ADF General discussion thread

[oldsig127]

I saw those two commenting in the “Australian” today (sorry can’t post link) and my thoughts began rolling back in time to RAF policy on strategic bombing that proved to be a disaster both between the World Wars and during WW2. In a nutshell the cost benefit both in terms of lives and resources was negligible. It seemed like they both hold Bomber Harris in high esteem. It must be something they add to the LOX tanks
These thoughts seemed so at odds with the simple statement in DWP 2016 that the strike capability for the ADF is vested in the submarine force which loosely ties in with Takao’s post above in which he counters the CAFs utterances very succinctly.

When I read the same article in The Australian my mind flew back through 40 years of destructive special pleading by one service over another for the lion's share of funding. Historically the RAAF has seemed the most successfull though the balance appears to be reasonably well restored and for once there's more substance and less hot air to claims of integration and multi domain coordination.

And then this. Signs that things are not so collegial internally?

oldsig

 

[Boagrius]

I also note thatRobert Gottliebsen andAPA have thrown their 2c in. I find this input utterly bizarre in that it revolves around a flawed critique of the F35 with only the vague suggestion that the alternative should have been the unavailable F22 or fictional FB22. Might as well bitch and moan about the fact that we didn't acquire a fleet of X-wings...

 

[StingrayOZ]

The ultimate strike package would be the submarines. They can go further, are stealthier and can carry a much greater pay load and can persist in areas for much longer. Which service carries the real nuclear triad deterrent? Which is a realistic first strike, IMO money would be better spent putting in vertical launch tubes in our new subs to enhance this capability.

Here we go with inter-service rivalry. Hasn't the RAAF basically got what they wanted anyway?

Maybe we need a new white paper to clarify things now.

 

[Boagrius]

I do find it curious. In F35 you're looking at 72 examples of the best tactical strike aircraft money can buy. B21 strikes me as a non-starter so I don't see where the former CAFs are going with this.

 

[ngatimozart]

Not aimed at any one in particular, but any posters thinking that the ADF can / will acquire the B-21 better think again because that is fantasyland stuff and us Mods don't like fantasyland stuff. It's also against the rules. Green ink at the moment, but if pushed can soon change to the grumpy red.

As I have said before, the US will not export the B-21 because it's a US strategic platform. It hasn't exported any of its strategic platforms since the 1960s and definitely none of the B series i.e., B-52, B-58, B-1, or B-2. The B-52, B-2, & B-21, are platforms that they regard as platforms having national security significance, the same as their SSBN.

Secondly, the B-21 would be cost prohibitive. If the CoA didn't acquire the F-15 because of the sticker price, what makes you think that all of a sudden they'll agree to an aircraft that is horrendously more expensive?

Thirdly, such an acquisition by Australia would change the geostrategic dynamic within the region and would probably be viewed by some other nations within the region with some consternation. One such nation would be Indonesia, followed by Malaysia. The PRC would howl the most.

I do find it curious. In F35 you're looking at 72 examples of the best tactical strike aircraft money can buy. B21 strikes me as a non-starter so I don't see where the former CAFs are going with this.

I agree and don't know where they are trying to head with this. Maybe they are looking back at the old glory days of the B-24 Liberator, Avro Lincoln, EE Canberra and F-111 - who knows, but these days strategic strike doesn't necessarily have to be delivered solely by airborne platforms.

 

[Milne Bay]

Not aimed at any one in particular, but any posters thinking that the ADF can / will acquire the B-21 better think again because that is fantasyland stuff and us Mods don't like fantasyland stuff. It's also against the rules. Green ink at the moment, but if pushed can soon change to the grumpy red.

As I have said before, the US will not export the B-21 because it's a US strategic platform. It hasn't exported any of its strategic platforms since the 1960s and definitely none of the B series i.e., B-52, B-58, B-1, or B-2. The B-52, B-2, & B-21, are platforms that they regard as platforms having national security significance, the same as their SSBN.

Secondly, the B-21 would be cost prohibitive. If the CoA didn't acquire the F-15 because of the sticker price, what makes you think that all of a sudden they'll agree to an aircraft that is horrendously more expensive?

Thirdly, such an acquisition by Australia would change the geostrategic dynamic within the region and would probably be viewed by some other nations within the region with some consternation. One such nation would be Indonesia, followed by Malaysia. The PRC would howl the most.

I agree and don't know where they are trying to head with this. Maybe they are looking back at the old glory days of the B-24 Liberator, Avro Lincoln, EE Canberra and F-111 - who knows, but these days strategic strike doesn't necessarily have to be delivered solely by airborne platforms.

Correct, and I agree with you.
If memory serves, the RAAF briefly flew B-47's while awaiting the F-111 - or they were stationed here - not sure of that one.
Strategic strike these days is not the sole purview of the Air Force, and submarine launched assets are much more versatile.
MB

 

[Boagrius]

I agree and don't know where they are trying to head with this. Maybe they are looking back at the old glory days of the B-24 Liberator, Avro Lincoln, EE Canberra and F-111 - who knows, but these days strategic strike doesn't necessarily have to be delivered solely by airborne platforms.

