Australia may soon get American-made B-21 Raiders, a sixth-generation cunning bomb that may offer substantial strategic benefits and quick military capabilities over nuclear submarines.
Last month, the Institute of Public Affairs ( IPA ), an Australian think tank, released a report stating that Australia’s defense strategy under AUKUS may seek to procure the B-21 Raider, which would provide long-range strike capabilities to complement Australia’s future nuclear-powered submarines.
The IPA statement says the bomb is now in low-rate manufacturing, with 100 models planned for US$ 750 million each. The B-21 Raider acquisition by Canberra had probably stoke concerns in China, which has criticized the AUKUS safety association as a means of halting its growth.
IPA touts the B-21 as a faster and more flexible alternative than ships, as it can take several weapons and cameras. Given Australia’s vast geography and fairly small military force, its specific eligibility is highlighted by its supporters.
The B-21 could give Australia a military punch right away, according to the think tank, in contrast to nuclear submarines, which wo n’t be operational until at least the 2030s.
IPA information that generally, Australia has operated long-range hit bombers, making the B-21 a common contrast to its security arsenal. While the costs are considerable, they are still lower than the projected A$ 268 billion ( US$ 180 billion ) to A$ 368 billion ($ 247 billion ) for nuclear submarines over the next 30 years​.
The B-21 Raider’s superior capabilities coincide with Australia’s protection plan, emphasizing long-range detail strikes and swift deployment to counter potential threats in the Indo-Pacific.
Australia’s 2024 National Defense Strategy emphasizes a” method of neglect” to protect regional interests amid an increasingly fragile Indo-Pacific. This strategy aims to stop potential adversaries from safely imposing military might on Australia or using force to coerce it.
The plan also emphasizes punishment, signaling Australia’s capacity to defend its objectives and complicating any opponent’s decision to engage in fight.
In line with the plan’s focus on long-range strikes, the B-21 fits Australia’s approach by enhancing its ability to hold attack forces at risk, largely through its long-range detail strike capabilities.
The B-21’s advanced stealth and payload features would enhance Australia’s defense capabilities, enabling it to target distant threats, especially in the northern regions where risks are most probable.
In a Defense Connect article from November 2023, Michael Shoebridge asserts that B-21s are less expensive than nuclear submarines. He points out that the projected cost of 12 aircraft is A$ 81 billion ($ 54 billion ), compared to A$ 368 billion ($ 247 billion ) for eight nuclear submarines.
Shoebridge says that B-21s can be deployed faster, with the first units available by the mid-2020s, whereas the submarines wo n’t be fully operational until the 2040s. He adds that B-21s offer greater flexibility and quick redeployment capabilities, allowing them to hit targets quickly and return to base for rearming.
He notes that B-21s avoid the complexities and risks associated with nuclear technology, such as waste management and non-proliferation concerns. Shoebridge suggests that incorporating B-21s into Australia’s defense strategy could improve deterrence and strike capabilities more effectively and economically than the submarine-focused plan’s current strategy.
However, critics of Australia’s potential B-21 acquisition point to its high costs and high risk of provoking China, suggesting cheaper and more practical alternatives.
Song Zhongping points out in an August 2022 article for the Chinese state media outlet Global Times that the B-21 is intended to carry both nuclear and conventional weapons, but that the US might be able to export an export variant that can only carry conventional attacks, turning it into an exportable, tactical asset.
Although the AUKUS agreement focuses on sharing advanced technologies like nuclear propulsion, it does not include sharing nuclear weapons. Australia has ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ( NPT ), which forbids it from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Additionally, Song claims that China has developed its own rival stealth bomber and improved anti-stealth and air defense capabilities to combat the potential threat of B-21s.
In a November 2022 Interpreter article, Hugh White contends that the B-21’s high cost and specialized capabilities are unnecessary for Australia’s defense needs, aside from the possibility of receiving a watered-down version of the B-21.
White claims that Australia could achieve similar goals more cost-effectively with less expensive aircraft or drones while the B-21 is intended to penetrate the formidable air defenses of major powers like China and Russia. He contends that China’s military might be severely damaged if B-21s were used to bomb it, but this would not lead to retaliation.
Instead, he suggests using long-range maritime patrol drones or aircraft for tasks like attacking Chinese naval installations or advance bases. He points out that China’s interest in B-21s may reflect its desire to signal strategic intent rather than actual war-fighting capability, which could lead to misinterpretation of Australia’s defense seriousness.
In September 2022, Asia Times reported that purchasing B-21s could cost Australia US$ 5-6 billion annually over the course of five to six years, which would potentially consume half of its defense capital equipment budget.
This expenditure would compete with other defense priorities, such as the Australian shipbuilding program, which the government has deemed untouchable.
Additionally, production limitations may hinder the acquisition, as the US might struggle to meet its planned 100-unit production, leaving few extra bombers for Australia.
The cost-death spiral phenomenon, seen with the F-35 and Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile ( ICBM ) programs, could also affect the B-21, leading to increased production costs and reduced unit numbers.
Given the potential security issues and the need for a significant increase in defense spending, basing US bombers in Australia may prove unsustainable in the long run.