strategic bombers, escorts, and stealth

[HurricaneDitka]

Do countries that operate strategic bombers (USA, Russia, China) generally escort them with fighters? I know that Russia has had fighters along when it's sent bombers out near NATO countries at times. How might the conops evolve with stealth aircraft? If USA were to strike a "near-peer" adversary's integrated air defense network with stealth bombers (B-2 or LRS-B in the future), do you think they'd send along some F-22s or F-35s as escorts? Or is the whole idea of fighter escorts for heavy bombers an outdated WWII concept?

 

[t68]

Do countries that operate strategic bombers (USA, Russia, China) generally escort them with fighters? I know that Russia has had fighters along when it's sent bombers *out near NATO countries at times. How might the conops evolve with stealth aircraft? If USA were to strike a "near-peer" adversary's integrated air defense network with stealth bombers (B-2 or LRS-B in the future), do you think they'd send along some F-22s or F-35s as escorts? Or is the whole idea of fighter escorts for heavy bombers an outdated WWII concept?

To a degree yes, I would imagine it depends on how fast the operation came into effect. The USAF has a number contingencies plans called Oplans which address certain procedures and levels of manning.
*
A case in point was the Cuban Missile Crises in which point SAC reached its highest levels with*DEFCON 2 (defence condition) and had implemented*Chrome Dome missions, for 24 hours before another air crew assumed the same flight route. The amount of bombers in the air was determined by the defence condition level. *At the height of the air alerts, SAC produced 75 B-52 sorties a day, which also included*133 KC-135s a day.

Now the B2 Sprit has a report range of 6000nm (11000km) the range can be extended with AAR. I also would imagine near peer adversaries would keep an eye on flights in and out of home bases to gauge the operational tempo of not only B2 but B1 and to a lesser degree the B52 which should be readily easy to see on radar. When the likes of B2 deploy to a forward base because of the limited numbers of aircraft and the role they play in securing continental United States CAP patrols would increase. It's not an easy question to answer because these sort of thing would be held preety close to your chest. But unless someone launched a surprise attack without the prior build up one would never know how the US will use unless you were in the inner sanctum of the hierarchy *

 

[bdique]

I don't think escorts will ever go away. Stealth does not equate to invisibility, but it makes detection and tracking tougher.

If intel says that your adversary has pilots with some experience training against stealth aircraft, then I can foresee a prudent commander prefering to have escorts.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Do countries that operate strategic bombers (USA, Russia, China) generally escort them with fighters? I know that Russia has had fighters along when it's sent bombers out near NATO countries at times. How might the conops evolve with stealth aircraft? If USA were to strike a "near-peer" adversary's integrated air defense network with stealth bombers (B-2 or LRS-B in the future), do you think they'd send along some F-22s or F-35s as escorts? Or is the whole idea of fighter escorts for heavy bombers an outdated WWII concept?

if you send an escort with bombers your chances of detection go up as there are more objects in the sky that can be detected by a variety of systems.

even in the days of SAC the bombers went in without escorts - and from the Berlin Wall on, the fast penetrators (Canberras, B45 Tornados etc ) went in solo testing Soviet detection systems due to the issue of discretion being better than sending a loud capability message

its really about when you are doing it

eg the whole purpose of the early days of an air war is to delaminate the enemies systems as much as possible to take control of the air

taking control of the air means fighters can go plinking and strike aircraft (including bombers) can operate with relative safety and impunity

if the enemies air defences have been delaminated, destroyed, then air superiority means that escorts become more and more redundant

think about all modern warfare events since Libya '86 - they have all been about precision delamination of the enemies sensor grid, their GBADS and their local air.

heavy bomber escorts basically died as a concept from the korean war on....

 

[bdique]

if you send an escort with bombers your chances of detection go up as there are more objects in the sky that can be detected by a variety of systems.

even in the days of SAC the bombers went in without escorts - and from the Berlin Wall on, the fast penetrators (Canberras, B45 Tornados etc ) went in solo testing Soviet detection systems due to the issue of discretion being better than sending a loud capability message

its really about when you are doing it

eg the whole purpose of the early days of an air war is to delaminate the enemies systems as much as possible to take control of the air

taking control of the air means fighters can go plinking and strike aircraft (including bombers) can operate with relative safety and impunity

if the enemies air defences have been delaminated, destroyed, then air superiority means that escorts become more and more redundant

think about all modern warfare events since Libya '86 - they have all been about precision delamination of the enemies sensor grid, their GBADS and their local air.

heavy bomber escorts basically died as a concept from the korean war on....

Ok trying to understand bomber ops here. So in the modern day and age, escorts aren't really needed as bomber fleets are either going to have the element of surprise on their side, or threat levels from GBAD/enemy fighters are sufficiently low for them to operate with impunity.

