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

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Actually this article sums up my feelings. The B-21 is a capability that may not even be available for a decade or more and if we are talking maritime strike capabilities there are other options that are here and now and will be a damn sight cheaper to obtain.

At the end of the day it will be irrelevant to the captain of a Chinese warship whether the AGM-158C imbedded in the side of his ship was launched from a B-21 or a P-8.
 

Julian 82

Active Member
The RAAF will have probably been briefed by they will have been given a sanitised briefing and no they won't be informed of its full set of capabilities. There are many within the USAF who need to know that don't know yet, far before an foreign air force, and I would suspect if a foreign air force was told anything it would be the RAF well before the RAAF.

As much as some Australian posters think that you are extra special in Uncle Sam's eyes, you aren't. You don't have the special relationship with the US that the UK does. AUKUS won't give you that no matter how much may think so. Sorry if it bursts a few egos but that is realpolitik.
What was the point of AUKUS then? I thought it was to elevate Australia to the level of access that the UK enjoys. It is intended to provide for close cooperation on a range of sensitive military technologies. The tech in the us submarines is very sensitive and they will need to share it with Australia to facilitate the SSN build.

The Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall stated the US would be open to exporting the B-21 to Australia and I don’t think it was a coincidence that our Air Force chief was in attendance (with the RAF Chief).

Anyway, we will have to wait and see what comes out of the review.


I accept that, but other posters are guilty of speculating on what the B-21 cannot do (as a reason why we should not buy it) and they don’t know either.

Stating the B-21 is a limited and inflexible weapon system is less plausible than my supposition that it will likely be armed with air to air missiles (given it is intended to operate in high threat areas unescorted). Hell it probably performs it’s own SEAD as well. That’s the beauty about having large weapons bays. With the right sensors, you can carry and employ many different types and sizes of weapons.

The RAAF has been briefed on the B-21s capabilities. Our Chief of Air Force was at the unveiling. Unlike us, they will have insight into its full suite of capabilities.
 
Last edited:

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Actually this article sums up my feelings. The B-21 is a capability that may not even be available for a decade or more and if we are talking maritime strike capabilities there are other options that are here and now and will be a damn sight cheaper to obtain.

At the end of the day it will be irrelevant to the captain of a Chinese warship whether the AGM-158C imbedded in the side of his ship was launched from a B-21 or a P-8.
Or RAN frigate, destroyer, or sub. Or a land-based AShM battery operated by the RAA. Depending on the scenario, there are both a number of potential issues with carrying out a strike, as well as a number of platforms and overall system which could/would be involved.

To be honest, the apparent focus some have on specific uses for the B-21 Raider in ADF service whilst ignoring the above has caused me to consider some not worth engaging with, because they both ignore potential problems with their pet rock idea, as well as alternate solutions to their proposed scenarios.

If, for some reason Australia felt the need to have a strike capability able to reach coastal China, meaning both the mainland as well as islands, there already seem to be a few such capabilities planned for the future. This is why I have asked for what scenarios people envision a B-21 Raider being used, where other current or planned assets could not be.
 
Hi all not directed at anyone in particular, but can we all just wait till the review is completed and see what the government is thinking before creating arguments for and against b21’s. I don’t feel either way inclined at this stage. If the review is all for it they will, I’m sure have a case for it planned. If it isn’t I’m sure the same will be the case. Let’s just wait and then discuss once the decision has been made, at least then more rationale will be available either way. It just seems that it’s becoming a pissing contest, except it’s really pointless at this stage. Again I value what everyone is saying but let’s all take a step back. Cheers
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
The other thing to remember is, any B-21 order would require bi-partisan support from both sides of parliament as we are likely to have a minimum of 3 election cycles before any order could go in. Dutton and co have been very quiet on the subject so far, probably waiting for the review.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
The other thing to remember is, any B-21 order would require bi-partisan support from both sides of parliament as we are likely to have a minimum of 3 election cycles before any order could go in. Dutton and co have been very quiet on the subject so far, probably waiting for the review.
Absolutely!
In some way the review is academic as I feel three election cycles would be an absolute best case scenario with any purchase mid to late 30's at the very earliest.
A lot will happen re defence decisions in between 2022 a potential B-21 with RAAF roundel way down the track.
Not one to bet the house on I'd suggest.

