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

[Redlands18]

My curiosity wasn't what or why we purchased said aircraft. Reading the RAN forum they talk in 3's. One in port, one in maintenance and one in operations. The RAAF seems to work in 24. 24 Hercs , 24 Orions, 24 Super Hornets

Thank you @CJR
Because, 18-24 airframes represents about the minimal viable force: Active squadron (10-14ish aircraft) + OCU (4-6ish aircraft) + attrition/maintenance reserve.
This answer satisfies my curiosity. Sorry its a cut and paste. I just can't combine two messages in the same post.

In regards to B21, 24 airframes seems to be the sweet spot. I do agree we have acquired 8x C17, 14x P8.

https://www.airforce.gov.au/aircraft/p-8a-poseidon

https://www.airforce.gov.au/aircraft/c-17-globemaster

I doubt we could afford 24 but I'm just pointing out 24 is favoured in the RAAF.

Regards
DD

I would be more inclined to go with Sqns of 12 or multiples of 12 than say 24 aircraft. Sorry but Australia got P-3 Orions in orders of 10 not 12. 1 of 10 P-3B and 2 separate orders of 10 P-3Cs. Also the C-27s were only 10 aircraft. I think you are reading too much into what has been ordered before in suggesting it would be 24 aircraft (personally I can't see us affording 4, let alone 24)

 

[John Newman]

In the next 20+ years the Australian climate, along with the rest of the world, will change for the worse and you also have an energy problem. How are you going to supply and pay for badly needed new electricity generation? You can't go on using coal or gas as your main electricity generation capability. If you go nuclear you still require ample water supply as coolant; where are you going to get that from? That's just one are of funding a govt will have to find. Then there will be managed retreat from the coast as the sea level rises. Govt will be expected to pay for that. You like the other FVEY partners have a bulge in the population pyramid at the 55 - 75 year quantiles where the old age pensioners are now hitting the govt coffers with everything from pension costs to increasing health costs per person as they age. Again that's more money especially with govt tax revenues decreasing as the work age quartiles decrease in numbers. So what does a govt do? Tax highly? That'll go down like a lead balloon.

Mate (and I say this with all due respect),

Is it necessary to start bringing up climate change into the RAAF thread? We keep being told discussions regarding politics are taboo on DT, doesn’t the same apply to views on climate change?

Yes the climate is changing, yes it has in the past long before man, and yes it will into the future too, and long after we disappear from the planet too.

But seeing as though the subject has been bought up ....

Australia is 0.33% of the world population (eg, not the other 99.66%), various reports suggest we produce 1% to 1.3% of global greenhouse gasses (eg, not the other 98.66% to 99%).

Again, what we do, or don’t do, our contribution is a minute amount, in global terms.

Should we be cleaner and greener? Yes, and we are, but the ‘guilt trip’ that is thrown at us by the alarmist green left is way out of proportion to reality.

If we compare Greenhouse emissions on a Continent by Continent basis, Australia is hardly a fart in the wind by comparison, and talking about farts in the wind...

(funny story, one of our supermarkets (Coles), is currently promoting ‘carbon neutral’ beef steak, what? Seriously? Are they stitching the cows arse shut so they don’t fart? Spare me!).

Ample water supply for cooling of nuclear reactor? We have ample water, what we don’t have is ample water storage, and if that wasn’t enough, we have desalination capabilities, currently Sydney and Melbourne have desal plants, and to the best of my knowledge they’ve both spent most of their life in ‘standby’ mode (whilst the taxpayer keeps paying for nothing).

Energy problem? Yes we do, only because we are very stupidly closing down cheap and reliable coal fired power stations ‘before’ the so called renewable sources are cheap enough and reliable enough, we are shooting ourselves in the foot by knee jerk reactions to global doom and gloom predictions.

Low income earners and pensions are suffering significant growth in energy costs, the people who can least afford it, but they are having their voices drowned out by the rich elitist green left of this country, it’s bullshit, complete bullshit.

Anyway.....

This is not the forum to bang on about climate change, is it?

Think I’ve made my point.

 

[Depot Dog]

I would be more inclined to go with Sqns of 12 or multiples of 12 than say 24 aircraft. Sorry but Australia got P-3 Orions in orders of 10 not 12. 1 of 10 P-3B and 2 separate orders of 10 P-3Cs. Also the C-27s were only 10 aircraft. I think you are reading too much into what has been ordered before in suggesting it would be 24 aircraft (personally I can't see us affording 4, let alone 24)

ADF Serials - Orion

You are correct about the Orions. I made an assumption that I thought was true. I looked it up and concede.

