Bombers

The U.S. Air Force is exploring options for adding air-to-air combat capabilities to its bombers as part of efforts adjacent to its latest fighter force structure plans. The service has raised the possibility of the B-21 Raider, specifically, taking on an air-to-air role, and potentially doing so in cooperation with Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) drones, in the past. As TWZ has explored for years, the B-21’s inherent attributes – size, extreme range, high operating ceiling, broadband low-observability (stealthiness), and advanced sensors – could actually make it especially well suited to taking part in air-to-air combat missions. The Air Force’s other bombers could also be part of these future plans.

Aviation Week was first to report on the potential for bombers to help bolster the Air Force’s air-to-air combat capacity after obtaining a copy of a new long-term fighter force structure report submitted to Congress last week. Media coverage of this report first began to appear earlier this week following a roundtable on Tuesday with Lt. Gen. David Tabor, the service’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Programs. The full report, which is unclassified, was not disseminated to reporters at that time.

The Air Force’s central goal now is having 1,509 combat-coded fighters in inventory by 2035, which is hundreds more than it has in service today. This will come from the acquisition of new F-35As, F-15EXs, and F-47s. There are already questions about how realistic this plan might be, and the service has acknowledged several hurdles it will need to overcome. You can read more about this in our initial reporting here.

“Accordingly, the USAF is also evaluating additional recapitalization options, including a new capacity fighter, increased reliance on CCAs [Collaborative Combat Aircraft], and developing air-to-air capabilities on bombers,” the latest fighter force structure report says, per Aviation Week.

“A new capacity fighter” may refer to the possible acquisition of new-production F-16 Vipers, which Lt. Gen. Tabor said at the roundtable could be an option in the future, according to an earlier story from Air & Space Forces Magazine. He also said making any such decision was not an “urgent” priority. This is just one possibility here. The Air Force has floated ideas for other new fighter concepts beyond the F-47 in recent years. Lockheed Martin has talked about the potential for expanding on the F-35 design.

At the roundtable on Tuesday, Tabor also made clear that the introduction of CCAs would influence future fighter force structure plans, but the expected scale and scope of those impacts remain unclear. He does not appear to have addressed the role bombers could play in this equation at that time. The new fighter report itself does not elaborate further on the potential use of bombers, based on Aviation Week’s story. TWZ is seeking more information.

When it comes to the possibility of Air Force bombers, and the B-21 more specifically, taking on an air-to-air role, this is not the first time the possibility has been raised, as mentioned earlier.

“As the NGAD [Next Generation Air Dominance] review goes forward, like, is it possible that what that ends up with could be the B-21 taking a larger role?” reporter Stephen Losey, working at the time for Defense News, asked then-Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin at the Military Reporters & Editors (MRE) Conference in 2024.

“We have not taken that off the table,” the Air Force’s top officer said in response to Losey’s question, but did not elaborate.

B-21 Takeoff and Landing

At that time, the Air Force’s NGAD program was undergoing a deep review, and the future of the sixth-generation fighter component of the effort had come into question. The decision was ultimately made to continue pursuing plans for what has now become the F-47.

For years now, TWZ has been highlighting how the B-21 could serve in multiple roles beyond just that of a traditional bomber, including in an air-to-air capacity. Air Force officials have themselves described the Raider as having multi-mission capabilities, which could extend into the realm of air-to-air combat.

“If we were to characterize it [NGAD] as a fighter, we would be… thinking too narrowly about what kind of airplane we need in a highly contested environment,” then-Air Force Maj. Gen. Scott Pleus told what was then just Air Force Magazine back in 2019. This could be “a B-21 that also has air-to-air capabilities” and can “work with the family of systems to defend itself, utilizing stealth – maybe that’s where the sixth-generation airplane comes from.”

Pleus’ comments had tied in with adjacent discussions at the time and thereafter about how the B-21 might operate together with future CCA drones. Pleus, who was subsequently promoted to lieutenant general and whose lasting posting was as Director of Staff at the Air Force’s top headquarters at the Pentagon, retired in August of this year.

It remains unclear how the Air Force might be considering employing the B-21, or any of its other existing bombers, in air-to-air combat. This could entail loading out bombers for direct air-to-air engagements, or the integration of new capabilities to help them find targets or to otherwise enable new supporting roles, or a mix of all of the above. The process of achieving air superiority is not limited to neutralizing aerial threats, either.