You might be right. It strikes me that the jet they (and perhaps APA et al.) "want" simply doesn't exist. An FB22 with the range of an F111 would have been great and all but the reality is that it never materialised (and I'd argue it never would have given the political & budgetary environment of the War on Terror, GFC etc.). I think we will have to wait for PCA/NGAD before such an aircraft exists and that may be well over a decade away.

 

[Takao]

Not aimed at any one in particular, but any posters thinking that the ADF can / will acquire the B-21 better think again because that is fantasyland stuff and us Mods don't like fantasyland stuff. It's also against the rules. Green ink at the moment, but if pushed can soon change to the grumpy red.

As I have said before, the US will not export the B-21 because it's a US strategic platform. It hasn't exported any of its strategic platforms since the 1960s and definitely none of the B series i.e., B-52, B-58, B-1, or B-2. The B-52, B-2, & B-21, are platforms that they regard as platforms having national security significance, the same as their SSBN.

Secondly, the B-21 would be cost prohibitive. If the CoA didn't acquire the F-15 because of the sticker price, what makes you think that all of a sudden they'll agree to an aircraft that is horrendously more expensive?

Thirdly, such an acquisition by Australia would change the geostrategic dynamic within the region and would probably be viewed by some other nations within the region with some consternation. One such nation would be Indonesia, followed by Malaysia. The PRC would howl the most.

I agree and don't know where they are trying to head with this. Maybe they are looking back at the old glory days of the B-24 Liberator, Avro Lincoln, EE Canberra and F-111 - who knows, but these days strategic strike doesn't necessarily have to be delivered solely by airborne platforms.

100%

Which is why when ASPI threw their two cents in today I couldn't help but shake my head.

How ASPI can call itself strategic, but can't begin to address your three points above is beyond me. Especially after having a chat with two of the authors on those very points!

Grrr......

 

[ngatimozart]

Correct, and I agree with you.
If memory serves, the RAAF briefly flew B-47's while awaiting the F-111 - or they were stationed here - not sure of that one.
Strategic strike these days is not the sole purview of the Air Force, and submarine launched assets are much more versatile.
MB

Nope, the RAAF flew the F-4 Phantom whilst waiting for the delayed F-111. Whilst the Phantoms wore Australian markings, they retained their USAF serial numbers and were not entered on the Australian military Ax- xxx series. AFAIK, the only other nation to operate the B-47 was the UK when the RAF operated RB-47s on at the behest of the US over the USSR and Warsaw Pact airspace, so that in the event of a shoot down or crash, the aircrew would not be US and the US could have plausible deniability.

 

[MrConservative]

Nope, the RAAF flew the F-4 Phantom whilst waiting for the delayed F-111. Whilst the Phantoms wore Australian markings, they retained their USAF serial numbers and were not entered on the Australian military Ax- xxx series. AFAIK, the only other nation to operate the B-47 was the UK when the RAF operated RB-47s on at the behest of the US over the USSR and Warsaw Pact airspace, so that in the event of a shoot down or crash, the aircrew would not be US and the US could have plausible deniability.

Evidently the Phantom was the second choice after the F-111. The RAAF also retained the Canberra through this period which was the aircraft the F-111 was replacing. And a further factoid was that the Phantom was the RNZAF's first choice to replace their Canberra's and was reject by the then Cabinet who went with the A-4.

 

[Volkodav]

The thing that struck me about the story was it coincided with the USAF speculating about exporting the B21 to allies including Australia and I wasn't aware of the ASPI article until I logged on here. I may need to get my foil hat ready but it seems to have gone from not on the radar at all to quite a few airpower types discussing it, almost if there is a coordinated attempt to set the narrative on a Raider with Roo roundels.

Well if that's the way they want to play it I'm setting a narrative of the RAN needs a class of three light carriers with F-35Bs and Romeos.

 

[StingrayOZ]

B21 seems highly unlikely. IMO would only happen if the US saw particular opportunity or leverage in making it happen. How would that even work? A squadron? They are to cross multiple nations airspace in when deployed at maximum range against potential foes? Its just the wrong aircraft for Australia, in every way, we just don't have all the enablers/need that the US has.

As for hunting submarines, isn't that what the P8's and subs are for? If we are after particularly long range strike/deterrence, I think plenty of nations would be interested in integrating either NSM or LRASM in the P8's which is likely to happen anyway as harpoon is phased out.

The ASPI article is perhaps a tongue in cheek look at the possibility? Its only $40 billion for 12 B21's.. None of which really ends back up in Australia like the submarine, frigate, destroyer and Land 400 projects. And most of that cost would be acquisition cost in ~a 5 year period.

Critical of the submarine strike capability also seems silly. Sounds like the RAAF is justifying the RAN putting a vertical launch module in the new subs.

 

[Massive]

B21 seems highly unlikely.

What isn't clear to me is who do we want to bomb?

The whole debate feels as if it is about a problem that is yet to be defined.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Raven22]

What isn't clear to me is who do we want to bomb?

