You guys miss what im saying.
If you have a requirement to hit targets 1500 miles away, you would be crazy to buy an aircraft that can only go half the distance even if its cheaper. Once you take into account the tankers and extra escorts for the tankers its now much more expensive.
To take it to an extreme, say Australia bought 100 aircraft that can only travel 100 miles.. It would then need 100 refueling tankers just to allow the fleet to reach say Indonesia.
Refueling tankers cant fight back, are a sitting duck and require protection. If you can use an aircraft that doesn't require inflight refueling then it would definitely be the prefered option. I dont see how anyone can argue with that.
Regarding the B-52's requiring tankers, If Australia had B-52's and all the targets were within 2000 miles from the Australian coast then our B-52's would not need tanking.. However if we wanted to bomb China then we could refuel our B-52's to get their. The fact is we dont want to bomb china so no refueling needed.
And yes i still think the B-1b's would be excellent.
A single B-1b means 10 less fighter aircraft carrying bombs.
10 less fighter aircraft means 10 less escorts fighters.
20 less fighter aircraft means 5 Less tankers.
5 less tankers means 5 less tanker escorts etc
If you have a mission to drop ten 2,000lb bombs 2000 miles away, then use a single aircraft that can carry ten 2,000lb bombs and travel 2000 miles without refueling. Dont use ten aircraft with a bomb each and a couple tankers to help get them there...
I'd even go as far as saying Inflight refuelers are a bandaid solution. I can gurantee that the US bomber fleet would not be getting inflight refueling if they had secure bases within 3000 miles of their targets.
The same thing applied to air transport. If you need to carry 30 tonnes why use two Herc's that have to make a stopover on the way to the middle east? May as well put the load into C-17 and fly direct in half the time.
Okay, where to start on this...
For starters, in the case of Australia and most of the world, the aircraft that can be purchased is restricted to what is available in the defence aviation market. If no aircraft is available for purchase with the desired range, then Australia cannot acquire it. Simple fact. What would need to be done in this case is to build/acquire capabilities (like AAR) that would allow the mission to be completed, without an aircraft of the desired range.
My second point has more to do with doctrine. Combat aircraft, today, can be roughly divided into two different range categories, tactical or strategic. Many nations operate tactical strike/fighter aircraft, but only a few nations operate strategic aircraft. Largely because few nations have the combination of need and budget to support such a capability. Also, strategic combat aircraft are at least at present, only bomber/strike aircraft. As a result of design limits and compromises, the strategic combat aircraft are larger and more expensive to purchase and operate than tactical aircraft (IIRC the B-2 was ~US$1 billion 15 years ago, the F-22A approximately US$150 million , but are approx. per unit costs for USAF) Due to the increased costs associated with strategic aircraft, they are not assigned tactical missions generally, being usually an inappropriate aircraft. For instance, if the mission is to go and drop bombs on a target with total flight distance round trip of only 500 miles, what is the sense in deploying an aircraft with a round trip range of 5,000 miles. Also, given that most nations, if drawn into a war, will most likely be fighting a neighbor, or another nearby nation.
As things stand now, I'm unaware of any strategic bomber/strike aircraft currently in production (Tu-160 might still be, not sure). So if it was decided that the RAAF needed a such long-range option, it would need to find a nation that has surplus strategic aircraft in service or a boneyard that would be willing to sell such aircraft to Australia. Then Australia would be saddled with the costs of updating/maintaining the aircraft which gives them an intercontinental strike range without refueling, by virtue of being strategic aircraft. If Australia did this (assuming it could) then a decision would need to be made in terms of aircraft numbers. While less aircraft could be acquired based off bombload, that would then reduce the number of aircraft available to assign missions to. Having all ones eggs (or bombs
) in one basket only works if there isn't attrition and the targets can all be reached by one aircraft, in one mission, within whatever timeframe is needed.
With smaller tactical aircraft being in-flight refueled, more options are available to an airforce than just relying on large strike aircraft to reach a target. Incidentally, many strategic aircraft for operational reasons also engage in AAR as well.
Lastly, the point that seems to keep being advocated is the rention or purchase of a replacement mid-range strike aircraft for the F-111. Unfortunately, that is not an option for the F-111 was unique in that respect. It was a strike aircraft which has capabilities somewhere between a tactical strike fighter and a strategic bomber. While the USAF is looking now, some 15 years after retiring it's F-111s force a possible modern equivalent replacement, nothing is available yet.
As for the need for Australia to be able to launch strikes into Southeast Asia or China... I don't see the need, and I believe that the costs associated with gaining the ability would take away from areas the ADF will need.
-Cheers