As TWZ has written in the past in the context of an air-to-air role for the Raider in particular:

“The Raider has the potential to serve as a launch platform for air-to-air missiles, especially outsized very long-range types. Its payload capacity would give it the ability to carry a large volume of smaller air-to-air missiles, as well. B-21s could also employ air-to-ground munitions in support of the suppression and destruction of enemy air defenses mission (SEAD/DEAD), which is also part of the air superiority equation.”

“Maybe most significantly, the B-21s could also act as airborne nerve centers in support of counter-air missions, especially for controlling drones like the Air Force’s planned fleets of Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA), and have the ability to do so even in the most heavily contested of airspaces. Uncrewed aircraft, in turn, could feed targeting data back to Raiders with air-to-air loadouts. B-21s might even be able to launch some of those drones themselves.”

Deeply networked ‘kill webs’ that bring together distributed arrays of sensors and other supporting elements across vast distances and multiple domains, coupled with very-long-range air-to-air missiles, open up new operational possibilities more generally. This applies to Air Force bombers beyond the B-21.

When it comes to longer-range air-to-air missiles, the Navy has notably already fielded the AIM-174B air-launched version of the Standard Missile-6 (SM-6). The service more recently disclosed another such missile in flight testing now, the AIM-424 Malice.

The Air Force has pursued similar missile developments in the past and put out a call for a new anti-air missile with a maximum range of at least 1,000 nautical miles just in June. The service has been exploring multi-stage types with modular designs that could be configured for longer- and shorter-range engagements, as well. These are all just programs we know about, and do not speak to the developments the Air Force and others could have underway in the classified realm.

There is also the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) LongShot program, which the Air Force, as well as the U.S. Army and Navy, have been involved with over the years. The aim of that effort is to demonstrate the concept of an air-to-air missile-carrying drone to help extend the reach and reduce the vulnerability of tactical fighters and bombers.

On top of all this, tactical fighters are generally ill-suited to, and in some cases outright incapable of, carrying the kinds of outsized payloads being discussed here. This underscores the potential value of incorporating bombers into this equation as a means to engage targets at extreme ranges.

Even in a closer proximity support role of fighter aircraft, B-21s, as well as B-52s, could contribute to air-to-air fight as arsenal ships for longer-range weapons, firing on demand from the rear in coordination with crewed and uncrewed platforms operating at the tip of the tactical edge. B-21s could also use their penetrating capabilities to command drones of their own that provide penetrating fighter-like capabilities.

New air-to-air capabilities on Air Force bombers could include self-protection systems, too. Years ago now, the B-21’s prime contractor, Northrop Grumman, patented an anti-missile defense system for stealthy aircraft designed to fire hard-kill interceptors. The Air Force, as well as the Navy, have openly expressed interest in similar defensive capabilities for aerial refueling tankers and other larger planes. Just being able to provide localized close-in defensive ‘bubbles’ around individual bombers could impact the calculus when it comes to future air-to-air combat requirements.

To reiterate, these are all concepts we have discussed in depth for roughly a decade.

Speaking more broadly about Air Force future fighter force structure demands, as we wrote previously:

“In recent years, sustainment costs, broadly, have only become an increasingly serious concern for the Air Force, as well as the other branches of the U.S. military, especially when it comes to complex manned platforms, such as the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Fleet size and the readiness of those fleets are also highly pressing issues. So, at least in the near term, it’s not surprising that NGAD may end up focusing more on exploring available lower-cost options with distributed capabilities as alternatives to traditional air combat assets with highly centralized capabilities, such as manned fighter jets packed with ‘exquisite’ technologies.”

Despite the decision in the end to proceed with the more exquisite F-47, these points have only become more pronounced as time has gone on. How many F-47s the Air Force ultimately intends to buy is another question that looks to remain unanswered by the latest fighter force structure report. At the same time, there are clear signs that the Air Force is planning to significantly increase its planned B-21 fleet size. The official acquisition target has long been at least 100 Raiders, but the Air Force and Northrop Grumman have said a new topline figure is expected to come in the Fiscal Year 2028 budget proposal next year. The service is now explicitly aiming to have at least 500 CCA drones in service by 2032, too. All of this will compete for funding and other resources, at least to a degree.

In the meantime, there has been a “persistent decline in AA [aircraft availability] rates across the USAF tactical fighter fleet,” which “is the direct mathematical consequence of operating an inventory with an average age exceeding 31 years,” the Air Force’s latest fighter force structure report says, according to Aviation Week. “As legacy platforms – such as the F-16C/D, F-15E, and A-10C – operate well beyond their original engineering service lives, they experience compounding structural fatigue, widespread corrosion, and subsystem degradation.”

