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

[downunderblue]

They are useful aircraft if you have the capability to escort them (ie you are the USAF). And until the USAF has b21 usefully operational (which may be 10 years after they take delivery of the first B21) they will be essential. When the USAF is done, they will be cut up.

If we are interested in a long range offensive platform, Tempest would be it. Its looking more like a modern day stealthy, more capable F-111. Rumored weapon bays may be able to internally carry multiple Aim174b, LRASM-ER, or maybe TLAM or/and a whole lot of smaller stuff. Fast enough to out run other long range munitions/decoys as well. While not cheap, we could probably afford a 12-24 of these, so proper squadron. UK/JP could also base same aircraft here.

This type of aircraft could escort E7s or P8s or KC30. They could do maritime/land strike. They could go after opposing team tankers/AWACs/transports.

I don't know what the RAAF isn't all over it.

This goes into a really interesting debate about the value of long range strike when detering an enemy. Yes we lost it with the retirement and aging of the F-111. We were in the "new world order" age where we could compromise, but times have changed and whilst I am a believer in SSN's, for me they are also another piecemeal attempt at meeting this need. I don't doubt the value of a payload module equipped with long range strike missiles, I just see their value dependant on how sustained they can deploy and exercise that capability, and nothing beats the ability of an aircraft squadron to conduct sustained operations (land, reload and go again), as opposed to the ability of an SSN (back to FBW to reload etc).

I also understand the politics. Something took the B-21 off the table and the reasoning was never fully explained. My awareness of Canberra leads me to believe that Russell sacrificed the B-21 to ensure the SSN's were signed off. There could have also been other reasons like resistance in Congress, the USAF or the Administration to sell the B-21, but the same argument for US selling the Virginia's can be made for the B-21, which benefits both of us. Buying B-21's also mitigates risk having two deterant options available as opposed to one which also is better for the US and AU.

We shouldn't have had to compare SSN's vs airborne long range strike and be forced to make ONE choice only. If strategic circumstances exist where we need both then we shouldn't be so final in rejecting the B-21 or a similar capability. Maybe a future coalition govt would be more keen to commit to an acquisition (who knows) but we need to be flexible with our decision making. What makes sense yesterday isn't always relevant today, but we need to look to the future and make our best guess on what we need to secure ourselves.

As for Tempest, I read that the RAF will start receiving airframes by 2035. Call me suspicious/ realistic or pragmatic, but for me there is considerable more project, industrial and political risk in Tempest as their is for the B-21. That date may slip whereas the B-21 is in low rate production already. I don't want to be waiting for something in the future that might fit the criteria.

As for the Tempest vs the B-21, they are different aircraft with different roles, range, timeframes and cost. The overwhelming issue for me is theater deterant, and if I was a regional player like China I would be much more concerned if the CoA committed to the B-21 given it will more likely materialise earlier and lead to a more sustained/ capable threat for the PLA to contend with.

We are putting many eggs (effort and $) into deternant and perception that our efforts will not go unoticed. Will/ does Xi truly understand we are serious, and to take INDOPACOM and regional allies on would end up in serious risk to his/ their leadership and the future of China as a whole? Again we better hope so.

 

[Todjaeger]

This goes into a really interesting debate about the value of long range strike when detering an enemy. Yes we lost it with the retirement and aging of the F-111. We were in the "new world order" age where we could compromise, but times have changed and whilst I am a believer in SSN's, for me they are also another piecemeal attempt at meeting this need. I don't doubt the value of a payload module equipped with long range strike missiles, I just see their value dependant on how sustained they can deploy and exercise that capability, and nothing beats the ability of an aircraft squadron to conduct sustained operations (land, reload and go again), as opposed to the ability of an SSN (back to FBW to reload etc).

