Comments on: Comment: Why Australia needs the B-21 Raider

By: Graham

Graham — Sat, 11 Dec 2021 02:44:35 +0000

While , on the face of it, the acquisition of the B31 (or an equivalent) by Australia as part of a comprehensive and integrated deterrent strategy might appear a sound proposition, there are some issues arising. The notion that basing any B31s “deep inland” to avoid vulnerability to attack is an outdated notion, going back as far as the siting of the national capital Canberra. Wherever they are based, a modern adversary doubtless will have missiles capable of finding and reaching any such bases, quite likely at hypersonic speed giving little to no warning. This is most relevant of course should such adversary decide to act peremptorily. In such a scenario, to be viable such bases would need some kind of automatic response defensive shield – which on the state of present known technology – could be problematic. Perhaps a better use of such huge amounts of money would be to deploy unobtrusive and mobile defence systems such as clusters of autonomous underwater drones either instead or in combination, or some such alternative concept.

By: Robo

Robo — Fri, 17 Sep 2021 06:04:51 +0000

Well, hello AUUKUS! Given recent news and the scale of it, all things really do now become possible. I suspect some big grins at the RAFF these days, as they look toward the later years of this decade!

By: Robo

Robo — Fri, 20 Aug 2021 17:52:19 +0000

Given ongoing regional tensions with China and now, with what appears to be a somewhat “lost and confused USA”, after the Afghanistan withdrawal nightmare, and suddenly the Raider purchase looks a lot more solid! Like NATO, we need to be considering more our own capabilities over the medium to long-term….Uncle Sam may indeed not be as present around the world in the years to come!

By: Rocket

Rocket — Fri, 06 Aug 2021 21:33:11 +0000

In reply to Dan C.

What a ridiculous assessment.

The ‘terrorism’ bogey.

You mean the one that has resulted in not even 10 deaths in the last 20 years on Australian soil but for which there are 67 separate pieces of invasive legislation.

An average of one woman per month dies at the hands of her domestic/intimate partner and how many pieces of legislation do we have for that?? None. Except existing laws, just rhetoric while accused rapists are allowed to serve in the government.

All of this and the domestic ‘terrorism’ angle is nothing to do with defense deterrents, drop some of the over-complicated and overpriced F35s, the ‘poor mans F-22’ and spend the money on the B21s and while we’re at it, just buy 12 Los Angeles Class Attack Subs off the lot and stop trying to denuclearise a sub-standard French submarine.

By: Tom Gray

Tom Gray — Mon, 26 Jul 2021 12:20:22 +0000

As an american I have no problem with Australia getting the B-21. You are one of our closest allies and always hang tuff.

By: Dan C

Dan C — Sun, 18 Jul 2021 13:13:05 +0000

What an awful, amateurish assessment. The author is arguing that with the proliferation of non-state actors the answer should be a platform designed to strike strategic targets? So if some domestic terrorist cell attacks a shopping centre one day we’ll use the B-21 to do what exactly? Fling an LGB at their garages in some suburb? Absolutely ridiculous. And the concept of “deterrence” does not exist for these kind of actors.

The money would be far better spent on intelligence agencies, special forces and tactical training for regular police – you know, things which WILL protect Australia from the poisonous [sic] snakes.

By: Bill Whitehead

Bill Whitehead — Thu, 15 Jul 2021 12:37:46 +0000

Strategically Australia dropped the ball when we retired the F111, this has left us without any heavy bomber capabilities. While we could theoretically load up a heap of bombs in the back of a C130 or C17 it is still a poor choice for a strategic deterrent. Yet there is another option which is to make the argument for the US to move its bombers from Guam to a purpose built Australian base deep inside our boarders this would save on airframe costs and the reluctance of the US to allow outright purchase or consider asking the US to give us surplus B1B, B2 and B52 platforms based permently in Australia.

By: M Coote

M Coote — Thu, 15 Jul 2021 02:10:22 +0000

Guys, this is verging on being Fantasy level stuff and i think your $20-25b for a squadron of 12 is way to low, probably looking at $800m-$1b AUD per Aircraft so looking at around $10-12b AUD for the Aircraft only. Which is generally about 1/3 the overall cost to get a new capability to FOC, so looking more at between $30-40b.
That $30-40b would have to be found over a period of about 5-7 years, compare that to the Submarines $80 over about 35 Years and the Frigates $35b over about 25years.
I would have real doubts about getting any sale past DSCA, the main reason being is it may change the balance of power in our region.

By: Ulick Gage

Ulick Gage — Thu, 15 Jul 2021 01:03:48 +0000

Who are the snakes and who are the dragons? Is China a snake or a dragon? I rather think the latter. How far could a B 21 reach into that behemoth? From Australia, I think it would barely touch the surface. Or are we thinking of the old colonial gunboat policy, where a B 21 could knock out several snakes in one go? Trouble is, the snakes are all on our side now…

By: Aussie

Aussie — Thu, 15 Jul 2021 00:28:47 +0000

It’s about time this country got a bomber off its standing. It would increase the capability of its airforce to protect our country, the b21 is a great aircraft and would tick all the boxes and more. Australia and new Zealand have fought along side of the Americans since the thirty and forty, we may not agree on everything they do, but they are always there for us.