“Achieving the mandated AA rates required for a peer-conflict scenario necessitates aggressive divestment of the oldest airframes to fund the procurement of highly available, modernized platforms like the F-35A and F-15EX,” the report adds, per that outlet. Furthermore, “to counter the [Chinese] industrial capacity and numerical advantage in fielding fighters like the J-20 and J-16, the USAF must embrace a hybrid force of manned and unmanned systems.”

With all this in mind, active consideration of new air-to-air roles for bombers, as well as the possibility of “increased reliance on CCAs” and the potential to acquire new current-generation F-16s, at least seems to reflect a hedge strategy on the part of the Air Force.

If nothing else, the door clearly remains open to bombers being a key part of the Air Force’s ‘fighter’ vision in the future.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

Over the course of Sunday, a dozen B-1B bombers took off from Royal Air Force (RAF) Fairford in western England and flew home to the United States. Their departure abruptly ended the base’s role as a launchpad for US strikes on Iran, which began on February 28.

The base, roughly 160km (100 miles) west of London, is the US Air Force’s only European airfield for heavy bombers and a key forward operating location for deployed bombers.

Over the past two weeks, six people were arrested on suspicion of “terrorism”. They were all released on bail.

US President Donald Trump said on Monday the bombers were moved because “there were some threats”, which he believed were linked to Iran. “So we moved them around a little bit, not very far,” he told reporters at the White House.

Hours earlier, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio played down any link to the alleged plot, saying it was “not unusual to see rotations happen” and that he had confidence in the security of US bases.

What happened at RAF Fairford?

On September 27, police arrested five men on suspicion of plotting to plant explosives near Fairford in the United Kingdom. They were released on bail a day later.

Investigators found petrol but no explosive devices in their vans, though UK officials say the men remain under investigation. On Thursday, police arrested a 25-year-old UK-Iranian dual national in London on suspicion of plotting an attack on the airbase. He was also released on bail on October 3.

UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham suggested that “Iran played a part” in the alleged plot but declined to give details. Iran has denied any such scheme and summoned the UK ambassador in Tehran in protest at the arrests.

What bombers does the US have?

The US Air Force flies three types of bombers, with a fourth on the way.

The B-52 Stratofortress is the oldest. The B-52H model currently in service was built in the early 1960s. With a wingspan of 56 metres (185 feet), it is the largest US bomber and can carry about 31 tonnes of weapons, including nuclear bombs and cruise missiles.

The B-1B Lancer, which entered service in the mid-1980s, is the fastest of the three. It can reach 1.2 times the speed of sound and has a swing-wing that sweeps back for high-speed flight. It carries the largest conventional payload, about 34 tonnes, but no longer carries nuclear weapons. These were the aircraft that left Fairford.

The B-2 Spirit is a flying-wing stealth bomber designed to slip past air defences. Only 20 were built, of which 19 remain in service. It can carry both nuclear and conventional weapons, including the 13,600kg (30,000lb) “bunker buster” bomb used in US strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites in June 2025.

The B-21 Raider, a smaller stealth bomber, is still in flight testing, and it remains on track for delivery in 2027. Over the next decade and a half, the air force plans to replace the B-1B and B-2, leaving a future fleet of B-21s and upgraded B-52s.

Where do these bombers fly from?

All US bombers are permanently based in the US, at five main airbases:

• B-52H: Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana and Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota
• B-1B: Dyess Air Force Base in Texas and Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota
• B-2: Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri
• B-21: Due to arrive at Ellsworth in South Dakota in 2027

All of these bases have long, wide runways, typically exceeding 10,000 feet (3,048 metres).

That makes bomber runways about as long as those at a big international airport. What limits where bombers can operate is not tarmac but security, weapons storage and support.

For missions abroad, the US rotates bombers through a handful of forward bases. Other important overseas operating locations include Andersen Air Force Base in Guam and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

Beyond these, the air force sends small groups of bombers to allied airbases for a few weeks at a time, in what it calls Bomber Task Force deployments. Recent rotations have included B-52s at Moron in Spain, B-1Bs at Orland in Norway and Misawa in Japan, and B-52s at Tindal in northern Australia, which arrived in September.