Realistically the RAAF started to lose long-ranged strike as the F-111C aged, before they were actually retired in 2010. When the platform first entered service they were capable of low & fast ingress and egress strike missions due to the platform's capabilities as well as what capabilities were available to the then potential hostiles (Indonesia). By the time the RAAF retired the F-111C's, even though the aircraft still had long range, by the 2000's the potential threats in hostile air meant that a strike package would need to be escorted. This in turn limited the RAAF's potential strike range to that of F/A-18A/B's range when in an air escort/air-to-air engagement configuration.

In reality, the RAAF had a strike range of ~700 km, not the ~2,100 km range many think of due to the F-111C's range.

One thing I would suggest people consider when contemplating long-range strike options for the ADF, consider the volume of fires wanted, the persistence of presence, the range or reach desired for the fires, as well as the speed of strike and successful delivery of fires on target. One also needs to remember that there are multiple potential options or avenues for the delivery of said fires.

 

[downunderblue]

One thing I would suggest people consider when contemplating long-range strike options for the ADF, consider the volume of fires wanted, the persistence of presence, the range or reach desired for the fires, as well as the speed of strike and successful delivery of fires on target. One also needs to remember that there are multiple potential options or avenues for the delivery of said fires.

I note in your posed question that you didn't provide any recommendation or answer.

From what I noted earlier in your post, I form the assumption that only a long range, large payload aircraft can meet those criteria. Yes a few regiments of IRBM/ ICBM's with a conventional package may also work, but let's be realistic here.

I also infer that you're not recommending us relying on short-leg more tactical aircraft needing tanker support as the likelihood of it being in there in theatre would be low, and why also rely on a capability which is dependant upon another capability to properly function?

In WW2 the USAF needed to invade (at great cost) the Marshall Island's in order to affect long range strike on Japan. This reflects the difficulty in the Indopacom area given the vast distances involved and no guarantee of a forward or reliably operating airbase in range of an adversary. From all that I assume we need an aircraft that can independently affect long range strike from AU without the support of any allied partner or a airborne refueling capability that will likely will be heavily targeted by an adversary during any conflict?

Again I only see one real answer here. It's noisy, big, black, has a large wallop and is categorized as a strategic ranged 'bomber', but I'd be interested to hear what others think would reliably work in such a scenario.

 

[protoplasm]

With the Collins class lote on the road to rack and ruin! And the dismissal for B21 to bridge the gap of long range stealth strike should we look to acquire the 12-24 of the latest upgraded B-1Bs that are now being replaced by the B-21? They are long range bomb trucks that have proven themselves recently as excellent maritime bombers! I know they are getting on but the new upgrade versions will still have 10-15 years life in them and would bridge the gap till nuclear subs are in numbers, and the gap till the RAAF finds replacement for Super Hornets.. what’s peoples thoughts? They wouldnt cost a thing but given away by the US.. with all parts and equipment to support! I’d love to see a small squadron of 12 that could be used a deterrent specially across the pacific

I'm just going to put this here again... This was discussed over 2 years ago

There's a reason why the USAF is taking them out of service, the cost per flight hour is enormous.

This Is How Much it Actually Costs to Fly U.S. Military Aircraft (popularmechanics.com)

The last thing we need the RAAF to be doing is throwing away billions of dollars to stand up a new capability utilising airframes that are a minimum of 34 years old right now. The other issue is that these aren't available right now, they will only become available once B-21 becomes operational, so they'll be even older then.

This goes back to the fundamentals, we want the capacity to cause an enemy "something" to go bang because we put a large amount of explosive on top of it. What are the ways of achieving this based on the situation we find ourselves in now? A capability that might become available in ~5 years time based upon ~40 year old airframes that are hideously expensive to operate is probably not the first choice.

 

[Todjaeger]

I note in your posed question that you didn't provide any recommendation or answer.

From what I noted earlier in your post, I form the assumption that only a long range, large payload aircraft can meet those criteria. Yes a few regiments of IRBM/ ICBM's with a conventional package may also work, but let's be realistic here.

I also infer that you're not recommending us relying on short-leg more tactical aircraft needing tanker support as the likelihood of it being in there in theatre would be low, and why also rely on a capability which is dependant upon another capability to properly function?

