ADF General discussion thread

[Stampede]

While the F35 would have to do a lot of heavy lifting, we also have the Rhino and Growler up our sleeves (granted, these jets would regularly have to lob more exquisite & expensive stand-off weapons from well outside the hostile threat bubble). Further ahead, you also have ATS and whatever replaces Rhino/Growler in the pipeline. Hell, with the recent Rapid Dragon tests you could even use C17/130 as supplementary ALCM trucks.

The P-8 Poseidon lacks stealth, but has range and can carry a decent weapons load.
Its a very flexible asset which will evolve beyond the maritime domain.

Its limitations are acknowledged as are its attributes.

The later will be exploited in appropriate scenarios.
A better fit for the ADF than a B 21.

Probably the one platform within the ADF that would give us an increased deterrent capability in a short period of time.

We should give consideration to that 15th aircraft if not more.

Suggest six MQ-4C Tritons are a long way away from being in service.




Regards S

 

[Boagrius]

Yes, I neglected the P-8. With LRASM it becomes a handy ALCM carrier, alongside possible EW applications (looking at you AN/APS-154), and its more traditional MPA/ASW based roles. A versatile and flexible platform to be sure.

 

[Unric]

Qantas operates 75 737-800s according to wiki which uses same airframe as P-8. Of course I'm sure there's a lot more to it than strapping on a couple of pylons but if you're looking for a non-stealthy bombtruck (or more accurately "missile truck") then there are options out there. I think the limiting factor is more likely to be the number of stand-off munitions.

 

[vonnoobie]

I think the limiting factor is more likely to be the number of stand-off munitions.

You hit the nail on the head, doesn't matter how many assets we have to deliver the munitions on target of we don't have the munitions in stock to sustain multiple sorties by each asset.

 

[StingrayOZ]

P8 will probably carry more weapon payload than the B21. External carry on the B21 is absolutely impossible. (as it was on the F-117 and the B2). At that point the US would rather just stick em on/in a B52.

Obviously not for 1st day of penetratingly contested airspace, but its a long range platform with range of thousands of miles and able to support a 24hr on station deployment. They are able to operate from smaller regional airports and have very, very, very low operation costs and are able to handle high flight hours on the airframe.

While the P8 isn't stealthy, in a non-wartime situation, any 737 is possibly a P8. There are thousands of 737 flying around. Its stealth through visibility. Its visible, but there are thousands of 737's and picking a 737 and a P8 apart via radar at a distance is going to be a tricky game. Carrying stealthy munitions makes that very hard, you will track the 737 but won't know if its fired or can fire.

A b21 is likely to be detectable by OTHR and other systems. In that sense, they will be easily be able to pick up approximately where they are and how many are in the air and vector approaches. They can't operate for austere and regional airports. As a very low visibility platform they will be maintenance heavy and expensive to operate per flight hour. Its still quite limited in range and is be dog balls obvious where they are coming from.

In a war time situation things are different, but a 737 still is a common airplane and would still be flying around. You can't go off blindly firing off BVR missiles at radar blibs at something that looks like a 737 even in a NFZ or restricted airspace. Its more likely going to require an eyeball and or more info.

In the role the P8 has, being a 737 isn't the disadvantage people think it is and a dedicated stealth platform isn't the advantage that people think it is.

ASPI platform obsession with the B21 is absolute bullshit.

• It will never happen.
• It will never be FOC in Australian service by 2030. They have only built 2 prototypes.
• Its an air force plane, for strategic bombing replacing the B2. Not a maritime strike platform. When will LRASM be integrated?
• While a medium range bomber, for Australia it doesn't get out far past the air sea gap.
• It will be hellishishly expensive for Australia. What? $30-$40 billion? Even for a small fleet of ~12.
• It will have limited availability compared to a 737
• It will cost fighter costs per flight hour vs a commercial aircraft
• It will have limited internal capacity. Operating a handful won't give Australia meaningful increase in strike capacity. A stealth bomber carrying say 4 x 2000lb bombs or say 4 LRASM internal isn't exactly blowing China away.
• Staying on station is very limited. Its a two seater in a small bomber. It won't be able to just stay airborne, or cover space or volume.
• It has no ASuW/ASW capability at the moment.
• How will it target things at sea? You gunna mount a radar onto that stealthy bomber? Starting to sound like a F-35.

P8 is a right here right now. If you want to boost a capacity in that space. MOTS purchase of existing FOC.

 

[south]

ASPI platform obsession with the B21 is absolute bullshit.

