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

[Bob53]

Interesting to see the B21 Raider release today. I hoping some of the info in the press (if accurate and no reason to think it wont be) puts paid to the idea of Australia acquiring these. If my maths and conversion estimates serve me correctly it looks like the buy price (not including sustainment) in todays dollars in North of $1b $AU per airframe and the annual cost of the program... at around $55m $AU per air frame per year across a 30 years life span.

Extracted from the War Zone.

The total expected size of the B-21 fleet is unclear, as is how much each one, as well as the total program, may cost. The Air Force has said that the estimated average unit pricing, not factoring in research and development costs, currently remains under the $550 million target, which is in Fiscal Year 2010 dollars, that was set as part of the requirements for the LRS-B program, according to a report from Bloomberg earlier today. This means the current average expected unit cost for the B-21 should be no more than $692 million in Fiscal Year 2022 dollars.

The total estimated cost of the entire program is currently pegged at approximately $203 billion in Fiscal Year 2019 dollars, with "$25.1 billion for development, $64 billion for production, and $114 billion for 30 years of sustaining and operating a fleet of 100 bombers," according to data the Air Force provided to Bloomberg. Adjusted for inflation, this total estimated cost is almost $240.4 billion in Fiscal Year 2022 dollars.

This Is The B-21 Raider Stealth Bomber (Updated)

The B-21 isn't just America's next stealth bomber, it's the most advanced aircraft ever built and we're finally allowed to see it.

www.thedrive.com

 

[hauritz]

So a dozen B-21 would cost $12 billion and then around $20 billion over 30 years. That comes in at around $32 billion. Pretty sure there would be many other associated costs as well. Australia would then effectively nerf them since we won't be acquiring nuclear weapons.

 

[SolarisKenzo]

I've been reading many articles about Australia and B21s...
And I still cant figure out why would Australia buy a long-range nuclear strike bomber, which Is still far away from entering service and that would anyway have to wait for USAF deliveries before even thinking about export... if Australia doesnt even have nuclear weapons.
What would be the point in spending 20-30 billions USd for a dozen planes that would be useless for Australia?
Seems like a total nonsense to me...

 

[John Newman]

Should Australia procure the B-21, or not?

That’s an argument that can go all day, all night, all this month and all next year too.

I could come up with a long ‘yes’ or ‘no’ list too, but I won’t, it would end up just like the old saying “opinions are like arseholes, everybody’s got one”, an endless list that can be argued back and forth.

But there is one ‘against’ argument that regularly pops up, and that’s cost, that we simply couldn’t afford a squadron of B-21s, to that I say bull$hit!

Yes a dozen B-21 is an eye watering amount, $12 billion+ at least just for 12 aircraft, let alone all of the other associated costs of establishing, operating and sustaining such a capability, lots of extra $billions.

Yes a squadron of B-21 is an eye watering amount, but guess how many other ADF projects are an eye watering amount too? A shed load.


From the 2020 DSU:

* Additional Air Combat Capability - up to $6.7b
* Growler replacement - up to $11.4b
* High speed long range strike, inc Hypersonic - up to $9.3b
* Teaming air vehicle - up to $11b
* Additional ISR - up to $6.1b
* E-7A replacement - up to $21.1b
* C-130J replacement - up to $13.2b
*KC-30A replacement - up to $26.2b
* Ballistic and high speed missile defence - up to $23.7b

That’s a $hit load of money budgeted on current and future projects, want more?


* Boxer CRV - $5b
* IFV - up to $27.1b
* Tank replacement - up to $11.9b
* Future autonomous vehicles - $11.1b

Want even more?

* Hunter class - $45.6b
* Attack class - $89.7b - (Yes Attack has been cancelled, the future SSNs will cost even more).

Sources:

Air projects:

https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-11/Factsheet_Air.pdf

Land projects:

https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-11/Factsheet_Land.pdf

Maritime projects:

https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-11/Factsheet_Maritime.pdf

As can be seen from the list above, we already have a very long list of eye watering expensive projects in the pipeline.

If, and I say ‘if’, a future Australian Government decide to add a B-21 capability to the RAAF, cost is not a barrier, that argument doesn’t hold water.


Anyway, just my opinion too.