The bombers can also go on a strike mission from the US with the help of aerial refuelling. Bomber missions during the US-Israel war on Iran lasted more than 30 hours there and back. Each group of three bombers needed six to nine tanker aircraft to refuel them along the way.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has arrived in Reykjavik, Iceland, for the first leg of a four-day European tour in which he will also visit Greece and Portugal.

“Economic and security collaboration” top the agenda for his talks on Monday with Icelandic officials, according to a statement from the Department of State.

Ahead of his departure, he told reporters he would not directly tie the United States’ decision to remove its B-1 bombers from the British base of Fairford to last week’s incident.

“I wouldn’t just directly tie that to the move that was made,” Rubio told reporters, adding that “the Department of War is constantly reallocating resources where they need to be”.

Rubio asserted confidence in the security of all US bases and praised United Kingdom authorities’ cooperation.

Five British men were arrested near the British airbase at Fairford on suspicion of preparing “terrorist acts”, and were later released on bail. A sixth man, a dual UK-Iranian national arrested separately in London, has also been released on bail.

B-1 bombers were returned to the US. They had been used for strikes on Iran.

A NATO military source had, however, said: “It is still believed that Iran poses an acute threat to US assets in the UK”.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards previously said the Fairford base was a legitimate target, but Tehran denied any links to last week’s incident.

Rubio is also visiting Greece to lead the US delegation for the sixth US-Greece Strategic Dialogue, focusing on defence cooperation and regional and energy security, and will wrap up his tour in Lisbon, where he will discuss defence, economic and technology cooperation.

The newspaper wrote that the new information was part of the same threat warnings from three weeks ago, but officials acted quickly after specific details emerged in the past 24 hours.

Ezra Cohen, who served as a defence official under Trump’s first administration, called the US’ decision “prudent”.

He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “These are very, very unique platforms that aren’t being produced anymore, and we have a limited number of them. The B-1 bomber is a strategic asset, and we’re going to take steps to protect it from all sorts of threats.”

It is technically possible for the US to conduct precision strikes directly from the US without a UK base – like in Operation Midnight Hammer last year.

But the removal of the bombers from RAF Fairford will see the US lose a foothold for the country outside continental Europe.

Liberal Democrat defence spokesperson James MacCleary called the US’ decision to withdraw its bombers “deeply concerning” and called for the government to set out a plan to ensure the country’s military bases are “fit for purpose”.

Days after the incident at RAF Fairford, Prime Minister Andy Burnham said there were “strong indications” that Iran had played a part in the incident but did not provide further details, while US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Fox News that it “clearly involve[d] the hands of a foreign actor” without going into further details.

Tehran has strongly denied any involvement.

In July, Iran said “any base used for aggression against Iranian territory constitutes a legitimate target for our forces”.

RAF Fairford, near the village of Whelford in the Cotswolds, has been used as a forward operating location by the USAF for decades.

In recent months, the US has flown B-1 and B-52 bombers from the base for the Middle East, after the UK approved a US request to use it for defensive strikes on Iran.

Residents living close to RAF Fairford told the BBC of their relief at the departure of bombers from the airbase, with one local saying she was “thrilled,” citing the noise and feeling “increasingly vulnerable” in recent weeks.

Another villager, who said he has seen bombs being loaded aboard aircraft from his back garden, said he knew something was happening when he saw planes leaving “one, after another, after another” on Sunday.

Last week, a British bomb disposal robot roamed the area near the Royal Air Force (RAF) base at Fairford and 85 homes were evacuated as the threat of an attack appeared imminent.

Days later, the United States speedily sent B-1 bombers stationed there, which were used to strike Iran in its ongoing war, back home. About a dozen had been stationed at the air base.

The foiled incident resulted in no charges and the release of five suspects, and subsequently a separate British-Iranian suspect. But the US cited concerns about more potential attacks for its decision to withdraw its fleet. Tehran has denied any link to the alleged plot to target the base.

RAF Fairford was a pit stop for US bombers during the war – but more importantly, it allowed Washington to rapidly unleash intensive strikes on Iran, say analysts.

They added that their withdrawal reduces Washington’s ability to rapidly generate and sustain bombing missions, but it will not prevent the US from continuing to strike Iran.

“The United States has lost a convenient launchpad, not its underlying strike capability,” Dania Thafer, executive director of the Gulf International Forum and a lecturer at Georgetown University, told Al Jazeera.

