Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates

[Todjaeger]

Yep all well and good and a good post, but the whole point of my post was NG assertions that the LRB fleet had export bans and to my knowledge no there weren’t any except for the F22 which has the only official ban in place

As for the banning of weapons platforms that are nuclear capable both the F18 & F111 has nuclear weapons capabilities and the F111 was part of SAC, so I would not suggest it’s cut and dried. The Sec Def was quite happy for the RAAF to get F22 but the Congressional ban put the kobosh on that if the RAAF even wanted it

but untill such a time someone from congress places a ban on it it open for export potential

The idea that the US would be willing to export a key system which will be part of it's strategic nuclear deterrence, and thus risk the potential compromise of that element of the US nuclear triad is IMO some excessively optimistic thinking.

Yes, at a gov't to gov't, someone in a senior position in AUSGov could query the US State Dept. to see if they would be willing to permit such a sale, however I consider it quite unlikely that State would authorize such a sale. This would stop the export of B-21's before Congress would even get involved.

The time when Australia ordered the F-111C was back in October, 1963. This was a few years before the USAF signed the contract in 1966 for the FB-111A, which was the strategic bomber version for SAC. Yes, the RAAF did end up purchasing 15 F-111G's, which were the new designation for ex-FB-111's which had been reconfigured for tactical (or training) use. However, there is quite a difference between the RAAF operating combat aircraft which could theoretically carry/deploy a nuclear strike package, and the RAAF flying an aircraft with one of it's main roles being strategic nuclear strike/deterrence.

From my POV, people advocating for B-21's in RAAF service are not being realistic about the likely cost to acquire and sustain a B-21 Raider force. They are also (again, IMO and from my POV) not being realistic about how likely and willing the US would be to sell such an important strike capability, when doing so could end up seriously damaging strategic US capabilities.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

The idea that the US would be willing to export a key system which will be part of it's strategic nuclear deterrence, and thus risk the potential compromise of that element of the US nuclear triad is IMO some excessively optimistic thinking. ...

The US exports Trident submarine launched ballistic missiles to the UK. I would assume that would qualify as a "key system which will be part of it's strategic nuclear deterrence"
And, the UK Dreadnought-class & US Columbia-class boats will share the same design common missile compartment used in conjunction with the before mentioned Trident SLBMs

 

[ASSAIL]

From my POV, people advocating for B-21's in RAAF service are not being realistic about the likely cost to acquire and sustain a B-21 Raider force. They are also (again, IMO and from my POV) not being realistic about how likely and willing the US would be to sell such an important strike capability, when doing so could end up seriously damaging strategic US capabilities.

And"..........the DWP has clearly stated that the ADF “Strike” capability will be vested in the Submarine Force.
This whole “B21 for the RAAF” discussion is fanciful.

 

[John Fedup]

The US exports Trident submarine launched ballistic missiles to the UK. I would assume that would qualify as a "key system which will be part of it's strategic nuclear deterrence"
And, the UK Dreadnought-class & US Columbia-class boats will share the same design common missile compartment used in conjunction with the before mentioned Trident SLBMs

Yes, the special relationship might allow the UK access to the B-21 but the cost would prevent the request from happening.

 

[Todjaeger]

The US exports Trident submarine launched ballistic missiles to the UK. I would assume that would qualify as a "key system which will be part of it's strategic nuclear deterrence"
And, the UK Dreadnought-class & US Columbia-class boats will share the same design common missile compartment used in conjunction with the before mentioned Trident SLBMs

Which is an outgrowth of the Polaris Sales Agreement from 1963, and prior to that there was an already significant background of shared information and joint development of nuclear weaponry between the US and UK occurring off and on since the middle of WWII.

It was and is in US interests that the UK be able to maintain a nuclear deterrent capability, and the export of first Polaris and then Trident ICBM's does not have the same potential to compromise US achievements in LO management.

 

[t68]

And"..........the DWP has clearly stated that the ADF “Strike” capability will be vested in the Submarine Force.
This whole “B21 for the RAAF” discussion is fanciful.