In WW2 the USAF needed to invade (at great cost) the Marshall Island's in order to affect long range strike on Japan. This reflects the difficulty in the Indopacom area given the vast distances involved and no guarantee of a forward or reliably operating airbase in range of an adversary. From all that I assume we need an aircraft that can independently affect long range strike from AU without the support of any allied partner or a airborne refueling capability that will likely will be heavily targeted by an adversary during any conflict?

Again I only see one real answer here. It's noisy, big, black, has a large wallop and is categorized as a strategic ranged 'bomber', but I'd be interested to hear what others think would reliably work in such a scenario.

I think you missed the gist of what I was posting.

If Australia needs to hit something within a few hundred km of a coastline, then surface or submarine platforms are an option. If such a strike needed to be launched with little warning, then a sub would likely be a better option. If said strike target is also a very long distance from Australia, sub or surface ship platforms might be better, particularly if there might be a delay in launching said strike.

If the strike target is something within perhaps 1,500 km of Australia, then existing ADF assets could likely be tasked. If a large volume of fires is needed on target rapidly, then Australia might need a strategic bomber or otherwise adopt something like the Rapid Dragon palletized weapon delivery system.

At the heart of the issue is that there are multiple approaches to the question or problem of hitting a target or targets, with each approach having various benefits and drawbacks. Likewise each target might have different issues depending on how it is engaged. Absent more information, proposing something with the capabilities of a LO strategic bomber is really more a solution seeking a problem.

The ADF and RAAF, just by way of example, already has the potential to launch a strike via aircraft upon targets over 2,500 km away without refueling.

 

[StingrayOZ]

One thing I would suggest people consider when contemplating long-range strike options for the ADF, consider the volume of fires wanted, the persistence of presence, the range or reach desired for the fires, as well as the speed of strike and successful delivery of fires on target. One also needs to remember that there are multiple potential options or avenues for the delivery of said fires.

Also in our region, even at 2000km, heavily defended targets are few and far between.



2000km range is useful. But it still doesn't get us into China. We are pretty far far away. But 2000km gets us into the edge of first island chain.

China does have heavily defended targets, but I'm not sure Australia needs intrinsic and independant capability to pound them. We have options, but I don't know if we need s specific new gadget to do that task specifically, like a B21 or a B1 for that matter.

 

[Todjaeger]

China does have heavily defended targets, but I'm not sure Australia needs intrinsic and independant capability to pound them. We have options, but I don't know if we need s specific new gadget to do that task specifically, like a B21 or a B1 for that matter.

Particularly if we are talking about purchasing an aircraft with a flyaway cost of USD$600 mil. + each. If (again, BIG IF) the US were to be willing and able to sell the B-21 Raider to Australia, we are talking about some very significant costs to provide only a couple of potentially unique capabilities not already either in Australia service, or planned for entry into service. Just a dozen aircraft would cost over USD$7 bil. flyaway, and with the likely costs for training, a support & spares package, as well as needed base infrastructure improvements the costs could easily top USD$14 bil. or more.

 

[John Fedup]

Particularly if we are talking about purchasing an aircraft with a flyaway cost of USD$600 mil. + each. If (again, BIG IF) the US were to be willing and able to sell the B-21 Raider to Australia, we are talking about some very significant costs to provide only a couple of potentially unique capabilities not already either in Australia service, or planned for entry into service. Just a dozen aircraft would cost over USD$7 bil. flyaway, and with the likely costs for training, a support & spares package, as well as needed base infrastructure improvements the costs could easily top USD$14 bil. or more.

So for $14 billion, three more SSNs (or 2 new design SSGNs) might be a better strike alternative albeit delivery would be problematic.

 

[Gooey]

SSN launched rockets have their niche role, but they are also high demand platforms doing other priority maritime missions.
Very Long Range air power (ala RAAF B-24s) can be assessed as providing enhanced strike flexibility, speed, and firepower.
CoA Funding, US release, and an ADF B-21 force-structure are different conversations.
Given the current strategic climate, VLR assets for the RAAF is not a fantasy.

