B-2 Stealth Bomber To Carry New Nuclear Cruise Missile


By Hans M. Kristensen

The U.S. Air Force plans to arm the B-2A stealth bomber with a new nuclear cruise missile that is in the early stages of development, according to Air Force officials and budget documents.

The B-2A bomber, which is designed to slip through air defenses undetected, does not currently have a capability to deliver nuclear cruise missiles, a role reserved exclusively for B-52H bombers.

Under the Air Force’s plans, however, the new nuclear cruise missile – known as the Long-Range Standoff Weapon – will arm three nuclear bombers: the B-2A, the B-52H, and the next-generation Long-Range Strike Bomber.

Recent Statements

The disclosure that the new nuclear cruise missile will be carried on the B-2A, B-52H, as well as the next generation bomber has emerged in recent Air Force testimony to Congress, the Air Force’s FY2014 budget request, and in a little notice interview in Air Force Magazine.

Maj. Gen. Garrett Harencak, assistant chief of staff for Air Force strategic deterrence and nuclear integration, informed Congress last week that the Long-Range Standoff (LRSO) nuclear cruise missile “will be designed at its outset to be compatible with B-52, B-2, and the LRS-B” (Long-Range Strike-Bomber).

Lieutenant General James Kowalski, the commander of Air Force Global Strike Command, confirmed: “The LRSO will be the follow-on to the aging ALCM and will be compatible with the B-52, B-2 and LRS-B.”

The Air Force budget request for FY2014 reveals that integration on the B-2 is already underway as part of a program known as Flexible Strike:

B-2 armament upgrades integrate new and/or advanced weapons on the B-2 to address a wider array of target sets, to include moving targets, and hardened, deeply buried targets. The Flexible Strike Phase 1 program — formerly known as Stores Management Operational Flight Program re-host — will recombine and rehost the current B-2 stores management software onto a new integrated processor, providing the processing and bandwidth to handle advanced digital weapons such as B61-12 or Long Range Stand Off (LRSO).

Production and fielding of the Flexible Strike Phase 1 program is planned for FY2016-FY2017, in time to receive the new guided B61-12 bomb in 2019 and the LRSO cruise missile in the mid/late-2020s.

An Expensive New Nuclear Weapon

In the public debate about the cost of nuclear weapons modernizations, it is often said that the new long-range strike bomber is not a significant nuclear cost because most of its mission is non-nuclear. But that ignores the expensive nuclear payloads (B61-12 and LRSO) that are intended to arm the new bomber.

The full cost of the new nuclear cruise missile is not known yet, because it will not become operational until the mid/late-2020s. But the budget projections in the FY2014 budget request indicate that it will be a very expensive weapon system.

Over the next five years alone, design and development costs for the missile are expected to reach more than $1 billion. Costs will presumably continue to accumulate significantly through the mid/late-2020s as full-scale production and delivery of the weapon get underway.


In addition to the cost of the missile itself, the production of the nuclear warhead will add even more. Rather than a new warhead, the Air Force plans to use a life-extended version of an existing warhead: W80-1, W84, or the B61. If other life-extension programs are any indication, then the LRSO warhead program can be expected to cost several billion dollars.

The Mission

The B-2A bomber is designed to penetrate air defenses undetected. So why would the Air Force want to add a nuclear cruise missile to its mission? The answer appears to be that expected improvements in enemy air defense systems by 2030 will make the stealth bomber less stealthy and that a standoff capability therefore is needed for the nuclear strike mission.

When deployed on the B-2A, the LRSO will give the stealth bombers a nuclear standoff capability to carry out missions in heavy air defense environments, according to Billy Mullins, the associated director of strategic deterrence and nuclear integration on the Air Staff.

But that doesn’t quite explain why the Air Force has decided to make the new cruise missile compatible with all three bombers. After all, the B-52H already provides a standoff capability. Perhaps the LRSO will be dual-capable (although this has not been stated) or that the Air Force has simply decided to add a new nuclear cruise missile to all three bombers to provide maximum flexibility.

