John Fedup
The Bunker Group
As per comments in the ADF thread, B-21s are not an option for several reasons. A DOA fantasy.
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
I think what we're really looking for is what I hope PCA and/or NGAD will deliver - an F111 range-class multirole jet with all aspect VLO, advanced sensors, data sharing and EW capability. In the mean time I think we're just going to have to make the most of what we've got (and that ain't too shabby)..
Way I see it it wont happen, Budget and political limitations. Best thing we can do going forward is acquire longer ranged weapons while remaining business as usual for the aircraft them selves, IF in the future some nation decides to build a small bomber (ie FB-22 or F-111 sort of thing) based off a large fighter type aircraft and the cost is reasonable then MAYBE we could have a look at it but for now there are no realistic options so this entire discussion of B-21's is distracting the RAAF and CoA from realistic goals. Look at long range missiles, glide bombs etc but leave it at that.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Nobody. There would be no point taking a backward step to a 4+ Gen aircraft on this one. We're better off just going down the JSM/LRASM/JASSM-ER/XR etc. path IMO.
Not aimed at any one in particular, but any posters thinking that the ADF can / will acquire the B-21 better think again because that is fantasyland stuff and us Mods don't like fantasyland stuff. It's also against the rules. Green ink at the moment, but if pushed can soon change to the grumpy red.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Russia is considering new bombers but funding is a challenge and China probably is as well. A SU-57 derived bomber design was a consideration at one point, similar to the FB-22 concept. Given the J-20's size, a derivative of it could be an option for China. From a Russian and Chinese perspective, the billions required to develop a new strategic stealthy bomber might be be better applied to increased hypersonic missile capability.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I don’t know squat about this site so I am looking forward Australian member comments on this article. My quick observation is Australia’s purchase of F-35s was for replacement of aging 4th Gen fighters, just like most other buyers. While strike capability is limited (from an Australian perspective due to range), it is better than classic Hornets. Like other JSF partners, the F-35 is about multirole fighter replacement and business opportunities for aerospace. There is nothing available to replace or improve on Australia’s former F-111 capability other than the future B-21 Raider
or a substantial inventory of long range missiles. Thoughts???
Australia’s F-35s: Lessons from a problematic purchase
or a substantial inventory of long range missiles. Thoughts???
Australia’s F-35s: Lessons from a problematic purchase
Others may know him better but from what I have read about him I would suggest;
He had 34 years in the RAAF finishing as an O-6 (Group Captain),
He has flown F-111s and it would appear he is/was a fan,
He seems to buy into the theme postulated by the two Chiefs of Air Force last week that casts out the ADFs push to purple in favour of a larger stake and consequent recapitalisation of the RAAF.
other that the above he is better credentialed than many who comment on these matters.
I find myself frustrated with authors who are critical of decisions made, yet offer no viable alternative.
If as the article implies the F35 was the wrong choise then what was the right one and why?
I also find the negative tone about they need to upgrade early models to later standards strange.
Has there ever been a combat aircraft in the RAAF that was not upgraded during its time in service? (except perhaps during the war years)
Was not the F111 he himself flew upgraded several times, therefore adding additional costs to it ?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Indeed, I also got the impression that the author was very much RAAF service-centric, which I also found somewhat humourous given some of what he wrote, specifically about the need to defend airbases from threats like long-ranged land attack missiles from PRC forces. To provide defence against such a threat, either a CAP and AEW&C capability would need to be covering the airbase and approaches, and/or GBAD systems would need to be in place. IIRC Australia's GBAD systems are operated by the RRAA, which is under the Army...
One of the other things which struck me about the article is that the author never mentions, and possibly never even considered, that other Australian services might be better positioned in a number of scenarios to carry out a long-ranged strike than using RAAF fighter or hypothetical strike/bomber aircraft. It also seems that the author has ignored the reality that Australia lacks the resources to develop a long-ranged tactical or strategic strike aircraft, and that the last such aircraft really exported was the F-111C...
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Exactly. The alternatives to F35 were either one of the eurocanards or a 4.5 gen evolved teen series fighter. All of these offer inferior strike capability to the F35. It beggars belief that so many critics seem to operate under the impression that there was a better option available.