• It will never happen.
  • many (including on here) had the same belief about Nuke subs only a few years ago.
• Its an air force plane, for strategic bombing replacing the B2. Not a maritime strike platform. When will LRASM be integrated?
  • Like the B-1, which was the first US aircraft integrated with LRASM, and can carry 21?
• While a medium range bomber, for Australia it doesn't get out far past the air sea gap.
  • It's likely to have intercontinental range (the clue is in the program name - Long Range Strike Bomber)
• It will have limited availability compared to a 737
  • It is likely to be easier to maintain than previous generation LO aircraft (in the same way the F-35 is easier than the F-22), but then, a P-8 isn't a stock 737 either.
• It will have limited internal capacity. Operating a handful won't give Australia meaningful increase in strike capacity. A stealth bomber carrying say 4 x 2000lb bombs or say 4 LRASM internal isn't exactly blowing China away.
  • I reckon this assertion is incorrect, with a reported payload (while smaller than the B-2's 60klb) in the 30klb+ class.
• Staying on station is very limited. Its a two seater in a small bomber. It won't be able to just stay airborne, or cover space or volume.
  • You mean the same as the B-2, which has conducted 44 hour long missions? Besides - early talk was it was going to be optionally manned.
• It has no ASuW/ASW capability at the moment.
• How will it target things at sea? You gunna mount a radar onto that stealthy bomber? Starting to sound like a F-35.
  • You mean like the B-2, which carries a radar for mapping/targeting purposes? Besides - it could easily use off board targeting.

P8 is a right here right now. If you want to boost a capacity in that space. MOTS purchase of existing FOC.

@StingrayOZ - I sense your frustration. I don't have a problem with your message - that the B-21 is not realistic for the ADF. But I wanted to challenge some of your assumptions (assertions?) on the basic capability of the airframe. Why - because if we are going to have a debate, it should be grounded in fact. The fact is the aircraft is going to replace the B-2. The mission implies global strike with plenty of payload. Having said that - there are plenty of other priorities for the ADF to sort out first, and other areas, where the ADF could better contribute to likely coalition operations through more efficient expenditure.

 

[vonnoobie]

The entire problem with any B-21 debate outside of the simple issue of bang for buck is the aircraft details arent really known. VERY VERY little has been shared on them beyond some options on its development and what future roles it "may" undertake not one of which was ASuW. Hell on wiki (Stop that groaning defpro's) it states the B-21 may be smaller then the B-2 by as much as half. Quite literally people are debating for an aircraft that we wouldnt see for a decade atthe earliest whose cost could almost if not entirely double our Hunter class FFG order with not one of us having the first clue as to what it would bring to the table. Quite frankly if such a budget became magically available there are so many more minor nice to have but not entirely required programs and items that as a whole would make a much bigger impact to the ADF then a dozen or so bombers that we dont have the first clue on what they could do.

 

[StingrayOZ]

@StingrayOZ - I sense your frustration. I don't have a problem with your message - that the B-21 is not realistic for the ADF. But I wanted to challenge some of your assumptions (assertions?) on the basic capability of the airframe. Why - because if we are going to have a debate, it should be grounded in fact. The fact is the aircraft is going to replace the B-2. The mission implies global strike with plenty of payload. Having said that - there are plenty of other priorities for the ADF to sort out first, and other areas, where the ADF could better contribute to likely coalition operations through more efficient expenditure.

I will admit we know very little about this airplane, because it is still in development and due to its role. So clearly I am making educated guesses here about performance. You are right I should make that clear.

Yes, it replaces the B2, but it is smaller than the B2. Hopefully cost less too. About half the wingspan, half the number of engines.

• It stands to reason it will carry less and have less range. Global for the US does not mean global for Australia. The US has a global arrangement of bases, it does not need to conduct all its operations from its continent.
• Payload is smaller, estimated to be about half of a B2. My assertion a P8 may still be able to carry more weapons than a B21 is still reasonable. Certainly the payload difference between the too is likely to be marginally small and not operationally important.
• Operational cost is a real thing. Hands up who thinks the flight hour of a brand new B21 with two modified 2 x F-35 engines, a brand new stealth coating, service requirements etc, airframe hours etc will be less than a 737-800 of which thousands fly many thousands of hours for decades?
• Integration costs and time are a real thing. We won't be using this for maritime work.
• Targeting is going to be an issue for Australia, the US has more options in that regard, and the B21 is designed as a strategic strike asset, against stationary targets.
• Early builds are likely to be more expensive than later builds. a $500m cost is possibly and average over the life of the program, the early builds will likely cost much more than that.

