Jump to content
Baseops Forums
HuggyU2

B-21 Raider

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 😎

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

FB-23new.JPG

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?

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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: http://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 by 12xu2a3x3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, 12xu2a3x3 said:

This is a fantastic and regrettably out of print text on the F-111 in Straya: http://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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Image result for Australia burying F-111

  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/19/2019 at 7:27 PM, Clark Griswold 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.

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

Notice the file name! 🤣🤣🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

http://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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Sketch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...