See ASPI article "Senior US official says Washington would consider supplying B-21 bombers to Australia" dated August 23, 2022.
Pete Comment
Quite an eye watering ASPI title. I've hithertoo discounted Australia buying B-2 or
B-21 stealth bombers on cost grounds. I've also always assumed that, as with the
F-22s, the US would guard its technical supremacy by never selling stealth bombers, even to Five Eye allies.
The B-2s' cost is around US$4 Billion each in US 2022 dollars (only US$2 Billion in 1997 dollars) for the 21 B-2s ever built - and only for the USAF. B-2s are also the most expensive aircraft to maintain in history - with each B-2 flight hour requiring 119 hours of maintenance.
Even if 100 new improved B-21s are sold to the USAF the price for a foreign customer ie. Australia (adding training, spares, basing, profit etc) would surely cost more than AU$2 Billion each. If the US ever gave the green light Australia might be looking at purchasing 12.
At that price only nuclear weapons delivery would make sense and differentiate Australian B-21s from the Super Hornet and F-35A fighter-bombers that Australia already has.
Still, I think an Australian nuclear deterrent (against China) would make more sense than 8 AUKUS SSNs (that could only project 25 tonnes of conventional high explosive each with their torpedoes and missiles). So I now think AUKUS SSNs are not what Australia needs - because they won't deter a nuclear armed China.
Other arms of an Aussie nuclear deterrent might include:
- long range missiles (see the 25m high "Gilmours")
and
- DSME KSS-III SSBs (ie. conventionally propelled ballistic missile submarines). Kym Bergmann at APDR has written an excellent article on the KSS-IIIs.
Even little Israel has been able to afford a nuclear triad, with Jericho MRBMs to ICBMs, nuclear armed fighter bombers and Dolphin SSBs. This allows Israel to pursue independent foreign and defence policies - without following the US into every war startable.
13 comments:
Hello Pete
SOON OR NEVER
Thanks for the link to the APDR article on the potential for the RAN to replace a Collins LOTE project with a KSS-III buy. The article has highlighted the need for Australia's submarine force recapitalization program to gain an increase in focus on
(1) value for money;
(2) speed of execution; and
(3) program risk reduction
Many observers must be hoping that the Commonwealth government will make service entry date its highest priority.
In that case, an offer to buy the 3 block one KSS III boats already in the water, plus one more identical boat (for assembly in Australia ?), may be the Seoul option worth looking at.
The SK Navy could bring forward its buy of three extra block two boats (to give SK 6 identically configured block 2) and sell the earlier block 1s to give Australia 4 identically configured boats of its own.
Putting existing KSS IIIs into RAN service means changing nothing but the language and the alphabet used in the boat's systems and training material.
Queue blood curdling howls of anguish in all the expected quarters.
The RAN submarine service cannot fight with unbuilt boats, nor with re-polished orphan antiques, nor with new kit they have yet to create fully functioning training and logistic pipelines for.
Think lower execution risk (than Collins class LOTE).
Think rapidly shortening strategic horizons.
Think building strong partnerships in Asia.
Then open the floodgates (in the 2022/23 Budget) for the money needed to make this happen by 2027.
BUREAUCRATUS LEX AUGUST 24 2022
20,000lbs of internal storage or half of below
2 internal bays for ordnance and payload with an official limit of 40,000 lb (18,000 kg); maximum estimated limit is 50,000 lb (23,000 kg)[70]
80× 500 lb (230 kg) class bombs (Mk-82, GBU-38) mounted on Bomb Rack Assembly (BRA)
36× 750 lb (340 kg) CBU class bombs on BRA
16× 2,000 lb (910 kg) class bombs (Mk-84, GBU-31) mounted on Rotary Launcher Assembly (RLA)
16× B61 or B83 nuclear bombs on RLA (strategic mission)
Standoff weapon: AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) and AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM)[163][164]
2× GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator[165]
Pete
We will really have to agree to disagree on this one.
Without a nuclear deterrent this purchase makes no sense for Australia. That is still illegal under Australian law. I can't see the current parliament voting to change that. With the Liberal party in disarray, that may not change for some years.
My personal objection is not the political one though, but cost. Maintaining a nuclear deterrent is a huge cost. Credible ex-UK submarine commanders have questioned it, arguing that the cost is so high that maintaining it has hollowed out the navy while politically, there is no guarantee leadership is credible to make its threat real.