Long bombing campaigns made more demanding

The analysts were in agreement that the British base gave the US a faster and more efficient way to sustain strikes on Iran.

The bombers at the Fairford base were officially stationed there for defensive strikes – at the behest of the UK government – and likely had a modest targeting list, said Christoph Bergs, an analyst at the world’s oldest defence and security thinktank, the Royal United Services Institute.

“Their withdrawal reduces the capacity to quickly surge sorties against Iran, reducing the threat level somewhat,” Bergs told Al Jazeera.

Thafer explained that while the loss of the bombers does not remove the US’s ability to strike or escalate, “depending on where other assets are positioned, it could make a prolonged bombing campaign more demanding”.

The removal of B-1 bombers imposes a number of tactical costs, says Arun Dawson. He is a PhD candidate at King’s College London’s Freeman Air and Space Institute and a researcher with the UK Nuclear Deterrence Network.

Unlike the more modern B-2 stealth bomber designed to make enemy tracking difficult – which has also previously been stationed at RAF Fairford – “the B-1’s principal advantage is its conventional weapons payload – the largest of any aircraft in the US military”, Dawson told Al Jazeera. The B-1 carries at least 34 tonnes of ordnance, he said.

“This makes the B-1 particularly effective at delivering large volumes of precision-guided weapons against multiple targets during a prolonged air campaign,” said Dawson.

“In the Iran war, those targets may include air-defence infrastructure, ballistic missile sites and IRGC facilities,” he added, referring to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.

With the B-1s withdrawing, the US may now have to rely more heavily on longer-range missions from the US or other distant bases, increasing flight times, crew fatigue and the need for aerial refuelling, he explained.

Still, the US may have made the withdrawal decision based on an examination of risks, said Dawson.

“Their abrupt departure suggests that specific threats may have been directed at the aircraft, their crews or the base itself,” he said.

Washington may have also calculated that temporarily withdrawing the bombers could protect it for future operations, especially if the US does not expect the Iran war to intensify any time soon, said Dawson.

For David Des Roches, a professor at the Thayer Marshall Institute and a former Pentagon official, the B-1 withdrawal suggests that the risks outweighed the benefits of keeping the jets at the UK airbase.

The security incident last week “exposed a vulnerability” as the aircraft were “out in the open” and only about 300 yards (275 metres) from where the public could see them.

“So they were very vulnerable to, say, drone attacks or other kind[s] of mortar attacks,” he told Al Jazeera.

“Just a small drone or any kind of a drone with explosives on board could conceivably cause significant damage,” said Des Roches.

The former Pentagon official acknowledged that the deployment of the US bombers means “you lose a little bit of operational ability,” but said that given the threat seen at Fairford, “we should have had overhead cover for all of our aircraft, globally, years ago”.

Can the bombers go elsewhere?

The US has two potential options if the bombers are to be redeployed: to Diego Garcia, the remote coral atoll in the central Indian Ocean hosting both a US and UK military base; or to its many US bases in the Gulf.

Thafer pointed out that Diego Garcia offers greater protection from potential Iranian attacks, but requires longer flight distances.

Rerouting the bombers to Diego Garcia will also depend on how quickly additional aircraft can be folded into the local basing infrastructure, pointed out Bergs.

Stationing them in the Gulf closer to Iran would give them the advantage of shortened transit times, reduced tanker requirements and the ability to generate sorties more rapidly, said Dawson.

But basing in the Gulf region, the analysts agreed, will require more deliberate negotiations around risk mitigation, given that these countries have taken the brunt of Iranian counterstrikes throughout the war. They also want to avoid being seen as direct participants in a US campaign against Iran.

Fairford had therefore offered a “useful” middle ground between the two options, said Thafer.

But with Fairford no longer an option, Diego Garcia would be the more obvious choice, Dawson said, offering not only greater distance from Iran but also a more secure operating environment. It has infrastructure designed to support large-scale US air operations, he said.

US capabilities in the war ahead

For now, the withdrawal appears to blunt rather than eliminate US bombing capacity against Iran.

However, the practical impact on US military options will depend largely on whether the administration sees a need for such strikes now, or whether the threat posed by similar aircraft stationed at Diego Garcia is sufficient for the time being, said Bergs.

The expected arrival of the Theodore Roosevelt carrier strike group and the Makin Island Marine Expeditionary Force to the Middle East by November, meanwhile, will add significant US carrier-based air power in the region, said Dawson.

“Aircraft for aircraft, carrier fighters cannot substitute for the B-1’s enormous payload, but there are many more of them, giving commanders additional options for shorter-range strikes,” he said.

What this episode highlights, said the researcher, is the importance – and the vulnerability – of the US’ alliances and overseas basing.

Washington has long enjoyed access to a global network of military facilities – which has been key for its ability to project power rapidly and at scale, he said.

But if those bases face attacks or political restrictions – the implications would extend beyond the Iran war, warned Dawson.

They would affect “how the US military structures its forces, distributes its assets, generates combat power and sustains operations overseas”.

U.S. Air Force B-1B Lancer bombers that had been deployed to RAF Fairford in the U.K. since operation Epic Fury have returned to their home stations, a U.S. defense official confirmed to TWZ. The hasty movement was reportedly sparked by new Iranian threats against the base, although the Pentagon doesn’t confirm that assertion.

The sudden withdrawal came a week after a major incident was declared near Fairford following the arrest of five men on suspicion of driving bomb-laden vans toward it. They were later released on bail after no explosives were found. However, Counter-Terrorism police are continuing the investigation and said they were considering ​whether a foreign ​state had ⁠been involved. On Wednesday, British Prime Minister Andy Burnham said the incident might have had an Iranian ​link.

The Wall Street Journal was the first to report the departure.

Bomber strikes launched from Fairford, which included ones executed by both B-1s and B-52s, were a central aspect of major U.S. combat operations against Iran earlier this year. In addition, the installation is a major hub for U.S. military aircraft in the United Kingdom. It is a regular host of strategic assets, including bombers and U-2 spy planes. It also acts as a pit stop for other aircraft, including fighters, that are being ferried to and from the United States.

The U.S. withdrew all 12 B-1s “after commanders received new threats about an Iran-backed plot against the installation,” The New York Times reported, citing two U.S. officials.

“The withdrawal was highly unusual: Such moves are rarely made so quickly from an allied air base in a peacetime country thousands of miles from a combat zone,” the publication added. “The need to move the bombers out of the base, R.A.F. Fairford, was deemed so urgent that some of the planes and their flight crews left while aerial refueling aircraft were still being scrambled to support their flights to the United States. At least three of the planes had landed at their home base in South Dakota by Sunday.”

U.S. officials declined to tell the Times the specific nature of the new information that prompted the Lancer withdrawal, some of which had just arrived in the past week as part of a normal rotation of forces to maintain the B-1 forward presence in Europe.

“One U.S. official said the new information was part of the same threat warnings that surfaced three weeks ago, but specific details and a sense of urgency spiked in the past 24 hours, alarming commanders,” the publication noted.

As we previously reported, Tehran directly threatened RAF Fairford in July over its use as a base to launch attacks against Iran.

“The American aggressor army, which used to launch cruise missiles from its vessels in the Indian Ocean in its aggression after the official resumption of the war, with the end of the missile reserves of the aforementioned vessels, yesterday switched to using B1 planes flying from Fairford Air Base, England,” Tasnim News Agency, a quasi-state outlet in Iran with ties to the country’s powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), claimed on Telegram on July 23. “As the officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs also stated, any base that is used to invade Iran’s territory is our legitimate goal.”

Local aircraft spotters and aviation photographers began to notice the aircraft departing in large numbers earlier on Sunday.

The aircraft left in several waves, according to the DefenceGeek X account, run by the senior editor of the U.K. Defence Journal.

The defense official who confirmed the withdrawal said the aircraft movements won’t affect overall readiness.

“The Airmen that operate America’s bomber force, including B-1s, B-2s, and B-52s, remain ready to deliver precision global strike capabilities – including through operations that launch and recover from the continental United States – anywhere, anytime,” the official added.

When we asked the Pentagon about the retrograde movement of bombers from the U.K., they did not confirm the security issue that prompted it, stating:

“U.S. Air Force bombers routinely operate around the world to support global force readiness and operational requirements. While operational security precluded us from confirming the movement of our assets and forces in real-time, we can acknowledge now that all U.S. bombers that were deployed to RAF Fairford have re-deployed to their home stations in the United States. The Airmen that operate America’s bomber force, including B-1s, B-2s, and B-52s, remain ready to deliver precision global strike capabilities – including through operations that launch and recover from the continental United States – anywhere, anytime.”

Regardless, this is the first time in months that RAF Fairford has not hosted U.S. bombers.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com