 

[John Newman]

I've been reading many articles about Australia and B21s...
And I still cant figure out why would Australia buy a long-range nuclear strike bomber, which Is still far away from entering service and that would anyway have to wait for USAF deliveries before even thinking about export... if Australia doesnt even have nuclear weapons.
What would be the point in spending 20-30 billions USd for a dozen planes that would be useless for Australia?
Seems like a total nonsense to me...

A couple of points.

Yes a B-21 is a long range nuclear strike bomber, but it is also a long range conventional weapons strike bomber too.

It is dual role, not just a one trick pony.

Yes Australia does not possess, or ever plan to possess, nuclear weapons, but we have previously, and still do, possess aircraft that are/were capable of nuclear weapons delivery.

In the past the RAAF operated F-111C and F-111G (former FB-111A), long range strike bombers.

Even shorter range aircraft such as Super Hornets and F-35A are capable of delivering nuclear weapons.

I’m not arguing one way or the other regarding B-21 (see my post above), but to suggest that B-21 is only for nuclear weapons delivery and Australia not possessing nuclear weapons, is not a reason in itself to disregard a potential B-21 procurement.

 

[hauritz]

My issue isn't necessarily the money. You could tout them as Rhino replacements. You could argue that you wouldn't need as many replacement tankers. You would still need to find more money, but that would be a good start.

Whether it would be worth the outlay is more the issue I am having. You could deliver standoff weapons from a range of other platforms. If you are using it as a bomber then you are risking a very valuable asset.

 

[SolarisKenzo]

A couple of points.

Yes a B-21 is a long range nuclear strike bomber, but it is also a long range conventional weapons strike bomber too.

It is dual role, not just a one trick pony.

Yes Australia does not possess, or ever plan to possess, nuclear weapons, but we have previously, and still do, possess aircraft that are/were capable of nuclear weapons delivery.

In the past the RAAF operated F-111C and F-111G (former FB-111A), long range strike bombers.

Even shorter range aircraft such as Super Hornets and F-35A are capable of delivering nuclear weapons.

I’m not arguing one way or the other regarding B-21 (see my post above), but to suggest that B-21 is only for nuclear weapons delivery and Australia not possessing nuclear weapons, is not a reason in itself to disregard a potential B-21 procurement.

F111s arent strategic bombers...the B21 will be/Is.
To justify the implications of possessing a strategic bombers fleet ( political, economical, military ) you have to include the fact that delivering nukes Is the main role for a strat bomber.

My personal opinion Is that Australia's military procurement Is extremely incoherent and inconsistent.
Australia aims high, wanting to introduce nuclear submarines and buying strategic bombers, but It seems to me that this trend isnt alligned with the country's possibilities.

Whats the point in spending billions and billions in bombers when you Will use them to deliver Cruise missiles, a task you can perform with destroyers, frigates, fighters...

 

[John Newman]

My issue isn't necessarily the money. You could tout them as Rhino replacements. You could argue that you wouldn't need as many replacement tankers. You would still need to find more money, but that would be a good start.

Whether it would be worth the outlay is more the issue I am having. You could deliver standoff weapons from a range of other platforms. If you are using it as a bomber then you are risking a very valuable asset.

Clearly you wouldn’t use an asset such as a B-21 as a bomber delivering only ‘dumb’ bombs, that would be stupid.

The B-1B for example, one of the aircraft the B-21 is replacing, is equipped with long range JASSM and LRASM.

Stands to reason it’s replacement will be equipped with similar/same long range strike weapons too.

 

[Julian 82]

My issue isn't necessarily the money. You could tout them as Rhino replacements. You could argue that you wouldn't need as many replacement tankers. You would still need to find more money, but that would be a good start.

Whether it would be worth the outlay is more the issue I am having. You could deliver standoff weapons from a range of other platforms. If you are using it as a bomber then you are risking a very valuable asset.

Would a P-8 even be survivable in a contested environment with long range J-20s armed with PL-15 AAM? Even delivering stand off missiles from a P-8 would be dangerous in that environment. I think that is where the B-21 comes in. It will carry LRASM and hypersonic missiles internally and unlike a P-8 or B-52 it won’t be detected and intercepted before it launches these weapons.

 

[John Fedup]

Would a P-8 even be survivable in a contested environment with long range J-20s armed with PL-15 AAM? Even delivering stand off missiles from a P-8 would be dangerous in that environment. I think that is where the B-21 comes in. It will carry LRASM and hypersonic missiles internally and unlike a P-8 or B-52 it won’t be detected and intercepted before it launches these weapons.