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/counting-the-costs-of-an-independent-nuclear-deterrent/
I think the Ukraine war is proving that SCMs launched from submarines, even old Russian Kilos, are a difficult threat to counter. We need to acquire the ability to locally manufacture (lots of) Tomahawks.
Hi Pete,
The publicly available specs show the B21 could possibly fly from Australia to Tokyo without refueling. That means Australia would have a lot of refueling and rearming options if it go the B21.
I think the B21 would be like the F-111. We'd by a few, and then keep for about 50 years. That's pretty good value for money, I think. And the current climate is ideal for buying them. Try doing that 15 years ago. Labor didn't even exercise the option to build the 4th Hobart.
As for cost, I've always wondered if it's possible to get a stripped down version, without the coating. This would reduce item and maintenance costs, though obviously I don't know by how much.
Of course- would the trade off of being detected sooner be worth it?
Anyway, be interesting to see how much the US is willing to sell us
Have a good one!
Andrew
Hi BUREAUCRATUS LEX AUGUST 24 2022
True.
Australia's Federal and South Australia's State governments need to reason that the 9 x Hunter class Future Frigate project in Adelaide should represent a sufficient injection of Federal money into Adelaide.
Therefore no reason why future Australian KSS-III SSK-SSBs shouldn't be built in South Korea in half the time and half the cost of ASC's special magic.
Cheers Pete
Hi suffolkowner @Aug 24, 2022, 11:06:00 AM
All those bombload specs look nice.
Of the B-2 or B-21?
Can you supply a link to prove it?
Pete
Hi Anon @Aug 24, 2022, 11:13:00 AM
Laws, to permit nuclear weapons for Australia, can be changed by Australia's Federal Parliament that makes and changes laws all the time.
I'm specifically not suggesting 4 Australian SSBNs nor the 6 Aus SSNs needed to protect them.
The whole thrust of my argument is that SSNs are not what Australia needs.
We really need an Israel like triad that includes CONVENTIONALLY PROPELLED ballistic missile submarines, also land based ICBMs (boosters are in the works) and aircraft delivery.
SSNs are restricted to conventional weapons - by the "Law" of SSN weapons ambiguity avoidance, which is upheld by the UK RN and USN. Nuclear armed Tomahawks were under discussion during the Trump presidency but rejected by Biden - I believe due to ambiguity fears.
This means future Aus SSNs would be no real deterrent to a determined nuclear armed China.
And Australia cannot rely on the US nuclear umbrella forever. A Trump back in 2025, or his isolationist duplicates might remove that umbrella, when they feel like it.
Do you really think that Australia threatening conventional warhead land attack missiles against the Chinese mainland would NOT draw a nuclear weapon counter-threat?
Regards Pete
Hi Andrew @Aug 24, 2022, 6:22:00 PM
Thanks. But, on second thoughts, Australia buying US$2 Billion dollar B-21s wouldn't make sense unless they had a nuclear bombload which might itself cost $1 Billion. Such a complete package is too expensive so we need to choose one or the other.
Also B-21s would be up there with US Virginia SSNs both in extreme economic and tied to
decades more of following the US into war excursions political costs.
There is also the high UNlikelihood that the US would ever clear sensitive B-21 or Virginia SSN technology for Australian use.
Future Australian ICBMs (based just south of Alice Springs) could get to Beijing, so we wouldn't need to buy elusive B-21s for that. Australia is quietly putting 2 of the ICBM "ducks in a row" the way I read it. The third "duck" being on Russell Offices' records for decades.
Australia's already bought and stealthy F-35As could carry nuclear weapons - not all the way to Beijing but, if Mid-air refueled, a fair way to a Chinese Fleet or to a new build Chinese island missile/bomber base.
Cheers Pete
PS. My newly acquired Baby Orangutan avatar has an evil nuclear mind.
The following on 2 x US B-2s visiting Amberley RAAF base in Australia is of interest, though no advertisement for Australia buying 12 x B-21s for around AU$35 Billion all up.
US Air Force Magazine, July 12, 2022, reported https://www.airforcemag.com/b-2s-deploy-to-australia-for-bomber-task-force-mission/
"A pair of B-2 bombers from Whiteman Air Force Base, [Missouri, USA] arrived in Australia on July 10, starting a new bomber task force mission in the Indo-Pacific just days after the Air Force completed its last one.
The B-2s from the 509th Bomb Wing landed at Royal Australian Air Force Base Amberley, according to a service press release, and will take part in “training missions and strategic deterrence missions with allies, partners and joint forces.”
“This deployment of the B-2 to Australia demonstrates and enhances the readiness and lethality of our long-range penetrating strike force,” Lt. Col. Andrew Kousgaard, 393rd Expeditionary Bomb Squadron commander, said in a statement. “We look forward to training and enhancing our interoperability with our RAAF teammates, as well as partners and allies across the Indo-Pacific as we meet PACAF objectives.”
The bombers’ deployment will also support the Enhanced Cooperation Initiative under the Force Posture Agreement first signed more than a decade ago by the U.S. and Australia.
Collaboration between the two nations has increased even more recently, with the announcement of the AUKUS agreement, which will include enhanced air and space cooperation, as the allies look to challenge Chinese influence in the region.
More concretely, recent bomber missions in the Indo-Pacific have included training with the Royal Australian Air Force.
In 2020, Whiteman B-2s deployed to Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia then flew over Australian training areas while Marines and Australian troops trained together to control the strikes. In 2016, a B-2 from Whiteman landed at RAAF Base Tindal. Most recently, B-1s that deployed to Guam in June conducted hot pit refueling operations with the RAAF in Australia.
Those B-1B Lancers arrived home to Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D., on July 4 to finish their bomber task force rotation. Less than a week later, the B-2s from Whiteman arrived in Australia.
This past March, a B-2 from the 509th Bomb Wing became the first bomber of its kind to land at RAAF Base Amberley, part of a quick turnaround amid more than 50 hours of flying. During that mission, the B-2 integrated with Australian F-35s, EA-18 Growlers, and F/A-18F Super Hornets, as well as American F-16s and F-22s." [see video https://youtu.be/7DKx296GOkA ]
Hi Pete,
We suffer the indignation of not have any platforms that truely represent the phenomenon
of 'DETERENCE". There is absolutely no weapon in Australias arsenel that would make any aggressor think twice about going to war with Australia. There is "NO" fear of retribution whatsoever. Hear lies the sum of all our fears.
The last time we had a long range strike capability that could approach very fast, strike and bolt, was the F111.This was the "Deterent" that brought stability in our region. Since then Defence has surrounded ourselves with all the platforms that are short range, low impact and far to slow, that are aimed at fighting within a range of less than 800klms from home base. Just great if you want to go to war with NZ or New Guinea. Have we not learned anything from the WW2 Japanese onslaught.
Australia still has that "Tryanny of Distance" approach even today. Thats only effective if you have the capability to reach out long distances, fire long range missiles and 'skeddadle". We are talking thousands of kilometers from OZ.
Frankly, if there was a weapon we do need, then the B21 is exactly the priority one platform. The B21 will be available long before Defence redesigns the Torpedo Layout of
any sub they decide on. Australia has the second best EW capability on the planet, and the missing piece is that forward strike capability.
I get the impression that defence is placing a "Lot" of faith in drone sub technology, primarily to give the impression that it would solve a lot of manning and life support issues. I am aware the concept my be abhorent to some, but there is only so many bickies in the bickie tin, and the clock is ticking faster than ever. If Anduril can come up with the goods, then we could better positioned all round. Yes, I know it wont be a fully loaded Collins alt but, just maybe, it may force us all to think outside the square and give Australia a smart result instead of wrestling with convention.
Hi Lee McCurtayne @Aug 27, 2022, 1:14:00 PM
Australia DID have some conventional deterrence using the F-111s, but this was aimed at Jakarta. When our F-111s finally arrived in 1973 the Indonesian threat had evaporated. A
threat from a nuclear armed China in our neighboourhood was not envisaged.
The only Australian weapons that could deter China would need to be nuclear warhead capable - to threaten unacceptable damage to China (in the tradition of the UK or French deterrent against Russia).
On third thought I'm becoming more enthusiastic about B-21s as I'll detail tomorrow. It may not be coincidental that a retired Air Chief Marshal has main "joint" leadership of the current Defence Strategic Review https://www.defence.gov.au/about/reviews-inquiries/defence-strategic-review .
Regards Pete
Hi again Lee McCurtayne @Aug 28, 2022, 10:59:00 AM
The Anduril project for LDUUV prototypes for Australia indeed looks like substantial Australian interest. https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/defence-tech-company-anduril-expands-to-australia/
I'd also hazard that Australia is involved in the trials of the larger US Orca (Exmouth Navy Pier? --> Cocos/Keeling possible midpoint --> to Diego Garcia USN Base?) rather quietly.
https://www.diveningaloo.com.au/scuba-diving-tours/the-exmouth-navy-pier/ and https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2022/06/orca-doctrine-developing-australian-ssn.html
Regards Pete
Post a Comment