If you believe subs can do land/air/war canoe infrastructure attack as well as VLR acft, then you’re not understanding air power and as guilty of single service Nelson eye as the 20/30s battleship mafia.
Ooo...I haven't been called too single service for years. Newness and exciting! Don't forget, that the reason Loyal Wingman progresses past 2020 is thanks to a MAJ and a LTCOL pushing back against AFHQ
I'm pretty comfortable with my understanding of air power. It's been an integral part of my career for about 80% of it; it, after all, is a vital pillar for a modern Joint Force. Note that those battleship admirals are more myth than reality, especially in the Royal Navy that led CV development for most of the inter-war period....
But on the specifics...
I never said that subs can do what B-21s can. In the quoted post I said the opposite, and somewhere further back I stated that the capabilities of both don't really overlap. I'm certainly happy to state that a bomber can deliver more HE onto targets than a SSN can over a period of time. What I will point out is (a) that's all the B-21 can do (ignoring nukes) is conventional bombing campaigns (so no anti-shipping, no long-range stand-off for a while) and (b) against the threat that we are likely to face they are even more restricted.
The latter point is something that many proponents for the B-21 under the current NDS miss. The most likely threat is to the north; but they are focused on a really small AO where they can focus their efforts. The most likely threat against them is either SSNs (which have significant standoff capability, do not
have to go into the PLA A2AD bubble to fight) or USAF B-21s (which, while stealth, have to go into the A2AD bubble). This need to enter pits the B-21 against a IAMD system that is specifically designed to counter long-range USAF platforms. It may work. It may not. In the fight between stealth aircraft and IAMD systems, none of that is going to be on public forums. But, with our scarce resources, pitting our fragile platforms against their most likely and effective counter is (conceptually) no different to trench warfare.
So RAAF is the priority … apart the trillions being spent over the next decades manufacturing Dark Blue boats and Green rockets. Now you’re making me laugh
I didn't say that the RAAF is the priority. I think it's clear that publicly and privately, AUKUS, specifically Pillar 1, is the priority. I said it wasn't under-resourced in the current budget - and I stand by that.
Ignoring the hyperbole of trillions, if you think the next priority after SSNs is 'Green rockets', I'm sorry to disabuse you of that. There is up to ~$36 b over the decade for GWEO (which includes a dozen different types over all three Services, not just GMLRS/PRsM) and $6 b for land-based strike. That latter figure is less than the F-35, less than the C-130J, less than the Ghost Bat and roughly on par with the F-18 family and the airborne ISR capabilities. It's also less than SATCOM, cyber capabilities, IAMD, Hunter-, Mogami-, and Hobart-class.
I'd suggest closely reading the
public IIP. Even if not precise, it gives broad indications of what capabilities cost. And look at the overall capability; you can see that long-range strike is actually (across all five domains) less than most others, notable maritime, expeditionary air operations and IAMD.
Who is refueling the current Chook mob? No one.
Have you seen our Chinooks?
That's what is refuelling our Chinooks. Trucks. Sometimes green, but always trucks. Note the nose of the Chinook doesn't have a refuelling probe?
See that MH-47G? Note the refuelling probe?
KC-130 would also have brought point AAR for the short legged F/A-18F/G. But that’s too Joint for Army to understand and just another reason why the 80s helicopter coup was a disaster for ADF capabilities.
Mate, you have to chill on the Service jabs. The capability for refuelling Hornets with a KC-130J exists obviously - but note the one Service that does that prefers to refuel from jet aircraft and finds the process dangerous, especially if the Hornet is fully loaded or the weather is questionable. Given the choice, the USMC go to the USAF (as demonstrated by 20+ years of ops in the MEAO). As it stands, the KC-30A can refuel Hornets (actually doing two at once, which added to the better flow rate, more than doubles the throughput of a KC-130), so we'd be better off funding a seventh KC-30A than an additional 6x KC-130J.
So you know that we went from 30 C-130 to 20, b/c of SSN funding. In this age of strategic competition when we need more logistics air support not less?
When did we have 30x C-130?
The 12x C-130Es were replaced by 12x C-130J
The 12x C-130Hs were replaced by 4x C-17, later expanded to 8.
So 24x C-130s replaced by 4x (later 8x) C-17 and 12x C-130. That's a net increase in airlift capabilities
Those 12x C-130J are being replaced by 20x C-130J-30. That's a net increase in numbers and a net increase in lift. The FSP20 plan for KC-130s had six of those 20 allocated to KC-130J aircraft; when their need was removed airframe numbers did not decrease.
We always need more air lift. Air lift is the one thing where air power can achieve strategic effect by itself. I'm certain if you look through my posting history you will see me arguing for air lift almost obnoxiously. I'd scrap a F-35 Sqn tomorrow for another Sqn of C-17. But (a) we will never have enough, and (b) in the age of SSN funding, we have gone from 24x smaller C-130s to 20x larger and longer-range C-130s plus 8x C-17. That's a net increase and a win.
