Arctic rush

I suspect that it's just 1 extra airfield to operate from, leaving nothing to chance.

I think that is a key point... it is an extra airfield... in other words all the existing ones are still there and operational, but this one a lot further north can be used... but why operate so much further north.

Well first of all I suspect all their work on new generation uniforms and equipment that is intended to operate in the Arctic, as well as the new prefabricated buildings like the ones they will deploy to the Antarctic and also use in the far east will probably make living in such places a lot more comfortable, and with new shipping routes passing by and also on the main land new ports to support the shipping route and of course new rail lines that connect to the main lines further south it is going to become a lot less isolated and lonely.

The two main drivers for Russia to look east and north to the arctic are the Chinese driven silk roads programme and therefore the Russian Northern Sea Route which is their contribution is one and the second the threat by the US to use AEGIS class cruisers with SM3 ABM systems in the Arctic ocean to attempt to intercept Russian ICBMs on their way to the US.

Building forward bases for planes that can operate with inflight refuelling and launch 2,000km range hypersonic anti ship missiles right now makes a lot of sense, and I agree having a few MiG-31BMs operating there would also be useful for patrolling that part of the North Sea Route.
For other MiG-31s hunting bombers and their cruise missiles it is another place they can land and refuel and rearm and continue their vital mission... it will obviously need S-500 and S-400 SAMs to protect itself as it will be a prime target...

Russian ships will already be patrolling the NSR so any foreign military ships wanting to sail through will obviously need permission as much of it is inside Russian waters.

The US can lease or buy as many ice breakers as they wish, they will still need Russian permission to operate in Russian waters with military ships.

The Arctic ocean is international waters, but the NSR goes along Russias coast in Russian legal waters... claiming the US has right of navigation is like suggesting the Pacific and Atlantic oceans are international waters too so Russian ships can sail up and down US coasts inside US waters as much as they like.

- USA pulls out of INF treaty

- Russia starts stocking up on intermediate range missiles

- USA moves it's strategic assets inside the range of Russian intermediate range missiles


Am I taking crazy pills here?

Tsavo Lion wrote:It's also a message to NATO allies: our bombers can operate in Arctic even if our ships can't.

..as long as they are stored in nice warm hangars and get copious amounts of tender loving care from mechanics and technicians every time they go airborne.

So transferring the B-1B to Norway suggests it lacks the range for missions in the arctic against Russian shipping... I am assuming that is what its new role will be with some sort of hypersonic anti ship missile when it is ready to threaten and tease Russian shipping along the Northern Sea Route transporting goods from Asia to Europe.

The obvious problem is that the B-1B would be no better at penetrating Russian air defences than the much more stealthy B-2, so while it is faster... it is very much just an American Tu-22M3... so basing it in Norway will just make it vulnerable to S-400 based in Murmansk and on board new Russian ships.

They can move them there if they please.... nothing to stop them, but really it does not change very much at all except creates an argument for Russian IRCMs and IRBMs directed at those airfields to be nuclear armed and launched a bit earlier in a hostile situation...

Well, that is a very good point.... they saw the Russians move MiG-31s further north so they wondered what would they be doing up there all alone and lonely... hey... lets give them some transsonic bombers to shoot down.... because although the B-1B looks like a Tu-160... it is actually barely supersonic... unlike the Backfire or the Blackjack.

The new Russian Arctic offensive?

Building bases on their own territory is offensive?

What does that make US forces in Norway and Greenland?

Hypocritical?

The B-52s in operation today were built in the 1960s and are ancient... in comparison the Bears in use today were built in the late 80s and early 90s and are brand spanking new in comparison.