Short answer, not likely, but P-8s are valuable assets so no Air Force would risk these aircraft when other more suitable assets are available.

 

[vonnoobie]

Should Australia procure the B-21, or not?

That’s an argument that can go all day, all night, all this month and all next year too.

I could come up with a long ‘yes’ or ‘no’ list too, but I won’t, it would end up just like the old saying “opinions are like arseholes, everybody’s got one”, an endless list that can be argued back and forth.

But there is one ‘against’ argument that regularly pops up, and that’s cost, that we simply couldn’t afford a squadron of B-21s, to that I say bull$hit!

Yes a dozen B-21 is an eye watering amount, $12 billion+ at least just for 12 aircraft, let alone all of the other associated costs of establishing, operating and sustaining such a capability, lots of extra $billions.

Yes a squadron of B-21 is an eye watering amount, but guess how many other ADF projects are an eye watering amount too? A shed load.


From the 2020 DSU:

* Additional Air Combat Capability - up to $6.7b
* Growler replacement - up to $11.4b
* High speed long range strike, inc Hypersonic - up to $9.3b
* Teaming air vehicle - up to $11b
* Additional ISR - up to $6.1b
* E-7A replacement - up to $21.1b
* C-130J replacement - up to $13.2b
*KC-30A replacement - up to $26.2b
* Ballistic and high speed missile defence - up to $23.7b

That’s a $hit load of money budgeted on current and future projects, want more?


* Boxer CRV - $5b
* IFV - up to $27.1b
* Tank replacement - up to $11.9b
* Future autonomous vehicles - $11.1b

Want even more?

* Hunter class - $45.6b
* Attack class - $89.7b - (Yes Attack has been cancelled, the future SSNs will cost even more).

Sources:

Air projects:

https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-11/Factsheet_Air.pdf

Land projects:

https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-11/Factsheet_Land.pdf

Maritime projects:

https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-11/Factsheet_Maritime.pdf

As can be seen from the list above, we already have a very long list of eye watering expensive projects in the pipeline.

If, and I say ‘if’, a future Australian Government decide to add a B-21 capability to the RAAF, cost is not a barrier, that argument doesn’t hold water.


Anyway, just my opinion too.

True financially we could afford them but what one needs to do with said cost is weigh up cost vs capabilities delivered as well as the geopolitics. Out of the programs you listed and the B-21 the one that would deliver the least amount of use to us would be the B-21 and such a program would be a direct risk to the funding for many other programs (which then leads to a spiraling per unit cost increase resulting in program buggered beyond use or cancelled).

If they could get $32+ billion freed up over the next 30-40 years with out pulling funding from any other program we would be better off throwing that towards munitions stockpiles and there upkeep.

 

[Stampede]

Would a P-8 even be survivable in a contested environment with long range J-20s armed with PL-15 AAM? Even delivering stand off missiles from a P-8 would be dangerous in that environment. I think that is where the B-21 comes in. It will carry LRASM and hypersonic missiles internally and unlike a P-8 or B-52 it won’t be detected and intercepted before it launches these weapons.

No one wants to send a modified commercial aircraft up against a modern combat aircraft like the J-20 where it dictates the rules

However, a couple of questions probably without an answer in the public domain.

What is the strike range ( ie dispensing time on station for extra distance ) of a P-8 compared to a J-20?
What will be the range of missiles carried on the P-8 look like within its life time?
How may conflicts have the ADF been involved in during the last 70 years where we have been in an alliance with air superiority.
Will China be the only contingency going forward?

Cheers S

 

[Volkodav]

The B-21 is a perfect example of opportunity cost within a force structure. It is not so much what it brings that matters, it's what capabilities will be lost or reduced if it is acquired in place of other capabilities.

Are its unique capabilities such that they worth more than those we will have to do without that we cannot otherwise fill the gap?

I say unique capabilities because they are what counts. To me they are long range, deep penetration, and special payloads, beyond what the F-35 (supported by tanker) or strike missiles can provide. Perhaps persistence with PGMs, as was done with B-1Bs over Afghanistan, again, a MALE UCAV could provide similar.