Did I get that right? Does this also apply to the VVS/PLAAF? Sorry, I'm really unfamiliar with heavy bomber operations.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Ok trying to understand bomber ops here. So in the modern day and age, escorts aren't really needed as bomber fleets are either going to have the element of surprise on their side, or threat levels from GBAD/enemy fighters are sufficiently low for them to operate with impunity.

Did I get that right? Does this also apply to the VVS/PLAAF? Sorry, I'm really unfamiliar with heavy bomber operations.

you have to start looking at the countries involved and the relative threat issues

eg B2's are likely to go in on their own due to technology advantages
B52's would rely on a degree of degradation or delamination of the enemies GBAD and local air defence
RAAF F-111's against a hostile Indon Air Force would have required either delamination and degradation of the enemies self defence layers or to have been substantially escorted in (and that requires tankering and AEW assists so you are increasing the risk of telegraphing your moves)

you have to consider the assets and the threat issues

 

[Waylander]

To add some more points, B-1s would also go in alone or in small groups as them relying on nap of earth flying, some RCS reduction and heavy ECM is just as ill suited to huge bomber fleets as the sneaky approach of the B-2.

B-52s with standoff pgms would also play a huge part in the initial delaminating GF talked about. The huge bomber fleets of the past were formed in order to get protection by numbers and to actually hit their target.

While tactics and technologies have taken away the need for protection by numbers, modern targeting systems have highly reduced the need for large numbers of aircrafts to actually achieve a hit and thats before PGMs had become fashionable. The much higher carrying capacity of modern bombers is another point.

When one looks at the Kosovo air campaign or Desert Fox against Iraq one can see that pairs of B-1s attacked and accurately hit installations like barracks and power stations with bellies full of iron bombs.

The advent of PGMs and most notably GPS guided JDAMs changed the picture again. Now a B-1 or B-2 can single handidly take out multiple targets in one mission with high precision. During the opening of Iraqi Freedom a rather small number of B-1s were responsible for the majority of bombs on targets and during Lybia a couple of B-2s singlehandidly destroyed major Lybian air force installations.

 

[HurricaneDitka]

Imagining a scenario where China's dispute with Japan over the Senakaku Islands goes hot ... Do you think China would be likely to use their H-6s to pre-empt a Japanese response, or degrade it at least. If so, how survivable would a flight of H-6s, with orders to strike Naha Air Base be? Would they stand a better chance with some fighter escorts tagging along?

 

[StingrayOZ]

Given that bombers don't actually have to fly over targets any more with stand off weapons and glide bombs, doesn't that make some more survivable as unescorted platforms.

Something like a B1 which can fly high and fast, can launch and then still move out of the range of any fighters and never get within range of land based missile systems. Something like JSOW , you only need to get within ~130km of the target. With JSOW-ER or JASSM-ER you will only need to get within ~500km. The US has been keen to have the B1 operational with these types of munitions.

Compare when the B52 was originally built, and had to fly over the target then optically eye ball the target and drop your dumb iron and defenses were .50 cal machine guns just like WW2. I think the need and concept of escorting a bomber is less relevant now.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Imagining a scenario where China's dispute with Japan over the Senakaku Islands goes hot ... Do you think China would be likely to use their H-6s to pre-empt a Japanese response, or degrade it at least. If so, how survivable would a flight of H-6s, with orders to strike Naha Air Base be? Would they stand a better chance with some fighter escorts tagging along?

the chinese won't be leading with H6's

 

[bdique]

GF, Waylander, Stingray, thanks a lot, really learnt a lot about the evolution of heavy bomber ops. That gap in understanding is pretty much bridged, thanks a bunch!

@hurricaneditka - if China doesn't mind all out war, it would probably be the PLASAF that makes the first move.

 

[John Fedup]

Given that bombers don't actually have to fly over targets any more with stand off weapons and glide bombs, doesn't that make some more survivable as unescorted platforms.

Something like a B1 which can fly high and fast, can launch and then still move out of the range of any fighters and never get within range of land based missile systems. Something like JSOW , you only need to get within ~130km of the target. With JSOW-ER or JASSM-ER you will only need to get within ~500km. The US has been keen to have the B1 operational with these types of munitions.

Compare when the B52 was originally built, and had to fly over the target then optically eye ball the target and drop your dumb iron and defenses were .50 cal machine guns just like WW2. I think the need and concept of escorting a bomber is less relevant now.

I was not aware the B-52 had any defensive guns but apparently a B-52 tail gunner used .50 cal machine guns to down a Mig over N Vietman. The H version had a 20 mm remotely controlled Vulcan gun in the tail but all these were removed in 1991.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I was not aware the B-52 had any defensive guns but apparently a B-52 tail gunner used .50 cal machine guns to down a Mig over N Vietman. The H version had a 20 mm remotely controlled Vulcan gun in the tail but all these were removed in 1991.

