In a potential conflict with China or Russia, the US Air Force’s B-1B Lancer bomber would likely operate as a standoff “arsenal bomber” rather than a deep penetrator.
Its non-stealthy design and large heat signature make it vulnerable to modern, multi-layered air defenses like the S-400/S-500 and advanced interceptors.
How the B-1B Lancer Flies In 2025
Instead of risking penetration, the B-1B would leverage its long range and significant payload capacity to launch long-range precision missiles, such as LRASM, from safer distances outside heavily contested airspace. Stealthier platforms like the B-21 Raider would be tasked with missions requiring deep penetration.
A hypothetical conflict against peer adversaries like the United States, China, or Russia would feature the extensive use of multi-layered and networked air defenses. In the case of Russia, that country fields powerful S-400 surface-to-air systems, and has a more powerful system, the S-500 currency in development. China, on the other hand, deployed their HQ-9, another SAM system.
These systems would, in tandem with other radars from AWACS aircraft and other fighters, offer commanders vast swaths of air coverage, denying flight to enemy aircraft. In such an environment, a combination of stealthy attributes, stand-off munitions, and robust electronic warfare attacks and defense would be necessary for survival.
The Threat in the Air
The aforementioned Russian and Chinese air defense systems can shoot down targets well beyond each country’s borders. Russia’s S-500, still in development, has reportedly shot down targets around 500 kilometers distant. These kinds of long-range SAM sites work in tandem with mid-range and short-range air defenses as well as localized point defense.
Integrated radar systems on the ground and in the air greatly extend the distance to which aerial targets can be detected, and some of the new pieces of kit from Russia and China are optimized for detecting low radar cross section targets, i.e., stealth fighters.
Lastly, fast interceptor aircraft, like Russia’s Su-35 or Su-57, or China’s J-20 and J-11 aircraft, are the last piece of the threat in the air. At sea, both Chinese and Russian ships would carry anti-aircraft missiles to defend the airspace around their fleets.
On approach to a target at sea or on land, U.S. Air Force B-1B Lancer bombers would have to fly through and survive highly defended, highly contested airspace. Lancers would face severely curtailed freedom of action.
B-1B Lancer
The B-1B Lancer is a large, long-range, variable-sweep bomber that first entered service in the mid-1980s during the Cold War. Initially designed for high sub-sonic flight speeds at low levels to penetrate Soviet airspace quite literally under the radar, the bomber does not carry any air-to-air radar suite nor air-to-air weaponry. Though the jet has a relatively small radar cross-section from the frontal nose aspect, the jet’s overall RCS is thought to be rather large. Combined with its large engines that emit clear heat signatures, the B-1B Lancer presents a rather large target. Though it does have a passive electronic warfare suite that can detect and jam some enemy radar, the system would not be enough to survive in a very contested environment.
The B-1B Lancer is, as of now, a kind of stop-gap measure by the U.S. Air Force until the B-21 Raider stealth bomber enters service early in the 2030s. And in that role, the Lancer’s role is as a large-capacity, but stand-off platform that stays well behind aerial fronts.
In a dense anti-access/area denial environment, the Lancer would struggle to survive and would be relatively easy for hostile radars to detect. As Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, said, when relying on high-signature bombers like the B-1B and the older B-52, “you lose a lot of them.”
The best way for a Lancer — or indeed, many of them — to survive would be to remain back well behind the area of engagement, loitering out of range and ready to launch long-range stand-off weaponry. Thanks to recent upgrades, the B-1B boasts a large payload and can carry munitions internally, such as a “surging” payload with external bomb pylon hardpoints.
It’s not all bad news however, the B-1B Lancer does have a few strengths going in its favor. The bomber’s large internal fuel capacity gives the jet the ability to sprint quickly to targets or loiter on station for long periods of time. And when operating with support from F-35 stealth fighters, electronic warfare aircraft, and other assets, Lancers could fly inside protected “bubbles.”
As a sort of arsenal-type bomber, the Lancer fleet could saturate an area with weaponry. The U.S. Air Force are considering the bomber’s role against massed Chinese Navy ships in the Indo-Pacific when equipped with long-range and stand-off weapons.
Postscript
In a hypothetical conflict with China or Russia, U.S. Air Force B-1B Lancer bombers would fly around the edges of contested enemy airspace but wouldn’t likely penetrate that airspace unless supported by significant air defense assets.
The Lancer would be more likely to launch large stand-off strikes while keeping outside the range of Chinese or Russian strategic air defense assets like the S-400 or, in the future, the S-500.
Despite the U.S.A.F.’s recent modernization efforts focused on increasing payload capacity and updating datalinks — moves that have improved the bomber’s situational awareness and offensive firepower — newer platforms like the B-21 Raider bomber will be the platform of choice for operations in contested and highly contested aerial environments.
About the Author: Caleb Larson
Caleb Larson is an American multiformat journalist based in Berlin, Germany. His work covers the intersection of conflict and society, focusing on American foreign policy and European security. He has reported from Germany, Russia, and the United States. Most recently, he covered the war in Ukraine, reporting extensively on the war’s shifting battle lines from Donbas and writing on the war’s civilian and humanitarian toll. Previously, he worked as a Defense Reporter for POLITICO Europe. You can follow his latest work on X.
What Are Europe’s Best Weapons of War?