The whole debate feels as if it is about a problem that is yet to be defined.

Regards,

Massive

As Takao has said numerous times, the debate about what equipment we should be buying, particularly the ASPI stuff, has been completed divorced from strategy. Unless a clear strategy is defined, any push to buy specific equipment is a bit pointless. In the absence of a clear strategy (which we don’t really have), I think history has shown us the best thing to do is have as balanced a force as possible, which is largely what is happening. It’s why I don’t think the Air Marshall’s will have a lot of success with their push for more strike and focus on the Air Force etc - they haven’t justified how it would fit into the national strategy, nor why we should move away from a balanced force to achieve it.

 

[StingrayOZ]

What isn't clear to me is who do we want to bomb?

We can hit out locally with what we have (the bomb bay equipped, long ranged, stealthy F-35), and the B21 doesn't have enough range if we wanted to rage a one nation war by carpet bombing mainland China with conventional weapons. I think the whole B21 mission is a bit confused even for the US, but it makes no sense for Australia. Its just completely nutty. Obviously the Air force is having problems with the oxygen generators in their offices.

I guess it does raise the question of what is the RAAF next big acquisition. I guess its somewhat unclear at this stage what that would be.

 

[oldsig127]

Correct, and I agree with you.
If memory serves, the RAAF briefly flew B-47's while awaiting the F-111 - or they were stationed here - not sure of that one.

Clearly. The RAAF flew F-4E Phantoms as an interim aircraft from Amberley until the delayed arrival of the F-111. The B-47 was only ever flown by the US except one airframe used by Canada to test engines for the stillborn Avro Arrow

(Edit: My apology. Clearly already answered a couple of times!)

oldsig

 

[t68]

The thing that struck me about the story was it coincided with the USAF speculating about exporting the B21 to allies including Australia and I wasn't aware of the ASPI article until I logged on here. I may need to get my foil hat ready but it seems to have gone from not on the radar at all to quite a few airpower types discussing it, almost if there is a coordinated attempt to set the narrative on a Raider with Roo roundels.

Well if that's the way they want to play it I'm setting a narrative of the RAN needs a class of three light carriers with F-35Bs and Romeos.

I wasn’t awere the US was planing exports of the aircraft, do you have a source to this? Has anyone expressed a desire to buy any of the US strategic bombers?

I recall it was with GF or AG said Keating wanted to buy a heap of extra F111 at one point and the Air Chiefs put a calming affect on the matter.

But in relation to the B21 the only real benefit that I can see over sub launched missile is the timeframe for subsequent mission once munitions have been expended. I’m still a believer in the strategic triad(air-land-sea) and not putting all your eggs in one basket, but for the ADF is plainly cost prohibitive.

But I tend to agree volk to get B21 in useful numbers we would have to have around 18-24 aircraft then we are looking at what 30-40B least the sub program at 50b is providing utility strategic direction in both defensive/offensive, could we do better with developing our own CBG with a mixture of manned/unmanned platforms that like a long range reconnaissance platform out of the original idea of UCLASS. In the end spending an additional 30-40b on additional submarines or strategic bombers are really going to win over the electorate each have their pro’s and con’s. For 40b which is going to give us the long range strategic weight, additional enhanced land attack submarines; B21 Raider; CBG or extra F35A with more KC-30A.

How far should ADF be looking to strike, Australia was under prepared for the Japanese expansion in WWII, the PLANMC is increasing its expeditionary force capacity what are the Chinese intentions will it stop at the outer island chain or could China learn from history of the Japanese occupation what do we need to be ready for?

 

[oldsig127]

100%

Which is why when ASPI threw their two cents in today I couldn't help but shake my head.

How ASPI can call itself strategic, but can't begin to address your three points above is beyond me. Especially after having a chat with two of the authors on those very points!

Grrr......

If you REALLY want to know where the tinfoil helmets are gathering, read the business pages of today's (7/11/19) Australian where Robert Gottleibsen puts in his 5 cents worth on Defence policy, quoting those highly regarded people at APA, Messrs Kopp and Goon.

So News Limited have followed up yesterdays nonsensical par by their cricket correspondent with another by an economist. Sparing no expense on expert commentators, as usual

oldsig

 

[vonnoobie]

The only US mention regarding Australia and any extra strike capability is from Wilbur Ross NoCookies | The Australian but he is only the US secretary of commerce so hardly the only person in US Gov to go through and cant see any direct mention in the article of the B-21 by Wilbur so maybe the US willing to work with us regarding munitions and other none national security systems but I think some people have jumped the gun down under on what the US will allow.

 

[t68]

The only US mention regarding Australia and any extra strike capability is from Wilbur Ross NoCookies | The Australian but he is only the US secretary of commerce so hardly the only person in US Gov to go through and cant see any direct mention in the article of the B-21 by Wilbur so maybe the US willing to work with us regarding munitions and other none national security systems but I think some people have jumped the gun down under on what the US will allow.

Ahh thanks, no subscription so can’t read the article

Cheers anyway


Edit

I googled Wilbur Ross and found this

Defence Connect