CRS Report for Congress:
B-2 Bomber.
The Air Force has 21 B-2 bombers, based at Whiteman AFB in Missouri. The B-2 bomber can carry both B-61 and B-83 nuclear bombs, but is not equipped to carry cruise missiles. It can also carry conventional weapons, and has participated in U.S. military campaigns from Bosnia to Iraq. It is designed as a “low observable”aircraft, and was intended to improve the U.S. ability to penetrate Soviet air defenses.
Weapons.
According to unclassified estimates, the United States has around 550 B-61 and B-83 bombs.The B61-11, a modification developed in the 1990s,has a hardened, modified case so that it can penetrate some hardened targets, although probably not those encased in steel and concrete. The B-83 bomb is a high yield weapon, that is also designed to destroy hardened targets, such as ICBM silos.
B-52 Bomber.
The Air Force currently maintains 94 B-52H aircraft at two bases, Barksdale, Louisiana and Minot, North Dakota. The B-52 bomber, which first entered service in 1961, is equipped to carry nuclear or conventional air-launched cruise missiles and nuclear-armed advanced cruise missiles......
The House, in its version of the FY2007 Defense Authorization Bill, prohibited the Air Force from retiring any of the B-52 aircraft, and mandated that it maintain at least 44 “combat coded” aircraft until the Air Force began to replace the B-52 with a new bomber of equal or greater capability.....
There are some indications that, during the discussions on the QDR, some in the Pentagon argued that the all the B-52 bombers should be removed from the nuclear role. According to S.Rept. 109-274, Energy and Water Appropriations Bill 2007, the Nuclear Weapons Council and Department of Defense no longer support the W80 Life Extension activities. As a result, both the House (H.R. 5427) and Senate Appropriations Bills eliminate funding for this effort.....
Weapons.
The B-52 bomber is equipped to carry both the Air-Launched cruise missile (ALCM) and Advanced Cruise Missile (ACM). The ACM reportedly has a modified design with a lower radar cross-section, making it more “stealthy” than the ALCM. According to Air Force figures, the United States currently has 1,142 ALCMs and 460 ACMs.
Although these weapons represent a majority of the weapons that U.S. bombers could carry on nuclear missions, the Department of Defense is reportedly pursuing a study of the future role of these missiles in the U.S.force mix. With the growing interest in conventional strike capabilities, there maybe a declining interest in maintaining the force of nuclear-armed cruise missiles.
Both the ALCM and ACM are currently undergoing life-extension programs so that they can remain in service through 2030. Both cruise missiles also carry the W-80 warhead, which was scheduled to for a life-extension program. However, the Department of Defense has recently indicated that it no longer plans to support the W-80 refurbishment program, raising further questions about the future role of nuclear-armed cruise missiles in the U.S. arsenal.
Under the START II Treaty, the United States would have had to count the total number of nuclear weapons the B-2 and B-52 bombers were equipped to carry under its allocation of permitted warheads. These warheads would have counted even if the bombers were equipped to perform conventional missions, unless the bombers were altered so that they could no longer carry nuclear weapons.
Under the Moscow Treaty, however, the United States will only count as “operationally deployed” those nuclear weapons stored at bomber bases, excluding a small number of spare warheads. It does not intend to alter any bombers so that they cannot carry nuclear weapons. Consequently, the number of bomber weapons could decrease in the future, even without changes to the numbers of deployed bombers, as the United States retires weapons or removes them from storage areas at Minot, Barksdale, and Whiteman Air Force Bases.
Future Bomber Plans.
The Air Force has begun toplan for the developmentof a new strategic bomber, with its possible introduction into the fleet in around 2018. According to Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne, the service is seeking a bomber with not only stealth capabilities and long range, but also one that can “stay airborne and on call for very long periods.”
The start of the study on a new bomber, known as an Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) has been delayed in recent months bya dispute over whether the study should stand alone or be merged with another AOA on prompt global strike (PGS). While a future bomber could be a part of the PGS mission, other systems, such as hypersonic technologies and missiles, would also be a part of the effort to strike anywhere around the world at long range.
General Cartwright of STRATCOM has reportedly supported a plan to merge the two efforts, so that the considerations of capabilities for a new bomber would be measured along side other systems, both to balance the force and avoid redundancy across the force. On the other hand, the Air Force Chief of Staff, General T. Michael Moseley, reportedly preferred to keep the two studies separate. He has argued that a bomber with long-range strike capabilities must have “persistent, survivable, and penetrating capabilities” while a platform with PGS capabilities could be “standoff weapon that is very, very fast.” This position reportedly prevailed, with the Air Force deciding, in May 2006, to keep the two studies separate.
This dispute reveals wide-ranging differences, within the Air Force and Pentagon, about the goals for and capabilities that should be sought in a new bomber program. The dispute focuses, however, on conventional capabilities; it seems to be almost a foregone conclusion that nuclear capabilities, or the need for a bomber leg of the nuclear triad, will not drive the discussion or analysis................
Last edited by ORAC; 13th Dec 2006 at 17:26.