 

[ADMk2]

Particularly if we are talking about purchasing an aircraft with a flyaway cost of USD$600 mil. + each. If (again, BIG IF) the US were to be willing and able to sell the B-21 Raider to Australia, we are talking about some very significant costs to provide only a couple of potentially unique capabilities not already either in Australia service, or planned for entry into service. Just a dozen aircraft would cost over USD$7 bil. flyaway, and with the likely costs for training, a support & spares package, as well as needed base infrastructure improvements the costs could easily top USD$14 bil. or more.

Super Hornet and Growler combined has north of $14b all told and is still climbing... Discussion thanks to the new US President as well as strategic uncertainty within our region and more globally is starting to consider Defence funding in the ranges of 3% GDP.

Australian politicians have shown no inclination whatsoever to increase funding to those levels. But if they did, funding of defence would rise from today’s $57b to north of $81b, per year…


Food for thought about what Defence could do with an extra $24b + per year…

 

[downunderblue]

China does have heavily defended targets, but I'm not sure Australia needs intrinsic and independant capability to pound them. We have options, but I don't know if we need s specific new gadget to do that task specifically, like a B21 or a B1 for that matter.

I'm not saying we need a capability to substantiably pound a potential adversary, but we should have something to provide a credible deterant, when viewed by any potential adversary.

Others may believe we do, but I cant see it, and I also don't believe we can rely on tankered short leg aircraft, or one pop cruise missiles off an SSN, or paletised munitions off a C-130. There is no guarantee those munitions will actually land, have any real impact in a conflict or deterant threat.

If you were in China's POV, would you be preoccupied by B-21's in theatre (even if in smaller #'s)? Would anything less cause you too much worry, or force you to pause?

If planning for a a high level scenario over Taiwan, how does the PLA see us bar a stationary aircraft carrier for Indopacom? The SSN's make sense but IMLO almost exclusively from a maritime perspective and less for precision long range land attack. I assume we want them focused on sinking an invasion fleet or sending the carriers home to port (one way or another). In this scenario I'd prefer any surface or subface VLS module was actually filled with ASM rather than any land attack munition (bonus for dual capability obviously).

Strategically how else can we mount a credible sustained deterant, or do we just focus on the immediate SLOC around AU and protecting that stationary aircraft carrier, so it can be utilised properly by Indopacom? It's a relevant question. We are not alone in this but we need to add to the collective deterrent equation. It's fine for other countries to sit on the fence, dither or look away, but one factor I was always proud of is we stand up for what we believe in, don't shirk our responsibilities or the hard stuff and more than punch above our weight. How of this collective deterrent equation should we commit to?

I hope this conversation is being had in Canberra. Its all fine to talk about one program or another, but naturally everything needs to fit around a strategy. Continental defence, controlling SLOT around the continent, regional deployment from a limited to major extent, or right up to credible threat around the SCS. I guess I'd like to ask (amongst many questions posed- and thought out as I write this) is what is the real strategy here, as the beautiful policy docs sit in the grey zone and in the end the politicians need to commit to a strategy and lead (or be pushed to lead).

 

[downunderblue]

Super Hornet and Growler combined has north of $14b all told and is still climbing... Discussion thanks to the new US President as well as strategic uncertainty within our region and more globally is starting to consider Defence funding in the ranges of 3% GDP.

Australian politicians have shown no inclination whatsoever to increase funding to those levels. But if they did, funding of defence would rise from today’s $57b to north of $81b, per year…


Food for thought about what Defence could do with an extra $24b + per year…

At least its being discussed or thought about. I was in NZ a few weeks back and from the limited observations there and from what I've seen, it's like they can't see what we see, or don't want to.

Something culturally seems to limit NZ's tunnel vision to the Pacific, as in a similar fashion I see Canada is on the Arctic. I get it, but what happens in Asia impacts the world. It's like your attention (and that tunnel vision) get's fine tuned so much more when you can see the threat forming without leaving the balcony.