The standard line in The Australian at the moment is get rid of tanks (meaning don't buy IFVs), frigates, etc. and invest in missiles, drones and bombers. It is a concept of ripping away core capability, without replacing it with anything viable in that space, and using the money to buy a cherry to put on top of another existing capability.

It's rock, paper, scissors, not paper, scissors, scissors.

 

[hauritz]

Actually drones will probably be pretty effective cruise missile platforms.

I think if a case is to be made for the B-21 then it has to go beyond the role of being just yet another missile platform. I have actually seen proposals made for it to be used in the ISR role, as a drone mothership, and as a super stealthy mine layer. When you think about it that is very close to the sort of capability that the nuclear submarines will be offering.

That being the case the delay in SSN program could be used as a strong case for acquiring the B-21. Also the longer the delay is for the new nukes the stronger the case is for the B-21. A 10 or 15 year delay in the submarine program would go a long way towards funding a program like the B-21.

 

[Takao]

But there is one ‘against’ argument that regularly pops up, and that’s cost, that we simply couldn’t afford a squadron of B-21s, to that I say bull$hit!

Yes a dozen B-21 is an eye watering amount, $12 billion+ at least just for 12 aircraft, let alone all of the other associated costs of establishing, operating and sustaining such a capability, lots of extra $billions.

Yes a squadron of B-21 is an eye watering amount, but guess how many other ADF projects are an eye watering amount too? A shed load.


From the 2020 DSU:

* Additional Air Combat Capability - up to $6.7b
* Growler replacement - up to $11.4b
* High speed long range strike, inc Hypersonic - up to $9.3b
* Teaming air vehicle - up to $11b
* Additional ISR - up to $6.1b
* E-7A replacement - up to $21.1b
* C-130J replacement - up to $13.2b
*KC-30A replacement - up to $26.2b
* Ballistic and high speed missile defence - up to $23.7b

That’s a $hit load of money budgeted on current and future projects, want more?


* Boxer CRV - $5b
* IFV - up to $27.1b
* Tank replacement - up to $11.9b
* Future autonomous vehicles - $11.1b

Want even more?

* Hunter class - $45.6b
* Attack class - $89.7b - (Yes Attack has been cancelled, the future SSNs will cost even more).


As can be seen from the list above, we already have a very long list of eye watering expensive projects in the pipeline.

If, and I say ‘if’, a future Australian Government decide to add a B-21 capability to the RAAF, cost is not a barrier, that argument doesn’t hold water.


Anyway, just my opinion too.

Even when dealing with FSP numbers, there is a significant difference in costs though.

The most optimistic costing figures for B-21 in Australia resulted in about $80 b (from ASPI). Assuming the article above is correct** and the USAF hasn't broken the $550 m / airframe limit, you can assume that $80b doesn't need to be updated. That's what makes it eye wateringly unaffordable.

$80 b gets you:
Another 12 Hunters (MFU now at 27...)
An additional 3376 CRV (that's more CRV than we own trucks)
An additional 650 tanks (finally, an armoured Division!)
A total of 10 Sqn of AWACS/AEW&C
A total of 8 Sqn of Growler replacement
12 conventional Attack class submarines to support the SSN fleet cool
A total of 4 Sqn of big AAR / transport

That's just if you trade in the Defence budget. If you want all of the above and $80 b worth of bomber, then you have to give up (roughly):
25 - 50 major hospitals
Hundreds of schools
3 - 5 major universities
2 years of NDIS (in fact, worst case scenario for NDIS that I can find in a quick search is a cost blowout by $60 b in the next 8 years....the stealth bombers can pay for that and add in a half dozen hospitals with the change)
An expansion of the Housing Accord by 800%, possibly meaning 300 k new dwellings
One house in inner suburbs of Canberra. With 4 bedrooms.

Even in FSP where one would glaze over with dollars because we were dealing with such big numbers (see your list above), SEA1000 would skew all our figures and the like it was simply so much compared to the rest. The idea of a second project size is inconceivable; the opportunity cost would be so large it would likely skew that Australian budget for decades, let alone the Defence budget.

A few billion here, a few billion there, soon you are talking about real money. And while SEA1000 (and it's decedent's) exists, I don't think you'll be able to slide a second project of similar size in there.

