B-21 Raider

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, Disco_Nav963 said:

First question from skimming the article: Why did Australia have a beef with the Indonesians? 😂

They've had their problems in the past, including recent memory:

https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/event/indonesian-confrontation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_East_Timorese_crisis

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/indonesia-future-threat-australia/

Regaining the capability to hold targets at risk at distance from Australia only enhances their defense position lost when the F-111s where retired.

[Sketch]

Armchair quarterbacking here but I always thought the AF should've bought the YF-23 and converted it into an F-111/late F-15E replacement with a WSO seat and longer range, then replaced both the B-1 and B-2 at the same time with an arrowhead shaped mach 2 stealth bomber. But not the BUFF, that thing will be around forever 😎

[SocialD]

7 hours ago, Sketch said:

the AF should've bought the YF-23 

FIFY.

[Clark Griswold]

16 hours ago, Sketch said:

Armchair quarterbacking here but I always thought the AF should've bought the YF-23 and converted it into an F-111/late F-15E replacement with a WSO seat and longer range, then replaced both the B-1 and B-2 at the same time with an arrowhead shaped mach 2 stealth bomber. But not the BUFF, that thing will be around forever 😎

Would have been cool

Medium range, LO or Reduced Signature bomber/arsenal platform.  Could have also served as the basis for an LO tanker capability.

On the idea of a medium weight bomber/strike capability (LO or not) - for the forum, is it an overall more effective way of servicing an X number of required DMPIs on Night 1 till Air Superiority/Permissive Air Environment achievement  than with a larger tactical attack/fighter fleet?

Larger platforms likely would not require the AR resources that smaller platforms probably would require but fewer platforms could reduce the numbers of targets that could be struck simultaneously/in quick succession if a large AOR was being contested... IDK, I see advantages but tradeoffs also.  Thoughs?

 

 

[12xu2a3x3]

On 11/19/2019 at 10:36 PM, Clark Griswold said:

They've had their problems in the past, including recent memory:

https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/event/indonesian-confrontation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_East_Timorese_crisis

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/indonesia-future-threat-australia/

Regaining the capability to hold targets at risk at distance from Australia only enhances their defense position lost when the F-111s where retired.

This is a fantastic and regrettably out of print text on the F-111 in Straya: https://airpower.airforce.gov.au/APDC/media/PDF-Files/Historical Publications/HIST22-From-Controversy-to-Cutting-Edge-A-History-of-the-F-111-in-Australian-Service.pdf

Lots of interesting takeaways, this one in particular stuck with me:

"Plans to retire the USAF F-111Gs as part of the Clinton Administration military forces drawdown coincided with the Australian Government considering its options to extend the life of the F-111C fleet beyond 2010. "

Does make you wonder if their doctrine will drive them to a bomber acquisition. Presumably they'd plus up the 6 Sq Growlers by converting the 1 Sq Super Hornets if they purchased a bomber.

Incidentally, if anyone is on exchange in the RAAF or for that matter has joined the RAAF please shoot me a DM.

Edited December 4, 2019 by 12xu2a3x3

[Clark Griswold]

22 hours ago, 12xu2a3x3 said:

This is a fantastic and regrettably out of print text on the F-111 in Straya: https://airpower.airforce.gov.au/APDC/media/PDF-Files/Historical Publications/HIST22-From-Controversy-to-Cutting-Edge-A-History-of-the-F-111-in-Australian-Service.pdf

Lots of interesting takeaways, this one in particular stuck with me:

"Plans to retire the USAF F-111Gs as part of the Clinton Administration military forces drawdown coincided with the Australian Government considering its options to extend the life of the F-111C fleet beyond 2010. "

Does make you wonder if their doctrine will drive them to a bomber acquisition. Presumably they'd plus up the 6 Sq Growlers by converting the 1 Sq Super Hornets if they purchased a bomber.

Incidentally, if anyone is on exchange in the RAAF or for that matter has joined the RAAF please shoot me a DM.

