Its always a laugh watching nautical guys threatened by air power.
1. Why B-21 (in theory): speed; flexibility; and firepower v's CCP operating in the southern hem (not going down town China mainland as some mater-mind stated).
SSN are truly awesome sharks but:
- unlike VLR air, they are relatively slow; not flexibility (single theatre over months); limited firepower (TLAM only? v current USAF conventional inventory)
- I assume this is idea is being floated if Virginia Class are not available or delayed until distant future AUKUS Class
- I've never heard anyone claim VLR can conduct ASW; another mater-mind moment
No. It's a honest assessment of air power. There is little that air power can do that an SSK/SSN can. The B-21 is even more restrictive than most air power platforms. It can carry bombs and likely some land attack stand off weapons. Nothing useful for our strategy. It's also quite visible (you can't stealth an airbase doing combat tempo) and it's supply chain is extremely vulnerable.
Air power is essential. It, however, is not the only answer. The view of the 1920s and 1930s about air power really needs to die.
2. RAAF has been under resourced since AUKUS. The current OOB is tailored for 'peace'
- eg. 20 new C-130J should have been 30, including K/MC-130J
- 4th F-35 sqn was supposed to be FJ expansion
- F/A-18F/G are in addition to F-35, to be replaced by whatever is suitable for our AO
- Additional strategic AAR, P-8, E-7 replacements
- new in-theatre STOL ala Caravan/Air Van/PC-12 at Townsville and as comms flight acft at main bases, in place of the Cinderella C-27J
I don't know whether or not to laugh at this. Underfunded? Yes, in the sense that everything (including the rest of the RAN), yes. Under resourced compared to what the rest is getting? Please, don't make me laugh. There isn't a more sacred cow than the RAAF - other than SSNs.
In order:
The 20x C-130s was meant to be (as per FSP, so 6 years ago) 24x C-130s. The KC-130s were part of the AAR fleet expansion and would have only been obtained with another Sqn of MH-47G. The latter never went ahead, removing the need for C-130 refuellers.
*sigh* there never was a fourth F-35 Sqn. It was additional funds for an air combat capability. It could have been a fourth Sqn of F-35s, additional Hornets, missiles, IAMD, a whole bunch of things. An option to order more F-35 (to go to 102) is not a project, nor a need. There is actually a strong case to make that the touted F-111 replacement for long-range strike is the HiMARS - which would fulfil that additional combat capability (by freeing up the F-18Es). I mean, gosh, it's likely that money will be needed to pay L-M even more $$ for TR3 and Block 4 - you know, to deliver what we ordered. Hard to justify buying more aircraft when the ones we have don't meet what we paid for, and we are expected to pay more for. Maybe. When it's possible.
Additional AAR was discussed above. 14x P-8s were always the plan (and, speaking of cows, were actually meant to be 12, but the removal of the 'special' P-3s meant they got another 2. And the MC-55 schemozzle. E-7 replacement is still on the board, as per the 2020 timeline, so nothing is missing yet. In fact, there isn't even the willingness to have a discussion about what happens if the tech isn't available for that platform - we are rarely able to question sacred cows.
The C-27J shouldn't be replaced. It fulfils no need or use in the ADF. A platform that, by the way, was rightfully looked at with scissors to cut from at least 2019 by all three Services, but wasn't touched because it would lower the number of aircraft in the RAAF. We kept a very expensive, useless capability chewing money in a fiscally constrained environment for ego. What does replace the DHC-4 Caribou is the CH-47 (got a bunch of those) and an additional 8x C-130 (which makes up the order for 20). We don't need another STOL aircraft.
I wish I was as under-resourced as the RAAF
