Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
The Liberal coalition opposition spokesperson for Defence Andrew Hastie appeared on ABC news channel 24 advocating the Government should be serious and look at the purchase of the B21 Raider as an interim stop gap for the potential late delivery of the AUKUS Subs. Its an hell'va expensive stop gap and I think I read somewhere that the American Government would not consider the sale. But that was under the previous Administration, I dont know what the story is now.
Not entirely sure how bombers can replace submarines...
Didn't we discuss this previously? Maybe on the RAN thread?
I recall there were a number of objections, for e.g. - How many months can a B-21 loiter undetected in the South China Sea?
AFAIK, the stopgap is the Collins class. If the Americans fall through, then who knows - lease something from Japan? The French?
More relevant for the RAAF thread, when's the Super Hornet due to retire? 2035-2045? Is wonder if he's proposing these as a replacement, or a whole new squadron in addition to the existing ones.
Could get that 4th F-35 squadron.
Im ok with having the super hornets to be honest. When its time to replace them, it will be with something better than the F35. I also think having at least 2 different F/FGA aircraft is a wise move.
Aardvark144
Active Member
Andrew Hastie or Sen James Patterson? The Senator is Shadow Defence Minister with Hastie being Shadow Minister for Industry and Sovereign Capability. Not pushing the B21 'card'; however, the previous Secretary of the AF under Biden was quoted as saying they would be prepared to assist Australia in acquiring the B21 with the previous CAF - AM Chipman also being a VIP attendee at the rollout of No 1.
Last edited:
yes you are correct it was James Patterson he is the one pushing pushing the B21 card. He most likely never read the 2023 Defence Review which came out against it.
He did a big interview on 7:30 report explaining it. I like James, he seems pretty level headed, knowledgeable, capable. But B21 is bonkers. I suspect he knows its bonkers, but runs with it as its popular, because its cool. He avoided very carefully situations where he would have to explain how it would work for Australia and ABC aren't knowledgeable enough to probe.
His point was capability gaps, Which is a real thing, particularly if there isn't the push and priority. He mentioned Collins LOTE and risk of delay, which is a real thing. And then more softly said, B21 is something that could be looked at. He is a politician.
B21 isn't going to be procured fast enough to cover capability gaps in Collins LOTE. B21 doesn't have any inbuilt naval strike capability (which James listed it could protect our sea-lanes, hinted indirectly at sub hunting!). Also its not in service FOC with its parent force, its still an air force development project.
Not certain you would say he is pushing it but it sounds like he has read the Defence Review but since then recognising We are probably facing a dramatic delay with Virginia (if we get them at all) and AUKUS subs triggering a then
What to do moment.
His comment in a speech to the National Press Club in response to an earlier speech by Richard Marles …Senator Paterson said he was not committing the Coalition to acquiring the planes or demanding the government do so, but said it was worth considering.
"Only the government can know whether the [Royal Australian Air Force] is well-placed to acquire these planes and put them into service," he said.
"Perhaps there are good reasons why a B-21 does not work for Australia.”
"If that is the case, I hope the government is very closely examining other similar options which could fill this serious potential capability gap.
"Because I do not want Australia to enter the moment of maximum peril in the late 2020s and early 2030s without this capability.
“we’ve previously considered it and thought it wasn’t appropriate for Australia, but the world has changed.
“I think we need to take a second look
It’s why it is so advanced, don’t you know?
It has a special underwater mode…
Or something.
But wouldn't the obvious solution to a sub delay is better ASW and wouldn't that be through additional P8 capability and with strike capability from that with NSM/LRASM. Its in production, FOC with RAAF. B21 can't fire those.
I know people say integration will be easy. But the F-35 cannot also fire those either. We can't get rid of the F18 until F-35 is fully able to do antishipping. A 4th squadron also doesn't make a lot of sense over keeping the current 36 F-18SH. F-35 integration, parts and spares, and upgrades are still issues.
B21 isn't very good at sub hunting, long range strike against China isn't going to mean much, unless its part of a nuclear triad. Which is fine, but a B21 is a lot of money in that space. A manned bomber may not be ideal for nuclear triad projection in the 2030+. B21 would be more of a threat to say, Indonesia, so acquiring that platform will annoy a nearby friend.
Just a delay in the subs can be a huge problem. Collins will not function forever. We should actively prepare for conflict in late 2020/early 2030. Air power is a very important aspect of that. But AUKUS sub = b21 is not something I see being a good fit.
I know people say integration will be easy. But the F-35 cannot also fire those either. We can't get rid of the F18 until F-35 is fully able to do antishipping. A 4th squadron also doesn't make a lot of sense over keeping the current 36 F-18SH. F-35 integration, parts and spares, and upgrades are still issues.
B21 isn't very good at sub hunting, long range strike against China isn't going to mean much, unless its part of a nuclear triad. Which is fine, but a B21 is a lot of money in that space. A manned bomber may not be ideal for nuclear triad projection in the 2030+. B21 would be more of a threat to say, Indonesia, so acquiring that platform will annoy a nearby friend.
Just a delay in the subs can be a huge problem. Collins will not function forever. We should actively prepare for conflict in late 2020/early 2030. Air power is a very important aspect of that. But AUKUS sub = b21 is not something I see being a good fit.
Takao
The Bunker Group
Actually, this needs to be carefully considered.
The idea is for B-21s as a counter to delays in the AUKUS SSN. So we'd still pay the $368 b for the SSNs, but then we'd have to find at least another $80 b (in the same time period) for the B-21s! How is that going to be done?
Bah - the RAAF B-21 needs to enter the 'topics to not talk about' list. Both governments have considered, and discarded, it. The claims for it do not stack up against reality, tasks or.... anything really.