Rogoway doesn't think so and I find his arguments not unreasonable as to why this ain't happening:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31211/australia-buying-b-21-raider-stealth-bombers-is-a-fantasy-but-other-options-exist

Not familiar with Aussie doctrine but considering their defense situation with potential opponents (Indonesia, Chinese Navy) - I can see a need for a medium bomber / heavy strike platform that could operate independently of mission support (jammers, fighter escort) and air refueling resources (conserving those for fighters) if a regional conflict broke out requiring the RAAF to strike.

Rogoway suggested (along with other potential COAs) acquiring surplus B-1s if they could be given without cost to the RAAF as platform for stand-off strikes if the Aussies chose to get a new manned air platform to fill this role.  Cool but expensive as hell for them to stand up and maintain that capability unless included everything necessary to operate the B-1 in the RAAF.  

[M2]

Well, if the fucking Aussies didn't do this to their F-111s, I might be more sympathetic! 

[pbar]

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

Rogoway suggested (along with other potential COAs) acquiring surplus B-1s if they could be given without cost to the RAAF as platform for stand-off strikes if the Aussies chose to get a new manned air platform to fill this role.  Cool but expensive as hell for them to stand up and maintain that capability unless included everything necessary to operate the B-1 in the RAAF.  

They, as well as the RAF, were already offered the B-1 from the ones sent to D-M in the early 2000s and they said no.  

[Clark Griswold]

3 hours ago, M2 said:

Well, if the fucking Aussies didn't do this to their F-111s, I might be more sympathetic! 

Understood but after decommissioning most airframes meet an ignominious end

2 hours ago, pbar said:

They, as well as the RAF, were already offered the B-1 from the ones sent to D-M in the early 2000s and they said no.  

Wise choice.  Not an insult to the Bone but unless you got a very rich uncle, it's gonna dent the hell out of your budget.

 

Another article on Aussie B-21s, author is positive to the idea but realistic that it is likely out of the cards for budgetary reasons:

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/is-the-b-21-bomber-a-viable-option-for-australia/

[Majestik Møøse]

5 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Rogoway doesn't think so...

Dude, don’t give that guy’s opinion an ounce of credibility.

[Clark Griswold]

17 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

Dude, don’t give that guy’s opinion an ounce of credibility.

Yeah, some of his articles are out there but most of his points on the idea of an Aussie B-21 were reasonable IMHO.  He's published some legit articles on current issues/ideas on modern mil aviation but I get your point.

[M2]

On 11/19/2019 at 7:27 PM, Clark Griswold said:

Aussie B-21s?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2019/11/15/should-washington-sell-the-b-21-bomber-to-australia/#1a603c6134b0

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/is-the-b-21-bomber-a-viable-option-for-australia/

Not to turn this into an Aussie F-111 thread, but here's a good article from a while back on why they should have retained them...as well as a lot of other articles on the same topic.

https://www.ausairpower.net/pig.html

Notice the file name! 🤣🤣🤣

[Clark Griswold]

11 hours ago, M2 said:

Not to turn this into an Aussie F-111 thread, but here's a good article from a while back on why they should have retained them...as well as a lot of other articles on the same topic.

https://www.ausairpower.net/pig.html

Notice the file name! 🤣🤣🤣

Pig was perfect for the 111.

Surprisingly, Aussie Air Power has profiled the Strike Eagle but I didn't find them making an argument but another website I found did:

https://australianaviation.com.au/2018/03/the-options-that-werent-for-the-raaf-fighter-fleet/

Cost to acquire, operate and support along with new industrial relationships to be developed precluded that according to the article, seems reasonable.

[Sketch]

On 12/9/2019 at 7:23 PM, Clark Griswold said:

Pig was perfect for the 111.

Surprisingly, Aussie Air Power has profiled the Strike Eagle but I didn't find them making an argument but another website I found did:

https://australianaviation.com.au/2018/03/the-options-that-werent-for-the-raaf-fighter-fleet/

Cost to acquire, operate and support along with new industrial relationships to be developed precluded that according to the article, seems reasonable.

