which reinforced a trend towards fighter aircraft. In the Pacific, with its long distances and island bases, the key attributes are range, sensor capability and payload, which are typically attributes of the bomber. For operations over long distances, the combination of penetrating bomber (LRS-B) and standoff platform (B-52J) could provide a formidable combat capability by the mid-2020s.
Strategic Context
Inside the Pentagon, the focus on fighting China is often handicapped by a focus on widgets, rather than strategies. Against China, this manifests itself as a technology-heavy “offset” construct, where newer is better, technological advantage is everything, and cost is no object. The enemy essentially lies vulnerable to an assault by advanced technology, divorced from terrain, unconcerned with distance, and uninformed by strategy. The reality is that China’s military strength is greatest over its own territory, and is not today technologically disadvantaged enough to allow U.S. airpower free rein over the mainland. However, PRC military power fades rapidly with distance from its shores, and China is currently limited in its ability to project power over distance. More importantly from a strategic standpoint, China is not nearly self-sufficient industrially, and is highly vulnerable to campaigns based onStrategic Interdiction or Offshore Control. Militarily, China is like a grizzly bear with a peg leg – brutally dangerous at close range but unable to travel any distance from home. This is a major strategic vulnerability because China is essentially an island nation, with over 96 percent of its trade (by mass) being transported by sea, with no viable alternatives across any land border.
A glance at the chart reveals much. China is geographically constrained in a way the United States is not, by offshore island chains owned by other countries – countries that rarely have cordial relationships with their bigger neighbor. Traffic densities are critically constrained by the Straits of Malacca, and to a lesser extent, passage through the Lombok and Makassar Straits. The Chinese refer to this as the “Malacca Dilemma,” and maintaining that sea-lane is their primary maritime security consideration. But the challenge is not limited to Malacca only –the first and second island chains effectively channel shipping traffic to and from China and provide an immutable strategic advantage for the U.S. A warfighting strategy focused on treating China, like Japan before it, as an island nation allows U.S. airpower to be used from a great distance, avoids the trap of attrition warfare, and allows the U.S. to capitalize on an asymmetric strategy that has no reciprocal path for the Chinese to replicate.
-Gen Nathan Twining, March 18, 1954
It seems increasingly likely that there will be a B-52 flyby for the retirement of both the B-1 Lancer and the B-2 Spirit. The venerable bomber, which first flew in 1952, remains the primary component of the USAF’s bomber force for both nuclear and conventional missions. Lacking the stealth of the B-2 and the speed of the B-1, the B-52 remains a frontline combat aircraft because of its exceptional range, unmatched versatility, and flexible payload options. It is debatable whether today’s aviation industry could re-create an airplane with this essential mix of capabilities, but a fully modernized B-52, in combination with the new Long Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B), would provide the USAF with an asymmetrical advantage over both China and Russia that neither is likely to match. Far from being obsolete, the Stratofortress could well serve into the 2050s, making an updated bomber well worth the effort and expense, and ushering in the B-52J Centuryfortress – the 21st century bomber.
Background
Oddly enough, it is the substantial increase in the military capabilities of both Russia and China that make the B-52 an attractive prospect again. China’s pursuit of a comprehensive anti-access/area denial (A2AD) capability has not only resulted in a threat to air operations, but a threat to airbases as well. China has over sixty military airfields just in the four military districts closest to Japan and Korea, some of which are hardened to a standard that no U.S. base has ever achieved. Matched against this are six U.S. fighter bases in Japan and Korea. All of the potential U.S. fighter bases are subject to overwhelming attack by ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and combat aviation from a country that has more missiles, more aircraft, and the ability to rapidly and overwhelmingly mass effects against very few fixed U.S. targets. Combined with a major investment in ship-killing missiles, including the DF-21D antiship ballistic missile (the first of its kind), Beijing has the ability today to make it very difficult for the U.S. to operate aircraft or surface combatants in China’s front yard.
From a tactical standpoint, China clearly intends to negate the U.S. investment in air dominance by attacking the weak points presented by dependence on nearby airfields. This is a deliberately asymmetric strategy that offsets the fighter-heavy approaches preferred by the USAF and the only remaining carrier-based option for naval aviation. The Chinese target analysis is easy – if they inhibit the ability of the U.S. to fly aircraft and dock ships, then the U.S. will be effectively neutralized in the western Pacific.
The obvious response to this strategy is for the U.S. to engage in some asymmetry itself, including a number of options which entail fighting from a distance. In the old European model, where NATO and Warsaw Pact air forces squared off over compact territory, speed, survivability and maneuverability were the attributes that largely described the utility of combat aircraft, which reinforced a trend towards fighter aircraft. In the Pacific, with its long distances and island bases, the key attributes are range, sensor capability and payload, which are typically attributes of the bomber. For operations over long distances, the combination of penetrating bomber (LRS-B) and standoff platform (B-52J) could provide a formidable combat capability by the mid-2020s.
Strategic Context
Inside the Pentagon, the focus on fighting China is often handicapped by a focus on widgets, rather than strategies. Against China, this manifests itself as a technology-heavy “offset” construct, where newer is better, technological advantage is everything, and cost is no object. The enemy essentially lies vulnerable to an assault by advanced technology, divorced from terrain, unconcerned with distance, and uninformed by strategy. The reality is that China’s military strength is greatest over its own territory, and is not today technologically disadvantaged enough to allow U.S. airpower free rein over the mainland. However, PRC military power fades rapidly with distance from its shores, and China is currently limited in its ability to project power over distance. More importantly from a strategic standpoint, China is not nearly self-sufficient industrially, and is highly vulnerable to campaigns based onStrategic Interdiction or Offshore Control. Militarily, China is like a grizzly bear with a peg leg – brutally dangerous at close range but unable to travel any distance from home. This is a major strategic vulnerability because China is essentially an island nation, with over 96 percent of its trade (by mass) being transported by sea, with no viable alternatives across any land border.
A glance at the chart reveals much. China is geographically constrained in a way the United States is not, by offshore island chains owned by other countries – countries that rarely have cordial relationships with their bigger neighbor. Traffic densities are critically constrained by the Straits of Malacca, and to a lesser extent, passage through the Lombok and Makassar Straits. The Chinese refer to this as the “Malacca Dilemma,” and maintaining that sea-lane is their primary maritime security consideration. But the challenge is not limited to Malacca only –the first and second island chains effectively channel shipping traffic to and from China and provide an immutable strategic advantage for the U.S. A warfighting strategy focused on treating China, like Japan before it, as an island nation allows U.S. airpower to be used from a great distance, avoids the trap of attrition warfare, and allows the U.S. to capitalize on an asymmetric strategy that has no reciprocal path for the Chinese to replicate.