**I'd be questioning the figures straight up in one respect. Knowing the rule of thumb about sustainment v acquisition money, I cannot believe that the sustainment is only ~ 1.7x. As a rule of thumb, for aerial items sustainment is normally ~5 - 6x. There are some interesting things happening with that claimed US$114 b figure.

 

[Volkodav]

Actually drones will probably be pretty effective cruise missile platforms.

I think if a case is to be made for the B-21 then it has to go beyond the role of being just yet another missile platform. I have actually seen proposals made for it to be used in the ISR role, as a drone mothership, and as a super stealthy mine layer. When you think about it that is very close to the sort of capability that the nuclear submarines will be offering.

That being the case the delay in SSN program could be used as a strong case for acquiring the B-21. Also the longer the delay is for the new nukes the stronger the case is for the B-21. A 10 or 15 year delay in the submarine program would go a long way towards funding a program like the B-21.

Ironically where I can see the B-21 eventually entering RAAF service is as a replacement for the F/A-18G Growlers, that are finally being recognised as a survivable ISR rather than a strike, capability.

Where they would fit very well in the ADF is as a persistent ISR and defence suppression capability, supporting the strike elements of the ADF.

We would only ever be able to afford a niche capability, therefore forget carpet bombing, and single handedly destroying the PLAAF on the ground or the PLAN in port, look at where the platform would be game changing. In fact, even if it would be a game changing, we still need to look at the opportunity cost and whether the capability (if it is really needed) could be delivered better another way.

 

[Gooey]

There is such a lot of hoop talked about RAAF B-21's going downtown in China somewhere. Alone, and unafraid. With nuc's obviously.
ISR has been mentioned which is true but it might be their simple ability to deploy at extreme radius long-range PGM and JDAM munition types which give them a national distance/flexibility/firepower advantage to integrate with SSN in a maritime theatre for CoA consideration, given a higher risk matrix with PLA. Pretty much the same reason RAAF got the 'ruinously' expensive B-24 fleet in 1944/45.
I think some peps are circling their single service wagons, and prejudices, and ignoring what a VLR type platform could bring to Joint ADF strategic (eye roll, not nuc's) capability going kinetic with the Middle Kingdom.

 

[Morgo]

2 years of NDIS (in fact, worst case scenario for NDIS that I can find in a quick search is a cost blowout by $60 b in the next 8 years....the stealth bombers can pay for that and add in a half dozen hospitals with the change)

Your overall point is 100% correct, however I’d note that the modelling I think you’re talking about indicates that the NDIS is tracking towards a total cost of $60bn p.a. - not $60bn over 8 years.

When put into this context the proposed spend on the National Shipbuilding Plan ($160bn to $180bn) pales into to insignificance against the net present value of this liability ($2.1trn).

$80bn over 20 years for a B21 program is very affordable in this context. But your overall point - that it’s still an inefficient use of these funds that can be better put to use elsewhere and the capability delivered by other platforms - is spot on.

 

[Gooey]

The new C-130Js are beyond doubt the best tactical aircraft to replace the old A/E/H/Js. Please forget about A400 and the stupidly political C-27J (absolutely nothing against the peps of 35SQN).
We just need to get enough frames and introduce the helicopter AAR / non strategic F-18F/G AAR roles.
The next best thing would be to bring Apache and Chinook back into proper air power and the RAAF, after the disaster of Army stewardship.

 

[Julian 82]

No one wants to send a modified commercial aircraft up against a modern combat aircraft like the J-20 where it dictates the rules

However, a couple of questions probably without an answer in the public domain.

What is the strike range ( ie dispensing time on station for extra distance ) of a P-8 compared to a J-20?
What will be the range of missiles carried on the P-8 look like within its life time?
How may conflicts have the ADF been involved in during the last 70 years where we have been in an alliance with air superiority.
Will China be the only contingency going forward?

Cheers S

I was thinking in the context of maritime interdiction against PLAN surface action groups and carrier battle groups. Keeping them as far away from Australia as possible. Hitting mobile DF-21 and DF-26 launchers and airfields on those artificial islands in the South China Sea which threaten our surface action groups. A squadron of B-21s would be ideal for this role and would be acting in a joint role (in concert with other assets e.g SSNs) so as to ensure freedom of movement for our navy and army in the maritime domain. They can perform this role quickly and repeatedly over and over again. The P-8s should be hunting PLAN submarines which is their forte ( not going up against Type 55 AAW destroyers).