Is it reasonable to say that a brand new F/A-18F is a more capable and cost-effective platform than the F-111?

Edited December 12, 2019 by Sketch

[M2]

[Clark Griswold]

7 hours ago, Sketch said:

Is it reasonable to say that a brand new F/A-18F is a more capable and cost-effective platform than the F-111?

Yup but I would recommend a Block III F model with CFTs, signature reduction plus more

 

[RegularJoe]

On 12/12/2019 at 4:34 PM, M2 said:

Is that a legit image or rendering?

[SurelySerious]

7 minutes ago, RegularJoe said:

Is that a legit image or rendering?

Looks rendered. 

[12xu2a3x3]

On 12/12/2019 at 1:47 PM, Sketch said:

Is it reasonable to say that a brand new F/A-18F is a more capable and cost-effective platform than the F-111?

combat radius of the F-111C was almost triple the F/A-18F

[M2]

1 hour ago, RegularJoe said:

Is that a legit image or rendering?

https://www.airforcemag.com/article/the-raider-takes-shape/

Quote

In this photo illustration, a real B-2 Spirit (left), shown on the runway at Andersen AFB, Guam, sits beside a notional B-21 Raider. The Air Force has yet to reveal a detailed image of the new bomber. Photo: Bennie Davis III/USAF; Illustration: Mike Tsukamoto/staff

 

[JimNtexas]

On 12/12/2019 at 12:47 PM, Sketch said:

Is it reasonable to say that a brand new F/A-18F is a more capable and cost-effective platform than the F-111?

It can't be more expensive to operate than the F-111, and I'm sure it's not helpless if caught in the daylight like the Vark was.

What is the practical combat radius and realistic weapons load of the Super Hornet compared to the Vark?    The Vark could fly a long way, very quickly, with a lot of bombs.

[M2]

On 12/12/2019 at 12:47 PM, Sketch said:

Is it reasonable to say that a brand new F/A-18F is a more capable and cost-effective platform than the F-111?

Ever try to get parts for a 1964 model year car versus a 2019 one?

There's approximately 1400-1500 Hornets flying today, the USAF retired its last EF-111A twenty-one years ago.

[Clark Griswold]

File this under never ever gonna happen but if the Aussies could find a partner to build enough airframes to get a cost per tail down to something reasonable, A-12 Avenger reborn would likely meet this potential requirement.

Delete carrier suitability requirements and make a it a little bigger (sts) with a subsequent increase in range/payload.  

Big Mac was the vendor for the ill fated project now Boeing who would own the design, data for it.  Try to use Super Hornet systems/engines which the Aussies already fly incorporated into a reborn and updated build. 

Potential partners could be Japan and SK who might want their own capability to keep NK, China on notice.

Edited December 20, 2019 by Clark Griswold

[Lawman]

File this under never ever gonna happen but if the Aussies could find a partner to build enough airframes to get a cost per tail down to something reasonable, A-12 Avenger reborn would likely meet this potential requirement.

Delete carrier suitability requirements and make a it a little bigger (sts) with a subsequent increase in range/payload.  

Big Mac was the vendor for the ill fated project now Boeing who would own the design, data for it.  Try to use Super Hornet systems/engines which the Aussies already fly incorporated into a reborn and updated build. 

Potential partners could be Japan and SK who might want their own capability to keep NK, China on notice.

 

Honestly it’s always surprised me given their investments they didn’t find one, but a long range combat radius aircraft with the ability to defeat or counter air defense is something the Israelis would kill for.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

2 hours ago, Lawman said:

Honestly it’s always surprised me given their investments they didn’t find one, but a long range combat radius aircraft with the ability to defeat or counter air defense is something the Israelis would kill for.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Another potential partner for new LO attack platform to give Allies regional power projection / deterrence.