Thread: RAND recommends arming B-1 with Patriot, SM-2 for a2a engagement of Chinese fighters

With its inherent advantages in speed, range, and flexibility, the B-52 could operate independently in support of other primary sea power objectives. Capable of traversing vast distances rapidly, the B-52 could be tasked to accomplish a variety of significant maritime missions where time and distance to the operating area are critical factors. In time of pending war, patrolling the various chokepoints surrounding the Russian littoral would require quick reaction and sustainability. B-52s tanked by KC- 10s could respond immediately.

In chokepoint defense, a patrolling B-52 could hinder the Soviet Navy's attempts to sail out of the inland seas into the blue waters of the oceans. Such a chokepoint as the Pacific's Kuril Islands is critical to the Soviet Pacific Fleet operations. In March 1985, a Soviet carrier battle group, composed of the Novorossiysk, four cruisers, three destroyers, and two replenishment ships, conducted a major exercise in the Pacific. This Soviet carrier group sailed south through the straits of Tsushima into the Pacific and then back to home port through the Kuril Islands, entering and departing the Pacific through critical chokepoints.13 In 1905, the Japanese destroyed nearly the entire Russian Baltic Fleet in the Tsushima Strait during the Russo-Japanese War. 14 B-52s, armed with mines and Harpoons, could respond quickly to any U.S. Navy requirement for blocking the Soviet Navy at Tsushima or the Kurils. Mining the Kuril Island chain would force the Soviets to reconsider their strategy and keep them away from critical Pacific SLOCs. In the Atlantic, B-52s could patrol chokepoints such as the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom (GIUK) Gap and Baltic entrances.

That scenario must have bean on the soviets mind too ,when they based Mig-31 interceptors on Sakhalin island.

Originally Posted by Chogy

My favorite suggestion along these lines came from a guy who wondered why the B-52 didn't use AIM-9's pointed aft in lieu of a tail gun. That's not going to work too well.

Interesting you should mention that; IIRC, there were studies to replace the B-52H's M-61 tail gun with a reloadable Stinger launcher (Sidewinders were too big). I don't think it got beyond the design stage.

Originally Posted by Chogy

Sounds goofy initially, but I can't think of any technical problem that couldn't be solved. How about the B-2? I don't know about the volume issues, but I can see a rotary launcher like they used to use for the SRAM or ALCM, loaded with Patriot missiles. Obviously there'd have to be some major work to install an appropriate radar for autonomous operations.

I think that's the weak point standing in the way of installing a different radar in the B-2; the radar in the B-2 was tailor-made for the airframe. It uses two separate AESA arrays in the lower forward fuselage (if you can call it that) in place of one single array; I don't know all of the details involved in the design & implementation of the radar, but I believe it's optimized for ground-mapping and ground target acquisition, with no provision for A-to-A. In that respect, the B-1 is probably more flexible due to it's single, larger radome; I imagine it wouldn't be too hard to stuff an AN/APG-82 in the front end of a B-2.

Not to nitpick, but don't you mean the B-1 with the single radome?

Originally Posted by Skywatcher

Not to nitpick, but don't you mean the B-1 with the single radome?

Oops! Yes, I do.

Perhaps someone at the RAND has been reading Dale Brown's "Flight of the Old Dog" and "Night of the Hawk"?...

Wouldn't the greater speed of the B-1 make it more suitable than the B-2?

Originally Posted by jlvfr

Perhaps someone at the RAND has been reading Dale Brown's "Flight of the Old Dog" and "Night of the Hawk"?...

The entire series with the original Megafortress cast is awesome. Once Dale Brown started branching out and introducing new characters (After Fatal Terrain, I think), the series started going to hell