I also read the paper and there were many discussions that were interesting re the RAN force structure however, once we delve into the RAAF force structures the authors started quoting Dr Carlo and co and decrying the loss of the F-111 strike capability.
This set the alarm tentacles twitching and I hoisted it in with a fair dose of scepticism, particularly re the B1's
I am not an expert on air warfare capabilities (apart from the usual internet tosh) and would like an opinion from those who are before passing final judgement.
Cheers
Chris
Yes I did think of that at the time I saw his name crop up, but realistically we have just about always had dedicated bomber on the flight line, all I taken from it is that the retirement of our F-111 is they came to the conclusion that we lack the assets that can exploit our long range AEW assets and cover the air-sea gap adequately to support not only ourselves but the US. As it rightly explains depending on the situation the US support assets may not be available.
As it points out that the US may downsize their fleet of B1 Lancer but will still have effective aircraft out to the mid-2030 when hopefully LRS-B program might be operational and gives as it describes “The mere possession of such a long-range strike capability could help compensate for the loss of long-range air strike capability incurred by Canberra’s decision to phase out the F-111. It would also send out a powerful signal to potential adversaries and strengthen Australia’s conventional deterrent”
Since the only other way we could have that type of flexibility without staging from another friendly nation is by aircraft carrier, on that basis I whole heartily agree with that sentiment that our AAR fleet while modern is inadequate in numbers and without other means our long range strike/interdiction and CAP is severely limited.
B-1 goes to sea for testing, evaluation
“On 4 September 2013, a B-1B Lancer participated in a maritime tactics development and evaluation with other bomber and fighter aircraft with the goal of improving and better understanding the aircraft's capabilities in the naval environment. During the evaluations, the B-1 dropped a total of six munitions, including a laser-guided 500 lb. GBU-54 bomb, 500 lb. and 2,000 lb. Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM), and Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) test munitions. The B-1's role in the exercise was to detect, target, and engage small boats using currently fielded and available weapons, which were released in all weather conditions. Many of the dynamic targeting skills refined over the past decade on land are directly applicable in the maritime environment. The B-1's versatility allows it perform missions in future conflicts at sea, including protecting assets at sea and using its speed and endurance to patrol allied shipping lanes”
And a possible upgrade,
The B-1R is a proposed upgrade of existing B-1B aircraft. The B-1R (R for "regional") would be fitted with advanced radars, air-to-air missiles, and new Pratt & Whitney F119 engines. This variant would have a top speed of Mach 2.2, but with 20% less range.
Existing external hard points would be modified to allow multiple conventional weapons to be carried, increasing overall load out. For air-to-air defense, an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar would be added and some existing hard points modified to carry air-to-air missiles. If needed the B-1R could escape from unfavorable air-to-air encounters with its Mach 2+ speed. Few aircraft are currently capable of sustained speeds over Mach 2.
By all means I’m not for or against the idea and not totally convinced either way, one just has to look at the RAF Black Buck raid in the Falkland’s at the time and energy put in to it for the result and the aircrafts role in Afghanistan, but with the aircraft being able to push the envelope in the maritime environment it surely has to be debated on its merits.