Regards
DD

 

[seaspear]

With regards to future acquisitions at the very least a decade away the R.A.A..F might be looking at sixth generation fighters, to match other nations air forces that are currently in development . The R.A.A.F would have a lot of challenges in the various sciences that it would need to follow
Certainly this article suggests that China is involved in a sixth generation fighter
China Is Working On Its Own Sixth-Generation Fighter Program: Official (thedrive.com)

 

[MickB]

While I have no doubt that China is working on 6 th generation fighters, how many times have the doomsayers (APA) taken sales pitches and propaganda as factual performance figures.

ON the B21 seems to far away and too expensive.
If we need an aircraft to perform a B1 like role in the RAAF are there any low hour B1s that the USAF would part with?
Once the B21 came operational the B1s sent to the boneyard would provide a steady stream of parts to a RAAF B1 fleet.

 

[phreeky]

If we need an aircraft to perform a B1 like role in the RAAF are there any low hour B1s that the USAF would part with?
Once the B21 came operational the B1s sent to the boneyard would provide a steady stream of parts to a RAAF B1 fleet.

An aircraft designed as a strategic bomber and then over-used for conventional weapon delivery and now with a host of maintenance issues?

Even putting all that aside, the RAAF doesn't have a recent history of purchasing 2nd hand aircraft. The RAAF has been through the pain of keeping the F-111 flying, they don't want to put themselves back into a similar position.

 

[Gooey]

Nga & Todga

An interesting conversation, thank you.

I was going to reply separately but believe this is a combo discussion.

So in note form:
- As before, if CoA wishes and ADFHQ Force Design identifies a 'best way ahead' possibility, then VLR Air may be a player for RAAF in the future
-- Also, assuming, if US releases said platforms to trusted Allies
-- It may be that additional F-35s etc and/or Army or RAN Tomahawks etc doe not have the combat radius and repeat shots that CoA requires for an ability to project kinetic effects at VLR
--- Try looking at (say) a 3-500 nm radius around Australian airfields to get an idea of the range limitations of our existing capabilities
--- AAR is only part of an answer to this
- RNZAF ACF is a perfect example of where force structure was not undertaken professionally and has had a severely detrimental outcome on NZ capability and credibility and is symptomatic of a decline in military standards to both its allies and itself
- Due to Air Powers unique characteristics, it is possible that any future ADF VLR strike capability would lean towards aircraft; that is:
-- Speed of response
-- Flexibility in mission execution
-- Firepower
-- this means that perhaps surface, or ship, or boat based rockets do not offer the best or primary means to conduct VLR strike for Australia (ie. one shot weapons; platform is too vulnerable; magazine capability is limited due to other missions; platform is required for other missions ala ASW or AAW)
- So, like advice to read Air Power 101 first before storming into platform centric arguments, I see this gentle discussion as an Air Power 'what if' conversation for RAAF because the next few decades are not looking too rosy, rather than a 'lets buy B-21 today' chat
- As an Aussie, Kiwi, and Pom citizen I feel that I have something to offer on this forum
- I was tempted to use the 'this dot on this paper is what you know about Air Power' (circa 1942 b/w Kenny and GEN MacAthur's COS) passive-aggression but thought that might not go down very well

cheers ears/kia ora/keep up the good work chaps

 

[Stampede]

Today's ABC has an article about the B-21 and future transport not in the form of C130J but rather the Embraer C-390 .

Renewed speculation Australia could purchase nuclear-capable stealth bombers after Air Force chief's US visit

Military experts say the United States is "very interested" in selling the B-21 Raiders to Australia but it could be a long time before the nation acquires one.

www.abc.net.au

Regarding the later I do wonder if it has any credibility.

Transport planes are hardly controversial and certainly the C130J would be a safe path.
But this is the first I have heard of the C-390 as a bit of a news grab.
Could there be something to this suggestion.
There is a lot to like about this aircraft in comparison to the legacy C130 going forward.