The new nuclear cruise missile will probably have extended range and stealth features similar to or better than the Advanced Cruise Missile (ACM) that the Air Force retired in 2007. The Air Force states that LRSO “will be capable of penetrating and surviving advanced Integrated Air Defense Systems (IADS) from significant stand off range to prosecute strategic targets in support of the Air Force’s global attack capability and strategic deterrence core function.”

Expanding Nuclear Capabilities

Since the B-2A does not currently carry nuclear cruise missiles, which are exclusively for B-52H bombers, but only gravity bombs (B61-7, B61-11, and B83-1), adding the LRSO will significantly increase the military capability of the B-2A weapon system.

Moreover, adding LRSO capability to all three bombers would be a significant expansion of the nuclear cruise missile capacity of the U.S. bomber fleet. Currently, some 528 ALCMs are assigned to 44 B-52H bombers in four squadrons of the 2nd and 5th Bomb Wings. In the future, also the 509th Bomb Wing at Whiteman AFB would also receive nuclear cruise missiles, as would the bases that receive the next-generation bomber.


Most important in term of capability, perhaps, is the transition of nuclear cruise missiles onto stealth platforms (B-2A and LRS-B) that have a much better penetration capability than the current cruise missile carrier (B-52H). This will significantly change where and when in a conflicts nuclear cruise missiles can be used, an enhancement that will be boosted even further by the fact that the LRSO cruise missile probably will be more advanced than the ALCM it replaces.

It seems a bit strange, though, to spend money adding LRSO capability to the B-52H because that bomber is scheduled to retain the ALCM to 2030 and retire only 10 years later. The ALCM is currently undergoing refurbishment to ensure that it can remain in service through the 2020s.

Overall, the nuclear capability of the bomber force is expected to change significantly over the next couple of decades as older weapons are retired and new ones added. In addition to the new LRSO, this includes the new guided B61-12 bomb and the possible retirement of the B61-7 and B83-1 bombs.


Eventually, both the B-2A and B-52H (as well as the non-nuclear B-1B) will be replaced by a fleet of 100 Long-Range Strike Bombers. Probably not all of them will be nuclear-capable, though, but perhaps half equipped with the B61-12 and LRSO nuclear weapons.

Implications and Recommendations

The implications of adding nuclear cruise missile capability to the B-2A stealth bomber are many. They include improved military capabilities, extensive costs, and the international perception of what U.S. nuclear arms control policy is in the 21st century.

If one believes that a nuclear cruise missile is still needed, a better and less expensive alternative would be to only add LRSO capability to the next-generation bomber and phase out the nuclear capability of B-52H when the current ALCM retires around 2030.

Either way, deploying an improved nuclear cruise missile on improved stealthy bombers appears to challenge the Obama administration’s promise to reduce the role of nuclear weapons and not to add military capabilities during life-extension programs.

The United States is not alone in the continued modernization of nuclear weapons. Russia is also building a new nuclear cruise missile for its bombers, and China is adding cruise missiles to some of its intermediate-range bomber (although there is no indication yet that they are nuclear). France has just introduced a new nuclear cruise missile on its fighter-bombers, and Pakistan is working on two nuclear cruise missiles for its aircraft.

These are only a fraction of the nuclear modernizations underway in all the nuclear weapons states. All hold speeches about ending nuclear arms competition, reducing the numbers and role of nuclear weapons, and pursuing a world free of nuclear weapons, yet all continue to do what they have always done: building and deploying new nuclear weapons.

This publication was made possible by a grant from the Ploughshares Fund. The statements made and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the author.

15 thoughts on “B-2 Stealth Bomber To Carry New Nuclear Cruise Missile

  1. Hans

    Questions & Thoughts

    Intrigued by the W84 reference. Do we have a knowledgeable guess as how many W84s are in the Enduring Stockpile? I’ve read from 350 to 500 or so. Is your last estimate (2007) of 383 still good?

    Do we know if the Long-Range Standoff Weapon (LWSW) is actually a cruise missile? A cruise missile like the subsonic, air breathing ALCM the LWSW will replace? The USAF keeps talking about the LWSW as a “nuclear cruise missile” but I was just wondering if the LWSW will be a more exotic weapon system.