Fanciful or not, i'm not actually actually advocating for it one way or the other in my current posts. All I am countering is NG assertions that the B52, B1 & B2 and by its strategic nature B1 Raider is not open for export. He is claiming some sort of classified Presidential export ban

All I have provided is that there are those in Australia as well as in the US that would like to see AusGov get involved in the program and certain people within the USGov would see no objections to it at the time. Before PM Rudds announcement of a larger submarine fleet I recall a lot of those on this very forum admonish others that called for an expansion of the submarine fleet for a lot of the same reasons cited here $$$$. If the GOTD decrees it is justified they will find those same $$$ needed just like they have for the expanded sub fleet

People on this site are making mountain out out of a molehill

 

[ngatimozart]

Fanciful or not, i'm not actually actually advocating for it one way or the other in my current posts. All I am countering is NG assertions that the B52, B1 & B2 and by its strategic nature B1 Raider is not open for export. He is claiming some sort of classified Presidential export ban

All I have provided is that there are those in Australia as well as in the US that would like to see AusGov get involved in the program and certain people within the USGov would see no objections to it at the time. Before PM Rudds announcement of a larger submarine fleet I recall a lot of those on this very forum admonish others that called for an expansion of the submarine fleet for a lot of the same reasons cited here $$$$. If the GOTD decrees it is justified they will find those same $$$ needed just like they have for the expanded sub fleet

People on this site are making mountain out out of a molehill

Right, I did not claim there is a Presidential export ban. I speculated that there may or may not be: a big difference. This is what I said:

"For all we know there could quite easily be a classified Presidential finding or order making it so. Such information doesn't necessarily need to be in the public domain."

So do not claim that I said something that I didn't.

You are the one pushing the fanciful claim here despite what others have been telling you. If anyone is making a mountain out of a molehill you are. You have been on here long enough to know what and what is not acceptable behaviour and the rules. If you continue to push this topic, then the Moderators will be forced to take action. Our patience has worn very thin.

 

[t68]

Right, I did not claim there is a Presidential export ban. I speculated that there may or may not be: a big difference. This is what I said:

"For all we know there could quite easily be a classified Presidential finding or order making it so. Such information doesn't necessarily need to be in the public domain."

So do not claim that I said something that I didn't.

You are the one pushing the fanciful claim here despite what others have been telling you. If anyone is making a mountain out of a molehill you are. You have been on here long enough to know what and what is not acceptable behaviour and the rules. If you continue to push this topic, then the Moderators will be forced to take action. Our patience has worn very thin.

At the end of the day because the US has not exported any of the LRB fleet you have made assertions as to there export restrictions, then make claims about possible Presidential export bans. you gave no evidence of export bans on the previous aircraft availability or future I showed that there are elements within the USGov who would like to see AusGov become involved in the program, and also showed that the only aircraft with known export restrictions that the USGov would not have any qualms about the RAAF having access to F22. you jump on people for living in fantasy land but you are doing it yourself, you want facts and I presented facts.

By putting your response in green also tells me you are not really interested in what has been posted earlier unless it conforms to your pov

@t68

You need to moderate your tone. I have re-read the posts and as far as I can tell ngatimozart simply speculated that there may be limits on export and provided an example. To be clear the B21 is not yet available to anybody (including the USAF) and any exports would need to be approved by the US government anyway.

Now the main point ... there are no projects in the works for Australia to purchase any capability like the B21. This is pure fantasy in the current context and this was the point made by most of those who followed up on your post.

Until there is evidence of a major shift in government policy in this regard I strongly recommend you stay away from fantasy options.

alexsa

 

[Volkodav]

And"..........the DWP has clearly stated that the ADF “Strike” capability will be vested in the Submarine Force.
This whole “B21 for the RAAF” discussion is fanciful.

That's probably why the old and bold, pre purple, former RAAFies like the B-21, it will give the strike capability back to the RAAF and cost so much the RAN will likely have to divest themselves of submarines and LHDs. Actually it would probably cost so much the RAAF will recommend the army get out of aviation to free up more bomber cash.