My issue is our collective security is only secured when we act as a team and each pull our weight. I'd like to think that if the Arctic or Pacific were similarly threatened that we would act in the same way as we are now. Mateship, looking after each other and doing the hard stuff are in my and our DNA, but again maybe I'm properly blinkered here again.

 

[Bob53]

SSN launched rockets have their niche role, but they are also high demand platforms doing other priority maritime missions.
Very Long Range air power (ala RAAF B-24s) can be assessed as providing enhanced strike flexibility, speed, and firepower.
CoA Funding, US release, and an ADF B-21 force-structure are different conversations.
Given the current strategic climate, VLR assets for the RAAF is not a fantasy.

SSNs have at least a week to get to launch position then a week back…to launch maybe 8 missiles. A aircraft can launch today and return and do its again tomorrow and the day after that.

 

[Todjaeger]

SSNs have at least a week to get to launch position then a week back…to launch maybe 8 missiles. A aircraft can launch today and return and do its again tomorrow and the day after that.

Depending on sub configuration, the above can be wildly inaccurate. It is currently expected that as part of AUKUS, the RAN will get a pair of Block IV Virginia-class SSN's which have a dozen VLS for UGM-109 Tomahawks and then torpedoe tubes which can launch up to 25 weapons which could be heavyweight torpedoes, missiles, or a combination.

Starting with Block V Virginia-class SSN's in USN service, they can feature a payload module which can carry an additional 28 Tomahawks in addition to the dozen VLS. Right now it does not appear that the RAN will get any with a payload module, but there is still quite a bit of time between now and ~2038...

One of the other things which people seem to forget about re: SSN's is that they are also very much an ISR asset able to very quietly lurk in or near areas of interest. The potential for this is that a would-be adversary could be aware that the RAN might have an SSN somewhere within a region, whilst armed with LACM. Having a hostile have to consider the risk that hostilities somewhere could provoke a nearly immediate strike as a reaction, with possibly only a could of minutes warning would need to be taken into consideration.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I'm not saying we need a capability to substantiably pound a potential adversary, but we should have something to provide a credible deterant, when viewed by any potential adversary.

Others may believe we do, but I cant see it, and I also don't believe we can rely on tankered short leg aircraft, or one pop cruise missiles off an SSN, or paletised munitions off a C-130. There is no guarantee those munitions will actually land, have any real impact in a conflict or deterant threat.

We have various options

Naval:
Hobart
Hunters
Future light frigates
Virginia SSN (collins could fire, but we choose not to spend)

Air:
P8 (11 hardpoints)
F-18SH
F-35

First View of LRASM Missile Aboard a US Navy P-8A Poseidon - Naval News

Naval News obtained from the US Navy the first images showing the LRASM (Long Range Anti-Ship Missile) fitted on a P-8A Poseidon Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA).

www.navalnews.com

The Case For Stripping The P-8 Poseidon Down Into An RB-8 Multi-Role Arsenal Ship

A non-maritime patrol variant of the P-8 could provide the Air Force with a highly flexible platform for augmenting the bomber force and much more.

www.twz.com

Then you get into C-130 or C17 palette weapon systems. Which honestly, I think are unlikely to get uses except for specific and unlikely situations.

It is also entirely possible that with the E7 replacement, we choose the P8 Platform for that. Its based off the same 737NG the current E7 use, its already in service and still in production. That would get us an additional 6 airframes that can be loaded up with weapons, if needed. They have pretty big radars and significant jamming/EW/sensoring potential. Maybe one day someone will make a long range maverick missile and she can wild weasel at 600km.

Coming in for a strike with (20x 11 = 210) around 200 JASSM just launching from our long range 737 based bomber fleet is pretty big. Throw in C17 rapid dragon (8 x 45) that's another 360... So now we are at 500 JASSM.. plus what ever fighters can carry, plus firing volleys off half a dozen to a dozen of tlam from subs and ships, its considerable combined capability. Realistically we wouldn't be flying everything all at once filled loaded. But it's possible, and gives some idea of the strike power. I would assume the Americans would at least deploy their B-52's in Country to come along, so throw in say 6 B-52s, and at least matching our number of P8s so another 20... Thousands of JASSM/LRASM in a single shot etc.