Cheers S

 

[Milne Bay]

Renewed speculation Australia could purchase nuclear-capable stealth bombers after Air Force chief's US visit

Military experts say the United States is "very interested" in selling the B-21 Raiders to Australia but it could be a long time before the nation acquires one.

www.abc.net.au

Regarding the later I do wonder if it has any credibility.

Transport planes are hardly controversial and certainly the C130J would be a safe path.
But this is the first I have heard of the C-390 as a bit of a news grab.
Could there be something to this suggestion.
There is a lot to like about this aircraft in comparison to the legacy C130 going forward.

Cheers S

It is simply one man's opinion that the existing approved purchase of C130J should be dumped.
Not credible in my view.
The US State Department has already approved the "possible foreign military sale" of 24 C-130J-30 planes and related equipment, which would replace the RAAF's existing fleet of 12 Hercules aircraft.

Who else operates the C-390?
Where are the spares and logistics situated?
Do we already have pilots qualified to fly them?
Is there a training program for pilots, crew and maintainers already in place?
For the four countries that have placed orders, it seems only five aircraft have been delivered at this stage, and those all to Brazil
MB

 

[Redlands18]

It is simply one man's opinion that the existing approved purchase of C130J should be dumped.
Not credible in my view.
The US State Department has already approved the "possible foreign military sale" of 24 C-130J-30 planes and related equipment, which would replace the RAAF's existing fleet of 12 Hercules aircraft.

Who else operates the C-390?
Where are the spares and logistics situated?
Do we already have pilots qualified to fly them?
Is there a training program for pilots, crew and maintainers already in place?
For the four countries that have placed orders, it seems only five aircraft have been delivered at this stage, and those all to Brazil
MB

Boeing Embraer - Defense Joint Venture to Develop New Markets for the C-390 Millennium - Nov 18, 2019 (mediaroom.com)
At one stage there was a partnership with Boeing developing but that fell through, could have changed everything for the C-390 if Boeing ever got its act together.

 

[buffy9]

Today's ABC has an article about the B-21 and future transport not in the form of C130J but rather the Embraer C-390 .

Renewed speculation Australia could purchase nuclear-capable stealth bombers after Air Force chief's US visit

Military experts say the United States is "very interested" in selling the B-21 Raiders to Australia but it could be a long time before the nation acquires one.

www.abc.net.au

Regarding the later I do wonder if it has any credibility.

Transport planes are hardly controversial and certainly the C130J would be a safe path.
But this is the first I have heard of the C-390 as a bit of a news grab.
Could there be something to this suggestion.
There is a lot to like about this aircraft in comparison to the legacy C130 going forward.

Cheers S

I would like to point out that, like the KC-130J, the A2AR on the KC-390 would only be applicable to the Rhinos, Growlers and any helicopters modified with refuelling probes. The ABC article mentions a modified KC-390, but I can't imagine RAAF taking on the project of fitting a refuelling boom.

On the B-21, what is actually worth giving up to pay for a squadron? The P-8A themselves can likely be modified to use the JASSM-ER as well as LRASM (and possibly any HCM) in order to add to the long-range strike complex, with the savings meaning there is still the existence of a well-rounded Joint Force, which is perhaps better for deterrence than a single niche capability.

A series of purpose-built platforms without much flexibility (there are few details on what the B-21's ISR and BS management roles constitute) isn't going to change the situation in the 2030s more than a force that can fight back.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I would like to point out that, like the KC-130J, the A2AR on the KC-390 would only be applicable to the Rhinos, Growlers and any helicopters modified with refuelling probes. The ABC article mentions a modified KC-390, but I can't imagine RAAF taking on the project of fitting a refuelling boom.

Rhinos and Growlers are apparently much easier to base out of Butterworth long term. KC-130J would be ideal for supporting a small detachment like that and flying them in and out of Butterworth.

While we can move F-35 there, it is apparently quite painful, KC-30, C17, several C-130J's, search and rescue aircraft plus what ever F-35 you are flying in, if its one or two, then all of that for just one or two. Singapore currently operates C130's, and it looking at new C130's. Malaysia also operates C130's. I can't see Australia picking something else. Eventually Singapore will have some F-35's, but its a very small number of B's, which also use the probe.

On the B-21, what is actually worth giving up to pay for a squadron? The P-8A themselves can likely be modified to use the JASSM-ER as well as LRASM (and possibly any HCM) in order to add to the long-range strike complex, with the savings meaning there is still the existence of a well-rounded Joint Force, which is perhaps better for deterrence than a single niche capability.