 

[Todjaeger]

That's probably why the old and bold, pre purple, former RAAFies like the B-21, it will give the strike capability back to the RAAF and cost so much the RAN will likely have to divest themselves of submarines and LHDs. Actually it would probably cost so much the RAAF will recommend the army get out of aviation to free up more bomber cash.

The RAN might be able to get by and just scrap the SEA 5000 programme and retire the ANZAC-class frigates without commissioning the Hunter-class frigates as replacements, as this is starting to get into the likely costs.

This is also yet another example of fantasy fleet-building which tends to annoy people who come to DT to have serious and realistic discussions on defence matters. In many respects it feels like trying to discuss financial planning for a significant cause/event (like retirement) with someone, who then insists on spending significant time discussing how their retirement plans would change if a long-shot gamble like winning a major lottery jackpot were to occur. Discussing a one chance in 300,000,000-type event, which are approximate odds for some lottery drawings in the US, is to engage in fantasy.

 

[ASSAIL]

I reckon this would be Senator Rex Patrick’s choice for a C17 going by his advocacy for a fleet of small submarines.
Small is good in big numbers.

https://www.facebook.com/81276070943/posts/10159253671870944

 

[t68]

At the end of the day because the US has not exported any of the LRB fleet you have made assertions as to there export restrictions, then make claims about possible Presidential export bans. you gave no evidence of export bans on the previous aircraft availability or future I showed that there are elements within the USGov who would like to see AusGov become involved in the program, and also showed that the only aircraft with known export restrictions that the USGov would not have any qualms about the RAAF having access to F22. you jump on people for living in fantasy land but you are doing it yourself, you want facts and I presented facts.

By putting your response in green also tells me you are not really interested in what has been posted earlier unless it conforms to your pov

@t68

You need to moderate your tone. I have re-read the posts and as far as I can tell ngatimozart simply speculated that there may be limits on export and provided an example.

To be clear the B21 is not yet available to anybody (including the USAF) and any exports would need to be approved by the US government anyway.

Now the main point ... there are no projects in the works for Australia to purchase any capability like the B21. This is pure fantasy in the current context and this was the point made by most of those who followed up on your post.

Until there is evidence of a major shift in government policy in this regard I strongly recommend you stay away from fantasy options.

alexsa

@alexsa

Well unfortunately it appears you also have not read my posts correctly either, my whole response about ngatimozart was wholly and solely about his assertions to the B52. B1 & B2 and the future B21 having export restrictions nothing more nothing less. you pride and demand people talk with facts for which ngatimozart did not and still has not done so he cant provide any evidence there are export bans on those platforms (post 7406) except for some fantasy about classified Presidential export bans. yet you admonish others for doing exactly what he has done himself. Also from my quick squiz on the net in relation to B52 the RAAF did do a study into the feasibility of B52 and did not recommend it as it was deemed to heavy for our needs with the Avro Vulcan actually recommend but not pursued because of the cost factor.

In regards to B21 fact is I didn't even brooch the subject whether the RAAF should even get B21 in any of my posts, so I cannot reconcile this ridicules assertions that I am playing fantasy fleet, the only thing that I brought to the subject on B21 was that there are people both here and the US would like to see AusGov join the program, now if there were export restrictions in place for the aircraft would not some high ranking official within the USGov point to some sort of export restriction in and why would the AusGov ( if they want to get involved) put treasure into a program if they had no hope of getting that aircraft into service that defy's logic from my POV

It would be nice to actually get an apology from the moderator group, but i don't think I will hold my breath in getting that any time soon

@t68 Given your reply to Alexsa's warning, you cannot post on this thread for seven days and this reply will be subject to a moderator team discussion.

 

[Takao]

That's probably why the old and bold, pre purple, former RAAFies like the B-21, it will give the strike capability back to the RAAF and cost so much the RAN will likely have to divest themselves of submarines and LHDs. Actually it would probably cost so much the RAAF will recommend the army get out of aviation to free up more bomber cash.

Assuming ASPI's (fanciful) numbers of $45 b are correct, that's in 2020 dollars.