They will see us coming, but that's the point. They will have to push out pasts safe distances to even engage the munitions of what's coming. We won't be flying over China mainland..

More realistically we can keep aircraft constantly in the air, loaded ready to party, 24/7/365, while ships and subs are the same ready to go every day with one ready to fire. We could sustain that op tempo for decades.

In that context, I'm not sure B21's for Australia really change the picture. They are cool. But the money might be better off spent elsewhere. GCAP doesn't have to erode our fighter/other capability to give us its capabilities as a bomber.

Again we aren't the prime target for China. They are not invading Australia. China wants Taiwan. Deterring Chinese fleet operations in our area and taking out any artificial islands/facilities will be our focus as well as securing our sealanes.

P8s are great for those missions. B21's are not. Tempest, may be able to mix the bombing and fighter roles more successfully.

With the B21 I definitely think we should get up close it, study and look at it. Hopefully they can station some on rotation in Australia. They wouldn't need heaps, just 1 or 2 would give specific niche capability for the region. I am just less sure about Australia buying them.

 

[Stampede]

We have various options

Naval:
Hobart
Hunters
Future light frigates
Virginia SSN (collins could fire, but we choose not to spend)

Air:
P8 (11 hardpoints)
F-18SH
F-35

First View of LRASM Missile Aboard a US Navy P-8A Poseidon - Naval News

Naval News obtained from the US Navy the first images showing the LRASM (Long Range Anti-Ship Missile) fitted on a P-8A Poseidon Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA).

www.navalnews.com

The Case For Stripping The P-8 Poseidon Down Into An RB-8 Multi-Role Arsenal Ship

A non-maritime patrol variant of the P-8 could provide the Air Force with a highly flexible platform for augmenting the bomber force and much more.

www.twz.com

Then you get into C-130 or C17 palette weapon systems. Which honestly, I think are unlikely to get uses except for specific and unlikely situations.

It is also entirely possible that with the E7 replacement, we choose the P8 Platform for that. Its based off the same 737NG the current E7 use, its already in service and still in production. That would get us an additional 6 airframes that can be loaded up with weapons, if needed. They have pretty big radars and significant jamming/EW/sensoring potential. Maybe one day someone will make a long range maverick missile and she can wild weasel at 600km.

Coming in for a strike with (20x 11 = 210) around 200 JASSM just launching from our long range 737 based bomber fleet is pretty big. Throw in C17 rapid dragon (8 x 45) that's another 360... So now we are at 500 JASSM.. plus what ever fighters can carry, plus firing volleys off half a dozen to a dozen of tlam from subs and ships, its considerable combined capability. Realistically we wouldn't be flying everything all at once filled loaded. But it's possible, and gives some idea of the strike power. I would assume the Americans would at least deploy their B-52's in Country to come along, so throw in say 6 B-52s, and at least matching our number of P8s so another 20... Thousands of JASSM/LRASM in a single shot etc.

They will see us coming, but that's the point. They will have to push out pasts safe distances to even engage the munitions of what's coming. We won't be flying over China mainland..

More realistically we can keep aircraft constantly in the air, loaded ready to party, 24/7/365, while ships and subs are the same ready to go every day with one ready to fire. We could sustain that op tempo for decades.

In that context, I'm not sure B21's for Australia really change the picture. They are cool. But the money might be better off spent elsewhere. GCAP doesn't have to erode our fighter/other capability to give us its capabilities as a bomber.

Again we aren't the prime target for China. They are not invading Australia. China wants Taiwan. Deterring Chinese fleet operations in our area and taking out any artificial islands/facilities will be our focus as well as securing our sealanes.

P8s are great for those missions. B21's are not. Tempest, may be able to mix the bombing and fighter roles more successfully.