This. We have P8's, which are high subsonic and can carry a large payload of stand of weapons, with tremendous range and A2AR, and in-service in numbers and cost basically nothing to maintain and operate based off a very popular and proven airframe. They are our B-52's so to speak, but with a strong naval antishipping/ASuW capability. LRASM is already started for P8 intergration and is expected to be complete by 2024.
Navy Orders LRASM Integration into P-8 Aircraft - Seapower

While stealth is quite and advantage today, particularly against non-peers, remote islands or an individual ship, it is less of a game changer against OTHR, Sat surveillance and a really thick actively patrolled multi layered air defence network. Plus this aircraft doesn't work alone, and for Australia, that then spirals the cost further, for basically capability we already have in the P8.

We might as well wait for the hypersonic 6th gen bomber.

 

[buffy9]

Rhinos and Growlers are apparently much easier to base out of Butterworth long term. KC-130J would be ideal for supporting a small detachment like that and flying them in and out of Butterworth.

While we can move F-35 there, it is apparently quite painful, KC-30, C17, several C-130J's, search and rescue aircraft plus what ever F-35 you are flying in, if its one or two, then all of that for just one or two. Singapore currently operates C130's, and it looking at new C130's. Malaysia also operates C130's. I can't see Australia picking something else. Eventually Singapore will have some F-35's, but its a very small number of B's, which also use the probe.

There are definitely pros, though procuring six KC-130J to support long-term Rhino/Growler Butterworth operations may be overkill. We don't know what the situation with Malaysia and Singapore will be in a contingency and in any case, Singapore currently operates A330 A2AR like us with the added benefit of the platforms fuel load and speed. Not ideal maybe but we have the flexibility, if thst decision is made.

Outside of supporting Butterworth, it would be just another Herc, with the additional sustainment requirements. The MC-130J as a more multirole aircraft occurred to me (perhaps even to help fill the CSAR function), but that comes with extra cost - and in any case, didn't appear to be considered.

If the Army integrated refuelling probes on its aviation I could see a wider role - four CH-47F each carrying thirty pax can deliver a light CT over a decent distance already - if operating off an LHD, and/or refuelled in air by KC-130J, then the standoff is significant. Alternatively, it gives SF more options in terms of reach.

Looking at how we can deploy F-35 easier, faster... that is probably an area that requires work. It would definitely help to have more F-35 operators in the immediate region, but we can't bet on that.

 

[Julian 82]

Rhinos and Growlers are apparently much easier to base out of Butterworth long term. KC-130J would be ideal for supporting a small detachment like that and flying them in and out of Butterworth.

While we can move F-35 there, it is apparently quite painful, KC-30, C17, several C-130J's, search and rescue aircraft plus what ever F-35 you are flying in, if its one or two, then all of that for just one or two. Singapore currently operates C130's, and it looking at new C130's. Malaysia also operates C130's. I can't see Australia picking something else. Eventually Singapore will have some F-35's, but its a very small number of B's, which also use the probe.


This. We have P8's, which are high subsonic and can carry a large payload of stand of weapons, with tremendous range and A2AR, and in-service in numbers and cost basically nothing to maintain and operate based off a very popular and proven airframe. They are our B-52's so to speak, but with a strong naval antishipping/ASuW capability. LRASM is already started for P8 intergration and is expected to be complete by 2024.
Navy Orders LRASM Integration into P-8 Aircraft - Seapower

While stealth is quite and advantage today, particularly against non-peers, remote islands or an individual ship, it is less of a game changer against OTHR, Sat surveillance and a really thick actively patrolled multi layered air defence network. Plus this aircraft doesn't work alone, and for Australia, that then spirals the cost further, for basically capability we already have in the P8.

We might as well wait for the hypersonic 6th gen bomber.

I don’t know anything more than you do. However, the open source information indicates that the B-21 takes levels of radar, IR, acoustic and even visual stealth to a new level and it is designed to operate alone, day and night and unescorted (with it’s own onboard EW, targeting and ability to defend itself by carrying air to air missiles).

I am not confident Malaysia will agree to allow our aircraft to be based in Butterworth if things kick off with China. Like other countries in the region, Malaysia is walking a fine line and does not want to be seen to be picking sides. Long range strike from continental Australia gives you options which we don’t have with the F-35. I expect China will go after tankers very early in the conflict. That is why they have PL-15 AAMs so I don’t think we can bank on on Air to air refueling to extend the range of our fighters. For the same reason P-8s will also be vulnerable if we use them for stand off strike. They have huge radar signatures and could be picked off by stealthy J-20s shooting long range air to air missiles.

 

[Todjaeger]

I don’t know anything more than you do. However, the open source information indicates that the B-21 takes levels of radar, IR, acoustic and even visual stealth to a new level and it is designed to operate alone, day and night and unescorted (with it’s own onboard EW, targeting and ability to defend itself by carrying air to air missiles).

I would question any open sources which claim the B-21 Raider would have an air-to-air self-defence capability. Particularly since both USAF and NG factsheets make no mention of such a capability, which would not really make sense for a long-ranged bomber to begin with.

I am not confident Malaysia will agree to allow our aircraft to be based in Butterworth if things kick off with China. Like other countries in the region, Malaysia is walking a fine line and does not want to be seen to be picking sides. Long range strike from continental Australia gives you options which we don’t have with the F-35. I expect China will go after tankers very early in the conflict. That is why they have PL-15 AAMs so I don’t think we can bank on on Air to air refueling to extend the range of our fighters. For the same reason P-8s will also be vulnerable if we use them for stand off strike. They have huge radar signatures and could be picked off by stealthy J-20s shooting long range air to air missiles.

Can someone, anyone, provide realistic targets that Australia would be carrying out long-ranged conventional strikes against using aircraft operating from bases in mainland Australia, that would require intercontinental range? So far, it still seems as though everyone wants the flash new kit without really putting together a coherent rationale for the acquisition, which might not even be possible.

Something for people to also consider. Assuming that the P-8 Poseidon can be modified to carry missiles from the JASSM family and the related LRASM, this would provide a Poseidon with a standoff strike capability which could range from 200 n miles out to 1,000 n miles, depending on which missile is carried. Whilst a Poseidon might have a large RCS, if firing from literally hundreds of kms away, a PRC fighter even with very long-ranged AAM's would have difficulty unless it was already within comparatively close proximity to the P-8 at time of launch. There would also be the little matter of the PRC having sufficient C4ISR to know that a P-8 was somewhere that they might want to keep an eye on and/or have an aircraft aloft close enough to be able to get a shot off with.

 

[ngatimozart]

Mate (and I say this with all due respect),

Is it necessary to start bringing up climate change into the RAAF thread? We keep being told discussions regarding politics are taboo on DT, doesn’t the same apply to views on climate change?

Yes the climate is changing, yes it has in the past long before man, and yes it will into the future too, and long after we disappear from the planet too.

But seeing as though the subject has been bought up ....

Australia is 0.33% of the world population (eg, not the other 99.66%), various reports suggest we produce 1% to 1.3% of global greenhouse gasses (eg, not the other 98.66% to 99%).

Again, what we do, or don’t do, our contribution is a minute amount, in global terms.

Should we be cleaner and greener? Yes, and we are, but the ‘guilt trip’ that is thrown at us by the alarmist green left is way out of proportion to reality.

If we compare Greenhouse emissions on a Continent by Continent basis, Australia is hardly a fart in the wind by comparison, and talking about farts in the wind...

(funny story, one of our supermarkets (Coles), is currently promoting ‘carbon neutral’ beef steak, what? Seriously? Are they stitching the cows arse shut so they don’t fart? Spare me!).

Ample water supply for cooling of nuclear reactor? We have ample water, what we don’t have is ample water storage, and if that wasn’t enough, we have desalination capabilities, currently Sydney and Melbourne have desal plants, and to the best of my knowledge they’ve both spent most of their life in ‘standby’ mode (whilst the taxpayer keeps paying for nothing).

Energy problem? Yes we do, only because we are very stupidly closing down cheap and reliable coal fired power stations ‘before’ the so called renewable sources are cheap enough and reliable enough, we are shooting ourselves in the foot by knee jerk reactions to global doom and gloom predictions.

Low income earners and pensions are suffering significant growth in energy costs, the people who can least afford it, but they are having their voices drowned out by the rich elitist green left of this country, it’s bullshit, complete bullshit.

Anyway.....

This is not the forum to bang on about climate change, is it?