    Staging the new LWSW on the B-2 makes sense. Fitting the capability back to the B-52Hs also makes a certain sense. The new Long-Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) is the stated replacement for both the B-52H and B-2A aircraft with some 90-100 to be acquired. However, they won’t all arrive at once and it would probably take years of production to even replace the B-52Hs. Retaining the LWSW on the B-52H also is prudent in the event of changing situations. Remember, the B-1 was build to replace all those obsolescent B-52s back in the day and we know how that turned out.

    Frank Shuler


    1. As far as I can gauge, the W84 is no longer in the DOD stockpile. They built almost 400 W84s, which were used in the ground-launched cruise missile until it was banned by the INF Treaty in 1987. The remaining 380, or so, were retired by the Bush administration’s stockpile reduction by the end of 2007. It’s been in DOE storage since then.
      The Long-Range Standoff weapon (LRSO; not LWSW) still has to be developed but it will be a long-range air-breathing cruise missile with stealth capability. The next-generation bomber is to eventually replace all the strategic bombers, but the B-2 will remain in service until the 2050s. B-52 will retain ALCM through the 2020s and then retire. Since the new bomber will arrive from the mid-2020s, it doesn’t make sense to me to fit the B-2 and B-52 with the LRSO as well.

  2. is it possible to mate w80 warhead to Jassm-ER frame? A nuclear Jassm probably offers longer range due to lighter payload, I guess 1500 km range is realistic. With LRSB as a delivery platform, the missile’s shorter range is compensated by the stealth penetration ability of the aircraft. The requirement for a dedicated nuclear CM i.e. LRSO becomes less clear.

      1. TLAM (older variants) carried a warhead of the same weight as JASSM, but TLAM-N had superior range. I don’t think weight is the issue. Perhaps cross-section is, though.

  3. If we are reducing to 1550 under New Start (shouldn’t have gone below SORT levels of warheads/launchers IMHO) we need a full modernization of all Triad platforms especially a MMIII replacement. Also we need a new warhead like the RRW/RNEP with a dial a yield capability like the W-87 or better yet a family of new warheads from low Kt yield all the way to 1+ Mt for very deeply buried command bunkers.

  4. CHINA. This is the reason for dispersal.

    Russian itel. estimates the Chinese arsenal at 2,200 plus; the Georgetown survey at 3,000. The disarmament folks continue to drum the mythical figure of 300.

    Going to 1550 under New Start will eventually allow a Chinese preemptive strike to have a reasonable prospect of success – a winnable nuclear war by Chinese standards (400 million casualties are considered acceptable by many key Red Army generals and advisers).

    In a few years we’ll have 2-3 Chinese SSBNs off our coasts with brand spakin’ new SLBMs.

    1. Please explain how survivable mobile ICBM’s will be able to target the 10-12 SSBN’s out to sea at any given time, or how they will be able to strike the LGM-30’s prior to launch.

      “Chinese arsenal”–Is this deployed launchers or stockpile? If it is stockpile, how is that relevant to a strategic strike?

      From the man himself:

      “No correlation or correction by others.”

      “No claim of accuracy or truth.”

      Sounds like simple scaremongering to the end of budgetary justification.

    1. Actually it doesn’t. The chart shows ALCM capability on the B-52 in 2010 and LRSO capability being added from 2030. If the ALCM program moves ahead, it could potentially become operational a little earlier toward the mid-2020s. But its still early and many uncertainties remain.

  5. DOn’t we have /deliver nuclear cruise missiles, – can’t they be easily converted or is this just spend more money program .

  6. FYI

    china has 85 cities with over 5 million each – So just hitting those with nukes will kill 400,000 milion and leave 1000 warheads left .

  7. What was the fundamental reasoning behind the decision to retain the nuclear role in the (older) B-52H and denuclearize the B-1B?

    I can infer possible rationales, but do not actually know the real ones employed.

    1. As far as I know, it was the capability of the B-52 to launch ALCMs, which the B-1 was not equipped to carry. And the B-2 was designed to replace the B-1 as a penetrating nuclear bomber. The B-1 was kept in a Nuclear Rerole Plan for many years so it could be returned to the nuclear mission within six months if needed. I put together some information on the B-1 Nuclear Rerole Plan 16 years ago here: http://oldsite.nautilus.org/archives/nukestrat/USA/Bombers/b1rerole.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *