Anonymous, on Nov 1, 2022, made some very valid comments (Pete's inevitably added some [...] comments) as follows:
"Various Australian Department of Defence and ASPI comments [and SubMatts here and here] have hinted at B-21s for months. I suspect this was ever since they [Aus DoD] realised there were no quick solutions for UK or US designed SSNs.
B-21s under AUKUS [eg. developed under AUKUS' hypersonic ALCM heading] would help justify the program after the original [SSN centric?] purpose failed.
B-21s would be a high cost capability allowing nuclear strike options. Yet we are already covered under the US nuclear umbrella (US Extended Nuclear Deterrence Security guarantees). So why spend a lot more duplicating that?
My concern is that B-21s still do not solve Australia’s submarine problem. If the Collins Class are not replaced within a suitable timeframe and a “gap” occurs, we will lose the sailors and maintenance people at a time of low unemployment when skilled people will easily get work elsewhere. Developing the skills to maintain and operate subs - SSK or SSN - is a hard won capability that takes decades to develop and not all navies have succeeded at it. Submarines can still perform many missions strike aircraft cannot, in all months of the year.
We seem to be focusing our
long term defence decisions on a very narrow range of scenarios with China. I
support the US alliance. But what if, 20 years from now, Australia had a
conflict with another regional power other than China where the USA did not
wish to be involved? It happened to the UK with the Falklands. Submarines then
might be very valuable."
3 comments:
A well informed US take on the role of Australia's future SSNs, written today, are to:
"patrol the Taiwan Strait and western Pacific, countering China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) alongside U.S. and Japanese forces."
See https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/save-the-aukus-partnership-%E2%80%94-share-the-b-21-bomber/ar-AA13ENbj
Pete Comment
There you have it. Our AUKUS subs will amount to a sure obligation for Australia getting into a war with China.
The "price" of B-21s would also carry the obligation that Australia gets into a war with China, when called upon.
What to do?
B-21s NOT SUCH A GREAT IDEA FOR AUSTRALIA
The Lowy Institute's "Interpreter" has published an excellect essay by prominent Australian strategic thinker, Professor Hugh White, titled:
"Australia and B‑21 bombers: less bang for the buck" dated November 8, 2022 at https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/australia-b-21-bombers-less-bang-buck
In it White convincingly argues any future Australian B-21s would be too few in number, too expensive and too specialised to perform their two likely roles, ie:
- attacking mainland China (unable to cripple China but instead just making China angrier)
and
- for airstrikes against Chinese fleets and Chinese bases on islands nearer Australia (Australia's current ALCM firing P-8s, F-35As, future "Ghost Bat" UCAVs or future Australian MRBMs, could perform such a job cheaper).
See much more at Lowy's https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/australia-b-21-bombers-less-bang-buck
and see
PETE COMMENT
The US mainly developed B-2s (to be replaced by B-21s) stealth bombers in the 1980s as stealthy NUCLEAR WEAPON platforms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit#Armaments_and_equipment against Cold War Russia and to a lesser extent China.
Unless Australia made the major decision to acquire a nuclear weapon capability - the value of any Aus B-21s would be marginal against China, N Korea or Russia and a needlessly expensive "overkill" luxury against enemies that don't have nuclear weapons.
For a more recent update on Australia probably wanting B-21 bombers see Daniel Croft's November 15, 2022, article:
"AUSTRALIA NEEDS LONG-RANGE STRIKE CAPABILITY, SAYS MARLES"
at https://australianaviation.com.au/2022/11/australia-needs-long-range-strike-capability-says-marles/
Post a Comment