Think I’ve made my point.

Hi John,

DISCLAIMER: I have a post graduate qualification in the physical environment sciences.

I have included it because of the credible science behind it and the fact that govts are preparing for it. That takes funding and not little amounts but large amounts. All of this has an impact upon the monies available for defence funding. I agree that reliable cost efficient renewable sources are somewhat lacking to put it mildly. And I will side track a bit in that currently most solar and wind generation capabilities require huge amounts of carbon inputs during their manufacture. Whether the climatologists, glaciologists, oceanographers, et. al., and the climate change deniers are right or wrong is actually moot in this discussion because govts are going to spend funds preparing and mitigating for it. Of course they'll try and limit their expenditure as much as possible, but their electorates will remind them when it comes to election times. That's why I mentioned it, the aging population, and the total world population, because of all the extras that govts will have to deal with. Sometimes we actually have to lift our beady eyes above the parapet and look out at a world that is far wider than just purely defence.


I do respect you and your opinions but I think that you might still be over sensitive from the Black Caps knocking you out of the T-20 cricket and the Maroons winning the State of Origin series

 

[Julian 82]

I would question any open sources which claim the B-21 Raider would have an air-to-air self-defence capability. Particularly since both USAF and NG factsheets make no mention of such a capability, which would not really make sense for a long-ranged bomber to begin with.



Can someone, anyone, provide realistic targets that Australia would be carrying out long-ranged conventional strikes against using aircraft operating from bases in mainland Australia, that would require intercontinental range? So far, it still seems as though everyone wants the flash new kit without really putting together a coherent rationale for the acquisition, which might not even be possible.

Something for people to also consider. Assuming that the P-8 Poseidon can be modified to carry missiles from the JASSM family and the related LRASM, this would provide a Poseidon with a standoff strike capability which could range from 200 n miles out to 1,000 n miles, depending on which missile is carried. Whilst a Poseidon might have a large RCS, if firing from literally hundreds of kms away, a PRC fighter even with very long-ranged AAM's would have difficulty unless it was already within comparatively close proximity to the P-8 at time of launch. There would also be the little matter of the PRC having sufficient C4ISR to know that a P-8 was somewhere that they might want to keep an eye on and/or have an aircraft aloft close enough to be able to get a shot off with.

It depends on how much defence in depth China is able to achieve in the coming decades. Will they acquire overseas bases in countries in the region? Will they have surface action groups with air warfare destroyers and carrier battle groups in the Sunda Strait, South Pacific and Indian Ocean. In such scenarios it may be difficult for P-8s to reach targets in the South China Sea even with 1000 nm stand off range.

I am certainly not talking about hitting targets in mainland China but the ability to hit mobile anti-ship ballistic missile sites on those artificial islands (or on overseas bases), as an example, would be crucial to ensure our navy and army can manoeuvre within the region.

There is talk in defence articles about the B-21 being armed with air to air missiles for self defence. It was certainly the plan for the A-12 back in the 90s. I think it makes a lot of sense for a VLO stand-in bomber to be able to defend itself from fighters. I don’t see any obstacles to it in terms of technology (given what they have achieved to date with the F-35).

 

[ngatimozart]

There is talk in defence articles about the B-21 being armed with air to air missiles for self defence. It was certainly the plan for the A-12 back in the 90s. I think it makes a lot of sense for a VLO stand-in bomber to be able to defend itself from fighters. I don’t see any obstacles to it in terms of technology (given what they have achieved to date with the F-35).

"There is talk in defence articles ...". That's all it is - TALK. Those writers know no more than you or I. They aren't part of the program and if they were they'd be keeping their mouths zipped shut tight. You are basing your arguments on pure supposition with no basis in fact. The only info we do know about it is what Northrup Grumman and the USAF have released into the public domain and that is sweet stuff all. So unless you have facts that are more than supposition it's not cast in stone.

 

[Julian 82]

"There is talk in defence articles ...". That's all it is - TALK. Those writers know no more than you or I. They aren't part of the program and if they were they'd be keeping their mouths zipped shut tight. You are basing your arguments on pure supposition with no basis in fact. The only info we do know about it is what Northrup Grumman and the USAF have released into the public domain and that is sweet stuff all. So unless you have facts that are more than supposition it's not cast in stone.

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.

 

[ngatimozart]

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.

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.