The B2 Block 10 can only drop gravity bombs. Literally just the Mk84 or B61. Block 20 can drop some guided bombs, and it wasn't until Block 30 JDAM and JSOW.. Harpoon/LRASM was never integrated. This shows you the priority and mission scope of the B2. It is a very focused aircraft. Its not the F-111 replacement. The development of this aircraft will be much the same.

The B1 does have LRASM integrated. The B52 has LRASM integrated. The P8 does have LRASM integrated, F-18 SH has LRASM integrated and the F-35 is getting it integrated. The USAF has these other platforms.

The B21 is an interesting aircraft, we should look hard at it. But I don't think its a good fit for Australia and what we require. If the US announces its has a 10,000 km range, carries 24 heavy weight weapons, includes ASW capability right out of the box, LRASM integration and some sort of magical stealthy targeting system for ships, and a fixed price purchase, fixed operation costs, well, a 2030 FOC service date, that would be a different proposition. More will be known once more prototype aircraft are built.

But as a right now solution to our here today problems, there are plenty of other areas the ADF could enhance with $20-$30 billion, with less risk and more capability.

 

[John Fedup]

I will admit we know very little about this airplane, because it is still in development and due to its role. So clearly I am making educated guesses here about performance. You are right I should make that clear.

Yes, it replaces the B2, but it is smaller than the B2. Hopefully cost less too. About half the wingspan, half the number of engines.

• It stands to reason it will carry less and have less range. Global for the US does not mean global for Australia. The US has a global arrangement of bases, it does not need to conduct all its operations from its continent.
• Payload is smaller, estimated to be about half of a B2. My assertion a P8 may still be able to carry more weapons than a B21 is still reasonable. Certainly the payload difference between the too is likely to be marginally small and not operationally important.
• Operational cost is a real thing. Hands up who thinks the flight hour of a brand new B21 with two modified 2 x F-35 engines, a brand new stealth coating, service requirements etc, airframe hours etc will be less than a 737-800 of which thousands fly many thousands of hours for decades?
• Integration costs and time are a real thing. We won't be using this for maritime work.
• Targeting is going to be an issue for Australia, the US has more options in that regard, and the B21 is designed as a strategic strike asset, against stationary targets.
• Early builds are likely to be more expensive than later builds. a $500m cost is possibly and average over the life of the program, the early builds will likely cost much more than that.

The B2 Block 10 can only drop gravity bombs. Literally just the Mk84 or B61. Block 20 can drop some guided bombs, and it wasn't until Block 30 JDAM and JSOW.. Harpoon/LRASM was never integrated. This shows you the priority and mission scope of the B2. It is a very focused aircraft. Its not the F-111 replacement. The development of this aircraft will be much the same.

The B1 does have LRASM integrated. The B52 has LRASM integrated. The P8 does have LRASM integrated, F-18 SH has LRASM integrated and the F-35 is getting it integrated. The USAF has these other platforms.

The B21 is an interesting aircraft, we should look hard at it. But I don't think its a good fit for Australia and what we require. If the US announces its has a 10,000 km range, carries 24 heavy weight weapons, includes ASW capability right out of the box, LRASM integration and some sort of magical stealthy targeting system for ships, and a fixed price purchase, fixed operation costs, well, a 2030 FOC service date, that would be a different proposition. More will be known once more prototype aircraft are built.

But as a right now solution to our here today problems, there are plenty of other areas the ADF could enhance with $20-$30 billion, with less risk and more capability.

Good summary on best guess for B-21 capability. One small point wrt to its engines, it seems likely the F-135(6) engines will probably be the forthcoming adaptive cycle engines versions that P&W and GE have developed. Too early to forecast what the range and load increases might be, especially since it hasn’t flown yet with existing F-135 engines.

 

[alexsa]

Qantas operates 75 737-800s according to wiki which uses same airframe as P-8. Of course I'm sure there's a lot more to it than strapping on a couple of pylons but if you're looking for a non-stealthy bombtruck (or more accurately "missile truck") then there are options out there. I think the limiting factor is more likely to be the number of stand-off munitions.

It is not that simple ... as with many ideas of grabbing a commercial platform and repurposing it. Quite a bit of design work would have to go into it noting the P8 itself is far from the standard 737. It is a mix of the 737-800 and 900, (basically a 737-800 derivative with 737-900-based wings with raked wing tips) with a longer fuselage which is strengthened for low-altitude operations. In addition, it has more engine power and power generation capacity. The latter is needed to support the systems and sensors it would still require to be a 'bomb truck' as you suggest.