With the B21 I definitely think we should get up close it, study and look at it. Hopefully they can station some on rotation in Australia. They wouldn't need heaps, just 1 or 2 would give specific niche capability for the region. I am just less sure about Australia buying them.

I think we need to remember how big we are as a nation ( Population / Economy) and keep some perspective as to what a balance ADF looks like for the type of coin we are prepared to invest in defence.

There are global challenges for sure, but I don’t see additional vast sums of capital being invested into defence anytime soon.

I get the desire for expensive niche bits of kit, but we are still just a middle ranked power with some military attributes and limitations.
Let’s fix the later first before embarking on a starry eyed shopping list

SSNs are still early days and while desirable I wouldn’t be betting the house on it coming to fruition.

As for B 21s………..A nice to have and leave it to the big players ……………which is currently one country………The USA.

Cheers S

 

[Julian 82]

We have various options

Naval:
Hobart
Hunters
Future light frigates
Virginia SSN (collins could fire, but we choose not to spend)

Air:
P8 (11 hardpoints)
F-18SH
F-35

First View of LRASM Missile Aboard a US Navy P-8A Poseidon - Naval News

Naval News obtained from the US Navy the first images showing the LRASM (Long Range Anti-Ship Missile) fitted on a P-8A Poseidon Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA).

www.navalnews.com

The Case For Stripping The P-8 Poseidon Down Into An RB-8 Multi-Role Arsenal Ship

A non-maritime patrol variant of the P-8 could provide the Air Force with a highly flexible platform for augmenting the bomber force and much more.

www.twz.com

Then you get into C-130 or C17 palette weapon systems. Which honestly, I think are unlikely to get uses except for specific and unlikely situations.

It is also entirely possible that with the E7 replacement, we choose the P8 Platform for that. Its based off the same 737NG the current E7 use, its already in service and still in production. That would get us an additional 6 airframes that can be loaded up with weapons, if needed. They have pretty big radars and significant jamming/EW/sensoring potential. Maybe one day someone will make a long range maverick missile and she can wild weasel at 600km.

Coming in for a strike with (20x 11 = 210) around 200 JASSM just launching from our long range 737 based bomber fleet is pretty big. Throw in C17 rapid dragon (8 x 45) that's another 360... So now we are at 500 JASSM.. plus what ever fighters can carry, plus firing volleys off half a dozen to a dozen of tlam from subs and ships, its considerable combined capability. Realistically we wouldn't be flying everything all at once filled loaded. But it's possible, and gives some idea of the strike power. I would assume the Americans would at least deploy their B-52's in Country to come along, so throw in say 6 B-52s, and at least matching our number of P8s so another 20... Thousands of JASSM/LRASM in a single shot etc.

They will see us coming, but that's the point. They will have to push out pasts safe distances to even engage the munitions of what's coming. We won't be flying over China mainland..

More realistically we can keep aircraft constantly in the air, loaded ready to party, 24/7/365, while ships and subs are the same ready to go every day with one ready to fire. We could sustain that op tempo for decades.

In that context, I'm not sure B21's for Australia really change the picture. They are cool. But the money might be better off spent elsewhere. GCAP doesn't have to erode our fighter/other capability to give us its capabilities as a bomber.

Again we aren't the prime target for China. They are not invading Australia. China wants Taiwan. Deterring Chinese fleet operations in our area and taking out any artificial islands/facilities will be our focus as well as securing our sealanes.

P8s are great for those missions. B21's are not. Tempest, may be able to mix the bombing and fighter roles more successfully.

With the B21 I definitely think we should get up close it, study and look at it. Hopefully they can station some on rotation in Australia. They wouldn't need heaps, just 1 or 2 would give specific niche capability for the region. I am just less sure about Australia buying them.

China is investing in long range air power to kill the archer. They are building the J-20 in large numbers and the J-36 looks like a long range monster with a significant internal weapons capacity. Imagine these long range birds armed with 400km range PL-21 missiles roaming from their air bases on the South China Sea and (God forbid) bases in the South Pacific.