Lets focus on options for long range strike that are either in hand or potential available within the next five years.

Cheers S
 

Aardvark144

Active Member
The RAAF will have probably been briefed by they will have been given a sanitised briefing and no they won't be informed of its full set of capabilities. There are many within the USAF who need to know that don't know yet, far before an foreign air force, and I would suspect if a foreign air force was told anything it would be the RAF well before the RAAF.

As much as some Australian posters think that you are extra special in Uncle Sam's eyes, you aren't. You don't have the special relationship with the US that the UK does. AUKUS won't give you that no matter how much may think so. Sorry if it bursts a few egos but that is realpolitik.
Is that right! Well I personally think it is inappropriate to even go down what sort of 'relationship' exists between Australia and the US on an open forum. Even more disappointing is the comments came from a Staff member.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
History lesson, the F-111 was ordered for the RAAF when it was assumed we would have nuclear weapons. We didn't acquire nuclear weapons, which resulted in the F-111 becoming, admittedly a very sexy, niche capability and an opportunity cost for the ADF.

On buying unique Gucci kit, it only makes sense when there is a need for the specific capability in the force structure. If there is an FMS option that fits the requirement go for it, even if it's not as good on paper. i.e. the C-130 is still perfectly good enough and we should not risk a repeat of the C-27J or MRH when there is no real advantage operationally in going for the 390.

Irrespective of cost, Australia has finite limits in regards to manpower, there are just only so many different capabilities we can adequately support. There are overheads with each different platform we deploy, the more different platforms the more overheads.

Wherever possible we should be hooking into global support systems and only going for niche capabilities when they add unquestioned capability and depth.
 

OldTex

Well-Known Member
The ASPI article mentioned has some comments which illuminate the considerations prior to procuring a specific piece of equipment for the ADF. These comments are:
" .....the intention to acquire an ability for Australia to hold an adversary at risk at long range. A range of capabilities will be required to locate, target and strike an adversary’s ships, submarines and aircraft entering Australia’s maritime approaches, typically south of the Indonesian archipelago. ‘At long range’ may also include the possibility of interdiction north of the Indonesian archipelago, as many commentators have been suggesting. Both options are a long way up the escalation chain and would invoke some complex legal and practical issues, not least with our neighbours.

Attacking or, more importantly, deterring an adversary would require long-range maritime strike missiles and platforms to carry, target and launch them. These platforms could be land based or carried in our aircraft, ships and submarines. Each platform has strengths and weaknesses....."

An important point is that capability is not expected to completely defeat an adversary but to complicate the adversary's planning and limit their options in the possible execution of their plan.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Absolutely!
In some way the review is academic as I feel three election cycles would be an absolute best case scenario with any purchase mid to late 30's at the very earliest.
A lot will happen re defence decisions in between 2022 a potential B-21 with RAAF roundel way down the track.
Not one to bet the house on I'd suggest.

Lets focus on options for long range strike that are either in hand or potential available within the next five years.

Cheers S
We are already looking at a significant improvement in LR strike in the next 5 years, LRASM on the Super Hornets will see a AShM improvement of 2 1/2 times that of the Harpoon in range and a much bigger more modern Missile. We are planning Tomahawks for the Hobarts and looking at the Collins as well.
 

Wombat000

Active Member
Trying to rationalise the motivating factors, or perhaps fixation with driving the B-21 concept.
I accept that I’m a humble observer.

I currently see it as:
- unless we have the capability to touch a significant target (perhaps like a mainland China equivalent) with a profound munition effect (perhaps like a Tactical Nuke - & that’s absurd) then a B-21 is probably hyped.
if that ‘significant target’ is a tactical one, then will an alternate capability potential suffice?

- The singular conceivable notable effect in the Australian context that I can see is in Maritime Strike.
Perhaps a rapid reactionary initiative scenario might invite an convenient aerial solution to be sought, and
perhaps a B-21 stealth capability may create an opportunity effect, if the target is in range or limited enabler ducks align?