Such modifications are significant and I would not see the point in doing this to a well used 737.

 

[John Newman]

B-21 .....

The debate/discussion here and elsewhere, appears to be full of emotion from both sides, but short on facts, full of claims and counter claims.

Reminds me of the old saying regarding the truth:

“There are three versions of the truth, your version, my version, and the truth”

The truth is we don’t know the truth, no official stats on range, payload, weapons, future weapons, etc, for example, lots of guesstimates presented in various versions of the truth.

I think it’s worth having a B-21 debate, but it’s going to be very difficult until the first example is rolled out and some ‘real’ facts are published.

B-21 and the RAAF? That’s a hard one, isn’t it?

I’m happy with the RAAF Orbat, with the exception of long range strike (and
deterrent), both land and maritime.

I’ve often wondered if the USAF had developed and procured a direct F-111 replacement, would the RAAF been interested? I’d think yes.

As at today (with the recent retirement of the Classic Hornet/JASSM combo), our longest range fast jet is Super Hornet with the unpowered JSOW and Harpoon, F-35A doesn’t have a long range weapon as yet, and yes P-8A with Harpoon.

That’s it, nothing else, both LRASM and JASSM-ER are still a bit down the road for the above too.

A future RAAF B-21 might appear to be overkill, but what’s in the Orbat at the moment is definitely under kill.

Even ‘if’ B-21 is half the size, half the payload, and half the range of B-2, it’s still going to be more than the F-111C fleet and way more than the current fast jets too.

Am I advocating the Government start procurement of B-21 tomorrow? No I’m not.

Should we keep an open mind and watch with interest? Yes, why not?

Costs nothing to keep an open mind.

We all laughed at the thought of SSNs six months ago, look where we are now.

Never say never

 

[StingrayOZ]

Instead of jumping into the B21 program, perhaps we would be better off asking about an RB-8 program, a strike package P8.
Or something like the Mojave drone.
Or even a long range strike version of the Loyal Wingman.
Or/and other options including more/different F-35's, P8's, long range weapons, launch platforms.
See if the USN has any interest in any naval bomber development.

All of these should be benchmarked against the B21. They certainly all have their strengths and weaknesses.

Is a unescorted manned bomber going to be survivable in airspace in air space with enemy superiority?
In the US CONOPs they are talking about a new escorting fighter for the B21 through contested airspace. No one here has mentioned that.

The F-111 was a fearsome regional weapon, particularly against something like Indonesia in the 80's, but its window of superiority didn't last forever. But the B21 isn't the F-111, there is no naval B21 in development, like there was with the F-111 (even if it was still born, the F-111 program still encapsulated many aspects that made it useful in Australian service).

China in 2030-2050 isn't Yugoslavia in 1999. Driving downtown in a stealthy bomber is not likely to be a wonderful experience in 2030+.

I have many questions and few answers. I don't think we should get platform fixated, particularly on a platform only starting its development.

 

[Unric]

It is not that simple ... as with many ideas of grabbing a commercial platform and repurposing it. Quite a bit of design work would have to go into it noting the P8 itself is far from the standard 737. It is a mix of the 737-800 and 900, (basically a 737-800 derivative with 737-900-based wings with raked wing tips) with a longer fuselage which is strengthened for low-altitude operations. In addition, it has more engine power and power generation capacity. The latter is needed to support the systems and sensors it would still require to be a 'bomb truck' as you suggest.

Such modifications are significant and I would not see the point in doing this to a well used 737.

Thanks. I assumed it would involve a fair bit of work and I'm by no means suggesting RAAF do something like this now. Was just an idea that if/when things get desperate there are lots of airframes around. Kind of like a armed merchant cruiser concept. But since I have little idea as to what's involved I'll take your word for it.

 

[John Newman]

Thanks. I assumed it would involve a fair bit of work and I'm by no means suggesting RAAF do something like this now. Was just an idea that if/when things get desperate there are lots of airframes around. Kind of like a armed merchant cruiser concept. But since I have little idea as to what's involved I'll take your word for it.

As alexsa pointed out, it’s not a simple task.

If you compare KC-30A and E-7A against P-8A, all three are based on commercial airframes, but there are significant differences in the way they are manufactured.

KC-30A (A330-200) and E-7A (B737-700) are built on two separate production lines.

Both are built as standard ‘green’ commercial airframes, once that step is complete, they go to a totally separate production facility where they are stripped down, rebuilt and converted into military aircraft.

The P-8A on the other hand is an in-line production process.

All the specifically modified components go in at one end, and at the other end a P-8A rolls out.

Trying to convert a standard B737-800 into a P-8A may well cost more than a new build, probably a lot longer to produce than a new build too.

A330 to MRTT conversion:

B737 to E-7A conversion:

Couldn’t find a good P-8A manufacture video.

 

[vonnoobie]

If anything the many 737's located in Australian airlines if government deemed necessary to take over would more likely serve as a parts pool to keep our current aircraft operating at the highest availability we could achieve which in its self is a huge gain as I recall during operations in Iraq against ISIL one of the KC-30A's had an issue that was rectified within a day by sourcing in region from the vast global pool of 737 parts while a US E-3 was down for several days waiting on parts (if my recollection is accurate).

At the end of the day what we would like is the ability to strike land and more importantly naval assets as far away as possible from Australia if so needed. While the B-21 could do the former and potentially (about as likely as t!&$ on a bull) the latter it also comes down to how many assets will be required to make a meaningful change. 12 or so B-21's would mean 8 or less available for operational use at any one time meaning very limited ordinance dropped for a capability cost of $30 billion or more. Now would we want to spend that amount for such little affect or would it be better spent expanding weapons capabilities on our existing aircraft and designing a larger variant of the LW with the range and payload at a much lower cost quite potentially allowing us to swarm an enemy before our people ever get in range of danger

 

[Todjaeger]

As alexsa pointed out, it’s not a simple task.

If you compare KC-30A and E-7A against P-8A, all three are based on commercial airframes, but there are significant differences in the way they are manufactured.

KC-30A (A330-200) and E-7A (B737-700) are built on two separate production lines.

Both are built as standard ‘green’ commercial airframes, once that step is complete, they go to a totally separate production facility where they are stripped down, rebuilt and converted into military aircraft.

The P-8A on the other hand is an in-line production process.

All the specifically modified components go in at one end, and at the other end a P-8A rolls out.

Trying to convert a standard B737-800 into a P-8A may well cost more than a new build, probably a lot longer to produce than a new build too.

A330 to MRTT conversion:

B737 to E-7A conversion:

Couldn’t find a good P-8A manufacture video.

AND

If anything the many 737's located in Australian airlines if government deemed necessary to take over would more likely serve as a parts pool to keep our current aircraft operating at the highest availability we could achieve which in its self is a huge gain as I recall during operations in Iraq against ISIL one of the KC-30A's had an issue that was rectified within a day by sourcing in region from the vast global pool of 737 parts while a US E-3 was down for several days waiting on parts (if my recollection is accurate).

At the end of the day what we would like is the ability to strike land and more importantly naval assets as far away as possible from Australia if so needed. While the B-21 could do the former and potentially (about as likely as t!&$ on a bull) the latter it also comes down to how many assets will be required to make a meaningful change. 12 or so B-21's would mean 8 or less available for operational use at any one time meaning very limited ordinance dropped for a capability cost of $30 billion or more. Now would we want to spend that amount for such little affect or would it be better spent expanding weapons capabilities on our existing aircraft and designing a larger variant of the LW with the range and payload at a much lower cost quite potentially allowing us to swarm an enemy before our people ever get in range of danger

There are major structural differences between the P-8 Poseidon and other military aircraft based off the B737 airframe, and that is the fact that the P-8 has a 5-hardpoint internal bomb/weapons bay as well as a pair of centre-line hardpoints and four more hardpoints on the wings. While it might indeed be possible to modify and/or reinforce an existing airframe's structure and wings, or perhaps re-wing the aircraft with new wings that have both the appropriate hardpoints and wiring harness, I strongly suspect it would be both a slow and expensive endeavour.

As for the support for KC-30... I am pretty sure that is not entirely correct, as the KC-30 is based off the A330-200 which is a different and significantly larger aircraft than B737 aircraft.

 

[vonnoobie]

AND



There are major structural differences between the P-8 Poseidon and other military aircraft based off the B737 airframe, and that is the fact that the P-8 has a 5-hardpoint internal bomb/weapons bay as well as a pair of centre-line hardpoints and four more hardpoints on the wings. While it might indeed be possible to modify and/or reinforce an existing airframe's structure and wings, or perhaps re-wing the aircraft with new wings that have both the appropriate hardpoints and wiring harness, I strongly suspect it would be both a slow and expensive endeavour.

