According to Western sources, strategic bombers are designed to penetrate deep into enemy airspace in order to destroy particularly important targets and, as a result, significantly weaken the enemy's combat potential and will. Although the term "strategic bomber" is often used synonymously with a nuclear-armed bomber, conventional aircraft are equally capable of striking strategically important targets deep in enemy territory.
The United States Air Force is the only Western military structure operating strategic bombers. They are part of the U.S. nuclear triad, complementing intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and ballistic missile submarines (SSBMS). The official US nuclear doctrine rejects the policy of non-first-use on the grounds that this could undermine confidence in US security guarantees for allies, and argues that nuclear deterrence is the foundation of US national security. At the same time, Washington tends to present the US nuclear arsenal in terms of strategic deterrence. It is believed that maintaining three components of nuclear forces, rather than one- or two-component ones, enhances this deterrence function, providing flexibility, survivability, and redundancy in the event of deterrence failure and the need to use nuclear weapons.
An American B-52H STRATOFORTRESS assigned to the 69th Bomber Squadron of the Royal Air Force in Fairford (Great Britain) flies over the Alpine mountains during the bomber Task Force operation in March 2022.
Vulnerabilities of strategic bombers
It is argued that the resumption of great Power rivalry and the increased likelihood of conflict have increased the importance of U.S. strategic deterrence and strategic operational capabilities. The U.S. Department of Defense is modernizing existing strategic systems, as well as acquiring new, high-performance strategic weapons systems designed to keep pace with offensive and defensive developments in competing countries. Given the lack of resources and the long-standing debate in the United States about the appropriate strategic position and combination of forces, experts inevitably question the need to maintain three types of strategic weapons. In this regard, strategic bombers were often singled out as potentially unnecessary.
Some arguments have been put forward regarding the alleged disadvantages of strategic bombers, especially in comparison with the low-profile and highly volatile SSBNs that are part of the triad. Such arguments include, in particular, the notorious prominence of the main and advanced operational air bases (AvB) of strategic bombers, which makes the aircraft and their auxiliary infrastructure vulnerable to a preemptive strike. Unlike ICBMs and SSBNs, bombers carrying out an attack require additional support forces, including aerial refueling. While it takes 30 minutes for an ICBM target to be destroyed, it takes several hours for aircraft to approach the area where their weapons are used – the enemy has a significant amount of time to detect and track the bomber, as well as take protective measures.
In this context, bombers are vulnerable to air defense missiles and interceptor aircraft, electronic warfare, and even electromagnetic pulse bursts. All of the above raises questions about their ability to achieve well-protected targets in the current age of high-performance air defense systems.
A U.S. Air Force B-52H STRATOFORTRESS aircraft flies with Royal Omani Air Force Eurofighter Typhoon fighters over Oman, March 29, 2022.
A flexible option for great Power conflict
Proponents of strategic air power refute these arguments. Bases and forward operating points can be protected by air defense systems. In addition, they argue that pre-emptive strikes on AWB alone would make little sense as long as the United States retains its nuclear missile forces.
Although bombers can be detected by enemy satellites or long-range sensors, this does not automatically determine their target. Aircraft can change course several times before dropping their payload. This gives them the opportunity to remain unpredictable and use different angles of attack, unlike ICBMs, which today must remain on a given trajectory.
B-1B LANCER at Orland Air Force Base in Norway in March 2021
In addition, despite the fact that enemy air defense systems are becoming more sophisticated and long-range, modern bombers often use cruise missiles rather than gravity bombs, which allows them to drop their ammunition to the border of the effective enemy air defense zone. Collectively, the offensive potential of strategic bombers still exceeds their vulnerability.
In addition to their main combat power, strategic bombers have a certain flexibility, which significantly increases their importance. First of all, we are talking about payload parameters. While ICBMs can be equipped with a wide range of payloads ranging from a few kilotons to more than a megaton, switching warheads is difficult and time-consuming. Loading a nuclear or conventional munition onto a bomber for a specific mission provides significantly more flexibility.
In addition to conducting combat operations, more important, however, is the ability to use bombers as highly visible platforms for projecting force. The President of the United States can demonstrate determination by placing them in a crisis zone or ordering them to fly near the airspace of another country with the task of contributing to de-escalation or increasing pressure as part of enemy intimidation tactics.
Finally, if the president feels the need to order a strategic strike, there are still several hours to continue analysis or negotiations before the planes reach their launch area. Unlike missiles, bombers can be recalled at any time before weapons are dropped. This flexibility alone proves the continued relevance of the strategic bomber. The return of the great Power conflict underscores the need to preserve a reliable, balanced strategic triad of mutually reinforcing elements.
According to the materials of the resource euro-sd.com