- I wonder if some mindsets remember fondly the notions of deterrent effects of a long range F111 strike in its heyday?
As an outsider looking in, I suspect there are other solutions that more efficiently provide that role, remembering that Moskva was sunk using mobile land based mobile missile(s), which as far as I’m aware survived the engagement.

I find myself being more concerned abt a B-21 acquisition than the potentials without it.

just my current 2c worth.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
What was the point of AUKUS then? I thought it was to elevate Australia to the level of access that the UK enjoys. It is intended to provide for close cooperation on a range of sensitive military technologies. The tech in the us submarines is very sensitive and they will need to share it with Australia to facilitate the SSN build.

The Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall stated the US would be open to exporting the B-21 to Australia and I don’t think it was a coincidence that our Air Force chief was in attendance (with the RAF Chief).

Anyway, we will have to wait and see what comes out of the review.
I doubt there is any provision in AUKUS that allows the UK or Australia access to America’s most sensitive technologies. IMHO the US will never sell a B-21 to any other nation. The USAF may base B-21s in Australia but their assumed range makes this unnecessary.
 
Last edited:

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I doubt there is any provision in AUKUS that hat allows the UK or Australia access to America’s most sensitive technologies. IMHO the US will never sell a B-21 to any other nation. The USAF may base B-21s in Australia but their assumed range makes this unnecessary.
I'd be more interested in accessing hypersonic strike missiles and acquiring the platforms to deploy them. Same with AEGIS Ashore and Typhon (land based mobile SM-6 and Tomahawk).

The SSNs need to happen and gut feeling a bigger batch II Hunter or new design is needed for hypersonics. To be honest, I hope they are considering a Dreadnought or Columbia based SSGN with VPMs for tomahawk and hypersonic strike missiles instead of Trident. That would be a true conventional deterrent.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
I'd be more interested in accessing hypersonic strike missiles and acquiring the platforms to deploy them. Same with AEGIS Ashore and Typhon (land based mobile SM-6 and Tomahawk).

The SSNs need to happen and gut feeling a bigger batch II Hunter or new design is needed for hypersonics. To be honest, I hope they are considering a Dreadnought or Columbia based SSGN with VPMs for tomahawk and hypersonic strike missiles instead of Trident. That would be a true conventional deterrent.
Agree about SSGN, something that actually would be a conventional deterrent but also a piece of kit that could be used. If SSGNs aren’t in the works then it is likely future SSNs will be smaller derivatives of Columbia and Dreadnought with hypersonic missiles.
 

Julian 82

Active Member
I'd be more interested in accessing hypersonic strike missiles and acquiring the platforms to deploy them. Same with AEGIS Ashore and Typhon (land based mobile SM-6 and Tomahawk).

The SSNs need to happen and gut feeling a bigger batch II Hunter or new design is needed for hypersonics. To be honest, I hope they are considering a Dreadnought or Columbia based SSGN with VPMs for tomahawk and hypersonic strike missiles instead of Trident. That would be a true conventional deterrent.
Hypersonic missiles like typhon are estimated to cost $50 million per missile! The price may come down in time but that is still very expensive for what is a one hit wonder. You have to look at the cost per effect. For most targets out there, that does not seem like a good return on investment.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Typhon is the Mid Range Capability (MRC) system that will deploy launchers capable of firing SM-6 or Tomahawk. This will sit between the Long Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW), now named Dark Eagle and the Precision Strike Missile.

The prototypes are here already and the initial systems will be in the hands of units before the end of 2023.

These are the sorts of systems Australia is likely to be looking to as short term gap fillers, not bombers that are likely a decade and a half or more away.

These systems, SM-6, Tomahawk, and Dark Eagle will create synergies with future major combatant and submarine weapons. They are a no brainer.

I know bombers are sexy, but the B-21, at this point, isn't even a developmental platform yet. The missiles are here or near, as well as potentially being deployed in multiple different ways. They are available to the ADF in the near to medium term. The B-21 is a very expensive, niche capability, that it's potentially two decades off, even if we commit now.

Please understand, even if B-21 is named and pushed in the FSR, the missiles will be here a decade or more earlier.

The other factor is the missiles either already are, or will be stored as rounds of ammunition. Much of the training will be via simulation. The land based systems could quite literally be predominantly operated by reserve units. High level capability but with a comparatively low operating foot print.
 
Last edited:

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Typhon is the Mid Range Capability (MRC) system that will deploy launchers capable of firing SM-6 or Tomahawk. This will sit between the Long Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW), now named Dark Eagle and the Precision Strike Missile.

The prototypes are here already and the initial systems will be in the hands of units before the end of 2023.

These are the sorts of systems Australia is likely to be looking to as short term gap fillers, not bombers that are likely a decade and a half or more away.

These systems, SM-6, Tomahawk, and Dark Eagle will create synergies with future major combatant and submarine weapons. They are a no brainer.

I know bombers are sexy, but the B-21, at this point, isn't even a developmental platform yet. The missiles are here or near, as well as potentially being deployed in multiple different ways. They are available to the ADF in the near to medium term. The B-21 is a very expensive, niche capability, that it's potentially two decades off, even if we commit now.

Please understand, even if B-21 is named and pushed in the FSR, the missiles will be here a decade or more earlier.

The other factor is the missiles either already are, or will be stored as rounds of ammunition. Much of the training will be via simulation. The land based systems could quite literally be predominantly operated by reserve units. High level capability but with a comparatively low operating foot print.
The US has also been developing Rapid Dragon, which is a palletized weapons container for air-dropping and releasing standoff munitions from C-130 and C-17 cargo planes. Successful live-fire test releases were done in Dec. 2021 from a C-130 and was to conduct a similar test using a C-17 earlier this year.

Since it appears that multiple cruise missiles like JASSM and even more useful the AGM-158B-2 JASSM-XR can be fitted into each palletized weapons container, and that multiple containers can be carried and released from the two aircraft...

It should demonstrate that there are several different potential methods of delivering ordnance that are either available or will be coming online in the near future.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The US has also been developing Rapid Dragon, which is a palletized weapons container for air-dropping and releasing standoff munitions from C-130 and C-17 cargo planes. Successful live-fire test releases were done in Dec. 2021 from a C-130 and was to conduct a similar test using a C-17 earlier this year.

Since it appears that multiple cruise missiles like JASSM and even more useful the AGM-158B-2 JASSM-XR can be fitted into each palletized weapons container, and that multiple containers can be carried and released from the two aircraft...

It should demonstrate that there are several different potential methods of delivering ordnance that are either available or will be coming online in the near future.
Yes I'd forgotten about that. The media and armchair experts carry on about China and Russia's quantitative and qualitative leads in military technology but just as happened in the early 40s the west, in particular the US, has turned around and productionised high tech concepts to complement, supplement and replace the current gear that is still demonstrating it's superiority over the Russian fare.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Is that right! Well I personally think it is inappropriate to even go down what sort of 'relationship' exists between Australia and the US on an open forum. Even more disappointing is the comments came from a Staff member.
It is exactly right and the intention is to put things in perspective. The US will never share with Australia it's most secret stuff. It doesn't even do that with the UK. FYI we actually discuss relationships between nations quite often and it happens in open source publications as well. So no OPSEC rules are broken.

My responsibility as a staff member is to keep things on an even keel and prevent threads from being derailed into fantasy land. I make no apologies for my comments WRT the AU-US relationship. The idea that some posters have about Australian exceptionalism WRT the US needs to be placed in context. As a non Australian or US citizen I have an independent take on it. If you or others feel aggrieved about it, that is your / their choice, not mine.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Just an observation re US cutting edge aircraft.

B-1 Lancer
F-22 Raptor
F-117 Nighthawk
SR-71 Blackbird
B-2 Spirit

I have heard talk over the decades that various close Allies, including Australia should acquire one or more of these platforms.
Special relationship and common cause and all that.

What has been the outcome.

US service only!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

B-21 for the RAAF would be a bold precedent made even more unusual if it enters service this side of the next decade.

Lets keep it in perspective.

Cheers S
 
Top