I think that you all are missing his point. He's not arguing that the F-35 is the wrong buy, but that the acquisition process used was wrong. Secondly, he's arguing that the methodology used for threat and force structure assessment by Australia may not be the correct one and that other methodologies exist that maybe better. So whilst he appears to be arguing with a single service bias, in fact the ramifications of his arguments affect the whole of the ADF force structure, not just the RAAF. If you follow his links in his article, such as this one ANZUS in Trumpland—should we have seen it coming? | The Strategist you will see what his talking about. It has quite an interesting diagram in it with four possible outcomes and an explanation to go with it.
Takao
The Bunker Group
I agree with @ngatimozart - my read of that article was using AIR 6000 as an example of why rushing to decision isn't always good, and highlighting that making decisions without considering a holistic approach is generally a gamble. I agree with him too - I think that AIR 6000 was flawed and the all in gamble on F-35 isn't necessarily in the Joint Force's benefit. There is also some very good questions about the design time, the....creative....assessment of Lockheed's marketing documents and the obsolete when introduced issues that are bigger than the ADF. Note that the last one I don't hold anyone in uniform or civilians accountable for - there has to be a better way sure; but what that way is I have no idea.
But all of this is kinda ironic looking at B-21 supporters....that seem to be holding a solution looking for a problem.
AIR 6000 was to replace F-111s and F/A-18s. I've seen some work recently that suggests some are trying to forget about the first one; but the F-35 is a replacement for the Pigs. That has been.....massaged by the RAAF as the first three Sqn will be 3, 75 and 77 - with a claimed need for another 30 JSF for 1 and 6 Sqn. That decision still hasn't been made.
But - the strike role is so much more than a F-111 now. In the 1970s the F-111 was it - it was the long-range strike capability. Now we have so many options - all of which share one main thing: they don't have a crew. Our current strike platforms are DDG, FFG, FFH, SS, F-35, F/A-18, P-8 and L8113. Also a bunch of computer savvy peoples in dark, air-conditioned rooms. All of them have options that beat a F-111, and in many cases can beat the B-21. Furthermore, what ASPI has forgotten in their latest "articles" is that they can all leave Australia.... So if I want to strike....5000 km from Amberley, I don't have to leave from Amberley. I could leave from, Diego Garcia. Or Guam. Or Singapore. Or Tripoli. Or.... The other advantage is that missiles are cheap. A B-2 is ~$2 bn and a AGM-186 is about $2 m. So I can buy 1000 AGM-186 for a B-2. That's....a lot of options and firepower. And I risk - no one.
TLDR - our ex-CAFs have forgotten they signed off that the F-35 could do the job of a F-111. And they forget it's a Joint Force now....
And a large number of missiles can be located in and launched from a large number of fixed or mobile locations.
On another note .... I am certainly not advocating for B21 or getting into fantasy fleet but there’s seems to be growing noise in that space coming from industry pubs...it may end up being a bit like the decade long campaign F22 for Australia but there is certainly a fair bit of press. Cant see it happening but it would not be the first time that Australia has elected to operate a small fleet of very large and very expensive planes. Wedgetail, A330, P8 ...
On another note .... I am certainly not advocating for B21 or getting into fantasy fleet but there’s seems to be growing noise in that space coming from industry pubs...it may end up being a bit like the decade long campaign F22 for Australia but there is certainly a fair bit of press. Cant see it happening but it would not be the first time that Australia has elected to operate a small fleet of very large and very expensive planes. Wedgetail, A330, P8 ...
t68
Well-Known Member
All what you say is true that the F35 can operate from host nation infrastructure and or increase its operational range using AAR assets, the object of using something like a future b21 that it gives options to strike at range from home infrastructure if needed as those overseas bases may not be available. When you take into account the armament of a single B2 of 16xM84 we are looking at strike package of 8xF35A plus the supporting enablers the risk is actually greater using the multirole fighters at 85mil each 8 aircraft will cost 680mil plus the cost of KC30A
It comes down to cost v target objective, also the AGM-186 only fits in large bombers like B52 using that as a guide there are 12xB52H & 95 B52G held at ARMARC those H are in deep preservation and all 12 could be returned to flying status within a few years...…….
