"Its unrefueled range is approximately 6,000 nautical miles (9,600 kilometers)."
"
Performance: minimum approach speed 161 mph, typical estimated unrefueled range for a hi-lo-hi mission with 16 B61 nuclear free-fall bombs 5,000 miles, with one aerial refueling more than 10,000 miles."
"Unrefueled combat radius: approx. 5,000–6,000 nautical miles"
Replying only with links and quotes implies that you think I am not aware of those specifications or pages.
I am very aware of them, and the way you are replying conveys the impression that I'm poorly read, and it's not conducive to constructive discussion.
At the very least offer to try and justify why you think those websites numbers are credible. But that's fine, I'll explore everything myself, below:
Now, the first link is the most accurate, as it describes the actual range of the aircraft itself (as opposed to combat radius). It is the official USAF website, and as always what is more interesting with its numbers is what it doesn't provide rather than what it provides.
The second link is certainly an attempt to try and marry the payload of the aircraft but making the same mistake you have -- i.e.: interpreting the oft-listed range of the aircraft with "combat radius". Air and Space forces are not non-credible, but their provider of "official specifications" has their mileage vary. (Heck even their listing describes the estimated combat mission profile as "typical estimated unrefuelled
range" rather than radius, as chances are even they know that putting the word "radius" means something very different)
The third link is outright rubbish, in the sense that Army recognition is not a credible website. I think back 10 years ago, army recognition and navy recognition were under different management and of decent quality but these days they are not what they once were.
Northrop Grumman, the manufacturer/designer behind B-2 have this to say
"The B-2 can travel 6,000 nautical miles without refueling and 10,000 nautical miles with only one refueling. It can reach any point in the world within hours."
Such a description is rather explicit and consistent with the actual USAF website of the B-2 -- that it is able to travel that distance without refuelling and with one refuelling respectively.
That gives us a combat radius (unrefuelled) or some 3000nmi. The best way of trying to square the estimates of its combat radius/range is looking at long range B-2 missions in modern history and mid air refuelling occasions they needed. One we know most about is the 44 hour sortie from Missouri, over the Pacific and Indian Ocean, to Afghanistan, and landing at Diego Garcia, back in 2001:
If we do some basic estimates of the distances traversed between refuellings, launched from Missouri, there were then air refuellings over:
- California (some 1500nmi from Missouri)
- Hawaii (some 2000nmi from California)
- Guam (some 3300nmi from Hawaii)
- Strait of Malacca (some 2700nmi from Guam)
- Diego Garcia (some 1800nmi from Strait of Malacca)
- and then finally from Diego Garcia, to Afghanistan and back (landing) which is some 2400nmi each way, aka 4800nmi between Diego Garcia and Afghanistan
As we can see, not all refuellings were of equal distance between each refuelling point, likely based on availability of land based tankers between refuelling points, and the permissiveness of the environment of each refuelling point.
But if the B-2's unrefuelled combat radius was 5000-6000nmi (implying its one way unrefuelled range is 10,000-12,000nmi), then we would not have seen anywhere near the frequency/pattern of refuelling that was carried out for that sortie. Considering each air refuelling mission is a rather major procedure for an actual combat sortie of a valuable, VLO strategic bomber like B-2, if the unrefuelled combat radius was 5000-6000nmi, then the USAF absolutely could have omitted refuelling over California and the Strait of Malacca, and simply only refuelled over Hawaii, Guam and Diego Garcia.
One other factor to consider is that a 5000-6000nmi combat radius would allow B-2s based at Hawaii to carry out strike missions against the PRC mainland without needing refuelling (and with a bit of fuel to spare). Such a capability or mission profile as far as I am aware has never been suggested as viable by individuals in the official space or the so called osint space, without having the necessity of tankers. Which is to say, if the B-2 really did have a 6000nmi combat radius in a way that was so obvious, then it would long have been spoken of as a capability and threat profile.
Tying this all back, my suspicion for why "combat radius" is sometimes mistakenly cited as 5000-6000nmi is because there is deliberately no official numbers for combat radius provided either by the USAF or by Northrop. Range is much more vague and nebulous and can vary based on mission loadout or flight profile, but having an absence of "combat radius" has led some websites to make their own assumptions that 5000-6000nmi represents "combat radius" and putting in assumed mission loadouts and flight profiles.
But if B-2 did have a 5000-6000nmi combat radius then the real world employment of it and refuelings of it which we've seen in modern history just don't make sense.