BTW - that's $80 b in 2020 dollars....
The idea is for B-21s as a counter to delays in the AUKUS SSN. So we'd still pay the $368 b for the SSNs, but then we'd have to find at least another $80 b (in the same time period) for the B-21s! How is that going to be done?
Bah - the RAAF B-21 needs to enter the 'topics to not talk about' list. Both governments have considered, and discarded, it. The claims for it do not stack up against reality, tasks or.... anything really.
BTW - that's $80 b in 2020 dollars....
Arguably, the AUKAS budget quantum includes at least one hundred and twenty billion for contingencies above the actual hardware budget. Still, I don't know how effective an Australian high altitude raid is going to be. As a drone swarm, though. But in all honesty, having two highly resource-intensive projects is going to complicate budget calcs even more. It's got to be weighed against simply accelerating already approved projects such as AUKUS. I mean, why not pump out some Ghost Bats and Ghost Sharks? Isn't it obvious?
How is this for an idea?
Lets LOTE the Collins class, introduce a new GP Frigate, get some ghost sharks, and help the US speed up their manufacture of the Virginias by spending big on their infrastructure. like we are doing@!
Lets LOTE the Collins class, introduce a new GP Frigate, get some ghost sharks, and help the US speed up their manufacture of the Virginias by spending big on their infrastructure. like we are doing@!
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I would add that the USAF will likely increase their B-21 order from 100 to at least 140+. They won’t want to give up delivery slots IMO. Not sure what the B-21 production rate will max out to but SSNs might arrive before any exports and exports may be off the table anyway. Better to entice the US to base some in OZ.
Its always a laugh watching nautical guys threatened by air power.
1. Why B-21 (in theory): speed; flexibility; and firepower v's CCP operating in the southern hem (not going down town China mainland as some mater-mind stated).
SSN are truly awesome sharks but:
- unlike VLR air, they are relatively slow; not flexibility (single theatre over months); limited firepower (TLAM only? v current USAF conventional inventory)
- I assume this is idea is being floated if Virginia Class are not available or delayed until distant future AUKUS Class
- I've never heard anyone claim VLR can conduct ASW; another mater-mind moment
2. RAAF has been under resourced since AUKUS. The current OOB is tailored for 'peace'
- eg. 20 new C-130J should have been 30, including K/MC-130J
- 4th F-35 sqn was supposed to be FJ expansion
- F/A-18F/G are in addition to F-35, to be replaced by whatever is suitable for our AO
- Additional strategic AAR, P-8, E-7 replacements
- new in-theatre STOL ala Caravan/Air Van/PC-12 at Townsville and as comms flight acft at main bases, in place of the Cinderella C-27J
1. Why B-21 (in theory): speed; flexibility; and firepower v's CCP operating in the southern hem (not going down town China mainland as some mater-mind stated).
SSN are truly awesome sharks but:
- unlike VLR air, they are relatively slow; not flexibility (single theatre over months); limited firepower (TLAM only? v current USAF conventional inventory)
- I assume this is idea is being floated if Virginia Class are not available or delayed until distant future AUKUS Class
- I've never heard anyone claim VLR can conduct ASW; another mater-mind moment
2. RAAF has been under resourced since AUKUS. The current OOB is tailored for 'peace'
- eg. 20 new C-130J should have been 30, including K/MC-130J
- 4th F-35 sqn was supposed to be FJ expansion
- F/A-18F/G are in addition to F-35, to be replaced by whatever is suitable for our AO
- Additional strategic AAR, P-8, E-7 replacements
- new in-theatre STOL ala Caravan/Air Van/PC-12 at Townsville and as comms flight acft at main bases, in place of the Cinderella C-27J
Well I for one totally, whole heartedly agree. It should have been 8x E-7 and 12x P-8 instead of 6 and 8 and at least 5 Peregrine. But to prioritise super weapons over flexibility. I still comeback to, can anyone honestly see Canberra authorising a high altitude raid? It would place the ADF in the position of Sheriff instead of Deputy Sheriff let alone getting support from allies for such a thing. And I don't even want to think about putting the Raider in ears shot of every modern radar for prolonged periods just for a show of force. I mean, it's just going to sit on the tarmac and look pretty isn't it
Ta SamB
Unsurprisingly in a RAAF thread, I'd say that VLR is by far more mission flexible than a SSN
eg. just altitude profile: why high only? medium block for ISR or anti SAG from low ... although there is a singular beauty in a B-21 dropping 100 SDB/JDAM onto 100 targets from FL400
Canberra pollies will do whatever they need to do, to survive
History shows that VLR are more likely to be deployed kinetically than SSN; however, good luck with predicting the future in this age of strategic competition
Unsurprisingly in a RAAF thread, I'd say that VLR is by far more mission flexible than a SSN
eg. just altitude profile: why high only? medium block for ISR or anti SAG from low ... although there is a singular beauty in a B-21 dropping 100 SDB/JDAM onto 100 targets from FL400
Canberra pollies will do whatever they need to do, to survive
History shows that VLR are more likely to be deployed kinetically than SSN; however, good luck with predicting the future in this age of strategic competition
I think we maybe talking past each other. I view resource hungry super weapons as a single point of failure. I do not wish to make this into a one ups man ship. If the Raider is to be included it will be a part of an integrated focused force giving a massive punch to all branches of the ADF and arguably is already a part of the NTs menu of strike packages. If it is the will of the Australian people to move the ADF from deputy to a full Sherrif then the ADF will have it. But the people must be okay with such a a massive shift in focus. With that I respectfully yield.