As you definitely aren't going to fly a B-52 into harms way an hope a 20mm would sanitise your airspace (anymore?). Vietnam showed the issues of sending in a big slow bomber like a B-52 into unclean space.

There is no reason to do that now.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I was not aware the B-52 had any defensive guns but apparently a B-52 tail gunner used .50 cal machine guns to down a Mig over N Vietman. .

bear in mind that it was a lucky shot as the NVA pilot also was pretty asleep at the wheel and also had assumed that the bomber was not armed in the tail

 

[Feanor]

Guys let's keep in mind that we're not talking about peer powers in any of these conflicts. I honestly have no idea how Russia would operate the Tu-22M3s against a peer power like say China or Japan. They flew them without escorts in the Georgian War because the escorts would have served literally no purpose. In training, however, they often fly 2 Tu-160s or Tu-95s with a MiG-31 or Su-27 escort.

And as it stands, the US essentially has no peer power. So there's a lot of question whether the lack of escorts is dictated by the fact that the US doesn't have to worry about enemy IADS that can effectively, on a system-wide level, prevent the USAF from operating over an area.

 

[gf0012-aust]

And as it stands, the US essentially has no peer power. So there's a lot of question whether the lack of escorts is dictated by the fact that the US doesn't have to worry about enemy IADS that can effectively, on a system-wide level, prevent the USAF from operating over an area.

the fundamental conops is to delaminate, degrade, decapitate the enemy capacity to effect a response before you send in pilots for "in theatre" strike.

same for the US as is for China, Russia, France, etc etc.....

the threat is assessed and theoretically deconstructed before any force is sent in

 

[HurricaneDitka]

the fundamental conops is to delaminate, degrade, decapitate the enemy capacity to effect a response before you send in pilots for "in theatre" strike.

same for the US as is for China, Russia, France, etc etc.....

the threat is assessed and theoretically deconstructed before any force is sent in

Who is supposed to degrade the enemy defenses if not the pilots? Just cruise missiles until there's nothing threatening left? If that's the plan, why invest in an air force at all? It seems like the US utilized manned aircraft for strikes in Iraq and the Kosovo operations well before the enemy capacity to effect a response had been degraded. I'm not sure we've bombed anyone since then that had any capacity prior to the commencement of air strikes.

I'm also not sure any regional power has enough and good enough missiles and targeting information to degrade one of their peers to the point that they couldn't still respond once pilots breach their air space. China probably comes the closest, but even then most of their potential opponents have fairly substantial air forces and mobile SAMs that might be very difficult to wipe out with missile strikes alone.

Or am I wrong about all of that?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Who is supposed to degrade the enemy defenses if not the pilots? Just cruise missiles until there's nothing threatening left? If that's the plan, why invest in an air force at all? It seems like the US utilized manned aircraft for strikes in Iraq and the Kosovo operations well before the enemy capacity to effect a response had been degraded. I'm not sure we've bombed anyone since then that had any capacity prior to the commencement of air strikes.

everything of relevance in the armoury and your friends arnouries are used - and delamination is not just about kinetic kills

I'm also not sure any regional power has enough and good enough missiles and targeting information to degrade one of their peers to the point that they couldn't still respond once pilots breach their air space. China probably comes the closest, but even then most of their potential opponents have fairly substantial air forces and mobile SAMs that might be very difficult to wipe out with missile strikes alone.

Or am I wrong about all of that?

you're only thinking about kinetic weapons

It's a C4ISR war well before any pilot straps in
you don't have to kill everything - only around the area of interest
there are a whole pile of other assets that are contributing to the blunting of an enemies capacity to respond with effect - its not just the shooters.

CREF my prev statements about the relevance of the threat

 

[Antigrav1117]

With JSOW-ER or JASSM-ER you will only need to get within ~500km. The US has been keen to have the B1 operational with these types of munitions[/B]..

SO got a flashback to the old Soviet Badger and Backfire bombers with Kingfish missiles. LOL:

 

[Rimasta]

I was not aware the B-52 had any defensive guns but apparently a B-52 tail gunner used .50 cal machine guns to down a Mig over N Vietman. The H version had a 20 mm remotely controlled Vulcan gun in the tail but all these were removed in 1991.

I've actually heard several people say that the 20mm tail guns were replaced with Stinger missile launchers. I looked it up and it's hard to find a whole lot in the way but it seems there are several online sources that also state that the 20mm guns were replaced with light AAM's. Can anyone shed some more light on this? It would definitely be more effective, but then again, if your B-52 is engaging enemy fighters with Stingers, things are already not going well.