As for the support for KC-30... I am pretty sure that is not entirely correct, as the KC-30 is based off the A330-200 which is a different and significantly larger aircraft than B737 aircraft.

Apologies may have been the E7A but I will locate the article and link asap to provide full clarification.

 

[Stampede]

B-21 .....

The debate/discussion here and elsewhere, appears to be full of emotion from both sides, but short on facts, full of claims and counter claims.

Reminds me of the old saying regarding the truth:

“There are three versions of the truth, your version, my version, and the truth”

The truth is we don’t know the truth, no official stats on range, payload, weapons, future weapons, etc, for example, lots of guesstimates presented in various versions of the truth.

I think it’s worth having a B-21 debate, but it’s going to be very difficult until the first example is rolled out and some ‘real’ facts are published.

B-21 and the RAAF? That’s a hard one, isn’t it?

I’m happy with the RAAF Orbat, with the exception of long range strike (and
deterrent), both land and maritime.

I’ve often wondered if the USAF had developed and procured a direct F-111 replacement, would the RAAF been interested? I’d think yes.

As at today (with the recent retirement of the Classic Hornet/JASSM combo), our longest range fast jet is Super Hornet with the unpowered JSOW and Harpoon, F-35A doesn’t have a long range weapon as yet, and yes P-8A with Harpoon.

That’s it, nothing else, both LRASM and JASSM-ER are still a bit down the road for the above too.

A future RAAF B-21 might appear to be overkill, but what’s in the Orbat at the moment is definitely under kill.

Even ‘if’ B-21 is half the size, half the payload, and half the range of B-2, it’s still going to be more than the F-111C fleet and way more than the current fast jets too.

Am I advocating the Government start procurement of B-21 tomorrow? No I’m not.

Should we keep an open mind and watch with interest? Yes, why not?

Costs nothing to keep an open mind.

We all laughed at the thought of SSNs six months ago, look where we are now.

Never say never

Hmmmmmmmm my version

B-21, developmental and probably too niche for the RAAF. If nothing else price will be a detriment.
The ADF getting a SSN is a statement with very limited information in the public domain.
Wonders maybe happening behind closed doors, but I'm guarded about having high expectations with this project.

Long range strike today is concerning.
We have great platforms limited by premature development of the range and type of weapons we desire.
No easy fix but to cross our fingers and hope for the best.


Cheers S

 

[StingrayOZ]

The E7 wedgetail is based off the 737-700 and planes can be converted to that configuration. This is what the UK is going to do, as a lot of it can be done in country rather than overseas.

First UK E-7 Wedgetail ready for conversion work

STS Aviation will convert three Boeing 737 airliners into E-7 Wedgetail airborne early warning aircraft at its facility at Birmingham Airport.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

But you don't get hardpoints or a bomb bay. Its a 737 with consoles and a whopping big radar on top. Which is what an E7 is.

The P8 is effectively a new ASW plane made out of various 737 parts. While loosely based off various 800 and 900 series parts, it would be a complete tear down and rebuild (aka more like the F-18 CBR program) and would be much cheaper to buy off the production line rather than trying to raid the Boeing spares catalog or raiding commercial bone yards and building/developing one. The parts that wear out or are consumable will be regular 737 parts, but bomb bay doors, wing structures etc will be rare.

There are ~7000 737NG flying currently. They are cheap, common and practical aircraft with great reliability and logistics parts that will allow operation until well into the next century.

There were about 130 LH188 Electra's that the P3 was based off (but they made ~700 p3's). The 707 they made about 800 of those and spares and parts are now getting rare, but the 737 is likely to be flying commercially for another 30+ years. 737 are much more reliable and modern planes than those others.

I could certainly see Australia putting together a "Long Range air strike" project and comparing B21, F-35 + tankers, P8's, MQ reaper/mojave, AC130 etc.

For a lot less than $20 billion, we could look at a P8 firing AGM-176 Griffin, or Aim 9x out from its Sonobouy launcher. A P8 with 11 hard points with 6 externals (12 if doubled), loaded with ~ say 48 modified AIM9X and ~100 Griffins, OR ~50 mbda spear3 missiles, would be quite an interesting 2nd day aircraft. Making many dozens of precision strikes over 100 km away from the aircraft, able to loiter in the area and mop up. It won't be penetrating contested airspace, but isn't that what the F-35 is for?

 

[John Fedup]

Considering the vast pool of 737s that would be available for parts, a order more P-8 platforms as a strike aircraft seems to be a realistic option for Australia’s long range strike missions, certainly more affordable than even a handful of B-21s not to mention being available now.