SEA 1000 is, in 2020 dollars, a $50 b program

So to buy 12 B-21's, using ASPI's own numbers means ditching large chunks of the Navy and/or RAAF.

It's so laughable as to be sad now. The analysis for ASPI is really missing

 

[Stampede]

Assuming ASPI's (fanciful) numbers of $45 b are correct, that's in 2020 dollars.

SEA 1000 is, in 2020 dollars, a $50 b program

So to buy 12 B-21's, using ASPI's own numbers means ditching large chunks of the Navy and/or RAAF.

It's so laughable as to be sad now. The analysis for ASPI is really missing

ASPI put out some good opinion pieces and also some **&^%%$$#@!
Maybe they also have slow news days.

Regards S

 

[Stampede]

I reckon this would be Senator Rex Patrick’s choice for a C17 going by his advocacy for a fleet of small submarines.
Small is good in big numbers.

https://www.facebook.com/81276070943/posts/10159253671870944

Are they also looking for 1/6th scale crew?
Great Pic

Regards S

 

[John Fedup]

Are they also looking for 1/6th scale crew?
Great Pic

Regards S

Genetically engineered midgets perhaps? Good thing the midget C-17 isn’t available, the RCAF would probably have been forced to buy them as a cost savings.

 

[ADMk2]

Assuming ASPI's (fanciful) numbers of $45 b are correct, that's in 2020 dollars.

SEA 1000 is, in 2020 dollars, a $50 b program

So to buy 12 B-21's, using ASPI's own numbers means ditching large chunks of the Navy and/or RAAF.

It's so laughable as to be sad now. The analysis for ASPI is really missing

No, no. The popular meme in defence analyst circles now is that ADF is “awash” with cash, hence the $10b under-spend continually mentioned this year…

So this is easy. Just go and pick $40b off the money tree we now have, somewhere and Navy and Army can keep their existing plans for new toys, or something…

 

[aussienscale]

No, no. The popular meme in defence analyst circles now is that ADF is “awash” with cash, hence the $10b under-spend continually mentioned this year…

So this is easy. Just go and pick $40b off the money tree we now have, somewhere and Navy and Army can keep their existing plans for new toys, or something…

It is doing my head in !! the sheer and absolute fantasy of all of these thought bubbles out there, and the media trying to put credence into it as well, B21's and the costs associated are just as fanciful as are the proponents who claim we can obtain a nuclear submarine fleet because they have looked at the Wiki sticker price for a Virginia or Astute

 

[Depot Dog]

This is my rant. To all the boof heads out there that think Australia should, could or will get Nuclear submarines, B21. Pull your heads in. Unless the it becomes government policy or white papered or budgetted for, it is not going to happen. Looking at government announcements should give a clue of long range strike intentions.

Australia collaborates with the US to develop and test high speed long-range hypersonic weapons | Defence Ministers

The Morrison Government is delivering on its commitment to develop high-speed long-range strike capabilities to build a more capable and agile Australian Defence Force (ADF).Last week Australia and the United States signed a new collaborative agreement to develop and test hypersonic cruise...

www.minister.defence.gov.au

We are currently developing a sovereign hypersonic capability. Not to far fetch as the Uni of QLD is a leader in this game.

Morrison Government boosts maritime security | Defence Ministers

The Morrison Government will invest $1 billion to commence the early development of advanced guided weapons to enhance Australia’s maritime security.This significant commitment will modernise the Navy’s platforms to project and maintain sea control.This project will provide Navy with...

www.minister.defence.gov.au

Long range land strike missiles for the navy.

The Army has plans to aquire Himars and long range rockets.

These proposals make sense for our defence force. I agree with the comments above let us debate and talk about what is on the table or possible not a fantasy

Rant over
DD

 

[John Newman]

This is my rant. To all the boof heads out there that think Australia should, could or will get Nuclear submarines, B21. Pull your heads in.

Whilst we can all disagree with members points of view or posts, strongly or otherwise, or conversely agree.

I don’t think it’s very mature to call other members ‘boof heads’ or tell people to pull their heads in.

Agree or disagree, but better to be respectful don’t you think?