The PLAN also has large numbers of Type 52 AAW destroyers, Type 55 AAW Cruisers and carrier based interceptors (which will be directed by KJ-600 AEW aircraft in the future) to plonk along likely threat axes.

I’m not sure missile toting P-8s and cargo planes are going to be survivable in this environment.

 

[Bob53]

Depending on sub configuration, the above can be wildly inaccurate. It is currently expected that as part of AUKUS, the RAN will get a pair of Block IV Virginia-class SSN's which have a dozen VLS for UGM-109 Tomahawks and then torpedoe tubes which can launch up to 25 weapons which could be heavyweight torpedoes, missiles, or a combination.

Starting with Block V Virginia-class SSN's in USN service, they can feature a payload module which can carry an additional 28 Tomahawks in addition to the dozen VLS. Right now it does not appear that the RAN will get any with a payload module, but there is still quite a bit of time between now and ~2038...

One of the other things which people seem to forget about re: SSN's is that they are also very much an ISR asset able to very quietly lurk in or near areas of interest. The potential for this is that a would-be adversary could be aware that the RAN might have an SSN somewhere within a region, whilst armed with LACM. Having a hostile have to consider the risk that hostilities somewhere could provoke a nearly immediate strike as a reaction, with possibly only a could of minutes warning would need to be taken into consideration.

Ok at least 12 assuming the full load was dispatched. but I was under the impression that the tube launched tactical tomahawk capsule were not in production? Regardless, My point wasn’t that we should not get subs …… just that they have a limited strike capacity compared to aircraft with range and we have seen the short term effects of limited strike campaigns again and again where the target is back in action within a few days.

 

[Bob53]

I think we need to remember how big we are as a nation ( Population / Economy) and keep some perspective as to what a balance ADF looks like for the type of coin we are prepared to invest in defence.

There are global challenges for sure, but I don’t see additional vast sums of capital being invested into defence anytime soon.

I get the desire for expensive niche bits of kit, but we are still just a middle ranked power with some military attributes and limitations.
Let’s fix the later first before embarking on a starry eyed shopping list

SSNs are still early days and while desirable I wouldn’t be betting the house on it coming to fruition.

As for B 21s………..A nice to have and leave it to the big players ……………which is currently one country………The USA.

Cheers S

I’d just like Australia to be a Porcupine to start with …ok Echidna and then

China is investing in long range air power to kill the archer. They are building the J-20 in large numbers and the J-36 looks like a long range monster with a significant internal weapons capacity. Imagine these long range birds armed with 400km range PL-21 missiles roaming from their air bases on the South China Sea and (God forbid) bases in the South Pacific.

The PLAN also has large numbers of Type 52 AAW destroyers, Type 55 AAW Cruisers and carrier based interceptors (which will be directed by KJ-600 AEW aircraft in the future) to plonk along likely threat axes.

I’m not sure missile toting P-8s and cargo planes are going to be survivable in this environment.

For example…it’s a big IF they can get these missiles working and IF they have targeting sorted out and IF the range is as stated it puts most large force enablers at risk. Flash News: China Develops Secret Hypersonic Air-to-Air Missile Posing New Threat to US B-21 Stealth Bomber

 

[Todjaeger]

Ok at least 12 assuming the full load was dispatched. but I was under the impression that the tube launched tactical tomahawk capsule were not in production? Regardless, My point wasn’t that we should not get subs …… just that they have a limited strike capacity compared to aircraft with range and we have seen the short term effects of limited strike campaigns again and again where the target is back in action within a few days.

Tube-launched Tomahawks might be out of production, but there are other tube launched missiles which are or will become available. IIRC a sub-launched version of NSM is either available or in the works. Yes, the right is going to be quite a bit less than the 1,600+ km a Tomahawk might have, but a sub being very sneaky might also get quite a bit closer to the target prior to launch. Being able to close with a target prior to engagement could also help with mission success, because any strike packages might not be detected or engaged in time by hostiles.