PS:
only joking about the BUFF's in RAAF service
Return of the ‘Ghost Rider’
Having no first hand knowledge I cannot say if Air 6000 was rushed or not.
The government of the day deemed the need urgent.
If there was no viable alternative to the F35 then why go through a multi year evaluation process adding further cost and delay. Canada anyone.
One paragraph of the article states the process was rushed then the next complains it took so long that interim aircraft needed to be bought.
The force structure that was said to be ignored is in fact in the process of coming into being.
HIMARS, NASAMS and strategic strike through new subs rather than non existent strike bombers.
The government of the day deemed the need urgent.
If there was no viable alternative to the F35 then why go through a multi year evaluation process adding further cost and delay. Canada anyone.
One paragraph of the article states the process was rushed then the next complains it took so long that interim aircraft needed to be bought.
The force structure that was said to be ignored is in fact in the process of coming into being.
HIMARS, NASAMS and strategic strike through new subs rather than non existent strike bombers.
Last edited:
Does this mean that you suggest we have large fleets of aircraft with specialist roles in numbers sufficient to do....what?
Or that we should look for an AEW platform with Tanking facilities and Maritime Surveillance and interdiction capabilities?
oldsig
P8 major problem is that it doesn't carry any missiles of any significant range. Harpoon/Slam-er are ~300 km. It isn't that stealthy either. Flying something like a P8 within 300km of an airbase is probably not a great idea. Fitting them with NSM or/and LRASM would give them a significant improvement in terms of strike. NSM is more likely to get through, LRASM gives best of all worlds with long range, stealth, sensors and punch. I don't think the airforce sees this as even a discussion, they want a dedicated bomber, like we have to bomb the Germans.
P8 has significant payload and significant range. 5 internal and 6 external on each P8 is pretty significant. All loaded with LRASM would be 12 tons (about what a F-111 could carry), verse the B2 which has a 18 t payload (and I would assume B21 would likely be around that). Combined with what our F-35 and SH force and carry, it really doesn't seem to indicate a hole that needs to be filled.
The P8 is a lot better than the P3. The original plan was that the P3 would replace the F-111 strike capability. Which is when we started to look at Super Hornets.
Now we have Superhornets, F35's and P8's. NSM's fitted internally into F-35's is a great long range strike package. LRASM on P8's and Super Hornets would be very complimentary. Combined with Subs and surface ships, that is plenty capability for a nation like Australia with no obvious place to bomb.
You could add a squadron of F-35B's, a carrier, 4 x more P8's, all the LRASM we can carry, dedicated 16 cell VLS launchers on each of the subs, bump the Hunters to 48VLS and still have change for less than a 3rd of what acquiring and operating b21's would be. B21's that would only be able to bomb Indonesia, Singapore, PNG and Fiji from the mainland.
P8 has significant payload and significant range. 5 internal and 6 external on each P8 is pretty significant. All loaded with LRASM would be 12 tons (about what a F-111 could carry), verse the B2 which has a 18 t payload (and I would assume B21 would likely be around that). Combined with what our F-35 and SH force and carry, it really doesn't seem to indicate a hole that needs to be filled.
The P8 is a lot better than the P3. The original plan was that the P3 would replace the F-111 strike capability. Which is when we started to look at Super Hornets.
Now we have Superhornets, F35's and P8's. NSM's fitted internally into F-35's is a great long range strike package. LRASM on P8's and Super Hornets would be very complimentary. Combined with Subs and surface ships, that is plenty capability for a nation like Australia with no obvious place to bomb.
You could add a squadron of F-35B's, a carrier, 4 x more P8's, all the LRASM we can carry, dedicated 16 cell VLS launchers on each of the subs, bump the Hunters to 48VLS and still have change for less than a 3rd of what acquiring and operating b21's would be. B21's that would only be able to bomb Indonesia, Singapore, PNG and Fiji from the mainland.