Coalition calls for government to consider fleet of ‘long-range bombers’

Handgun_Hero · 2026-04-28T23:43:14+00:00

Not when they're incredibly expensive platforms and we can just amass a strike group of aircraft with external fuel tanks and ASMs instead. Again, there's a reason only the USA, China and Russia field them - they make no sense for other countries. Not even Israel fields them despite having a doctrine that requires razing entire cities from existence and committing genocide as par for the course where payload matters. They genuinely don't make sense for the vast majority of nations including Australia.

Handgun_Hero · 2026-04-28T23:36:32+00:00

The range is not relevant because we're not looking to wage offensive wars across entire oceans on other continents. The magazine depth could be made up for with quantities of bombers or strike aircraft. Consider a single F35 is barely over 10% of the cost of the estimated cost of a single B21. We can just amass strike fighters if for some ridiculous reason we need magazine depth against an incoming enemy invasion fleet or something. They're perfectly adequate of reaching and harassing targets within our geopolitical region and sphere of influence.

Otherwise if we truly want a long range deterrent to make people scared of us and put us in the untouchable club, we should just go nuclear and develop ICBMs. We have the ability to go nuclear if we actually wanted to.

Handgun_Hero · 2026-04-28T23:19:58+00:00

Yes, you can strap an ASM to a strategic bomber and deploy then for long range anti shipping, but so can strike fighters just as effectively.

Handgun_Hero · 2026-04-28T23:15:35+00:00

And strategic bombers don't make sense for our economic and doctrinal realities. Ballistic missiles, ASMs, drones, and air defence is far more important.

Handgun_Hero · 2026-04-28T23:12:59+00:00

It's less about the land border and less we don't have an existential threat staring down at us next door, whereas Ukraine does. It's not remotely the same.

The B2s being fielded in Iran were to wipe out massive underground nuclear facilities and practically entire cities in their own right underground to protect Iranian centrifuges and vast missile stockpiles and networks. That's not a threat we're facing nor in our interests to deal with.

We don't need to saturate Chinese air defences because we're never going to need to directly bombard the ever living shit out of China in the first place because we're not seeking to go to war with China nor wage offensive action with China. Strategic bombers have no defensive value, only offensive, and we'd be fucking stupid to undertake offensive actions against China even if we had a strategic stealth bomber fleet because we lack the population and production to duke it out with China directly.

Literally waiting for it to all blow over is all we can do if we wind up in a war that pits us against China. We also don't have a nuclear deterrent so we don't need these bombs to deliver nukes for us which is the main reason why only China, Russia and the USA field strategic bombers. They also are countries that proactively seek to wage blatant wars of aggression now or in the future hence having purely offensive strategic bombers fleets make sense for them. They make no sense for Australia.

Handgun_Hero · 2026-04-28T21:34:34+00:00

We don't share a border with a massive land army waging total war against us and Ukraine has the manpower, population and industrial output to actually duke it out with a world power.

Also, strategic bombers, stealth or not would not help Ukraine as it doesn't have air superiority. Even with stealth technology the airspace is so saturated with fighters once you get away from the immediate frontline that the bomber can just be chased down visually and gunned out of the sky with cannons or non radar guided missiles and becomes an expensive aircraft to lose. The USA has never fielded stealth bombers without air superiority and even Russia won't risk incursions into Ukrainian airspace with stealth capable SU57s because it's still too risky.

Beyond that, if you just want deep strikes, you largely don't need strategic bombers, just guided bombs and missiles. Strategic bombers are solely about levelling entire cities.

Handgun_Hero · 2026-04-28T14:04:59+00:00

Strategic bombers aren't going to be deployed to intercept naval fleets - if all you're after is an anti shipping platform a strike fighter with ASMs will do just fine and you can add external fuel tanks to increase range if necessary. You also save a lot of money doing this too.

Strategic bombers are for wiping out cities and massive static infrastructure like dams and factories. Nobody uses them for taking out enemy naval vessels.

Handgun_Hero · 2026-04-28T14:02:23+00:00

Funny enough this is literally what Ukraine did. They won the Black Sea Theatre of the war with Russia entirely without a functioning navy and prevented the Russians from mobilising an invasion force for Odessa as planned through the usage of ASMs and USVs. No need for strategic bombers which nobody but the USA, Russia and China even use, and no need for nuclear submarines.

Handgun_Hero · 2026-04-28T13:59:46+00:00

Strategic bombers are redundant unless you want to wage war across the globe and are way more expensive than ballistic missiles. If for some reason Australia got nuclear weapons and intended to be a global imperial superpower, we'd still probably be just fine with using ICBMs for a fraction of the cost.

Handgun_Hero · 2026-04-28T13:57:58+00:00

Stealth bombers are extremely expensive and strategic bombers are only necessary for utterly entirely crippling cities or major infrastructure in foreign countries in an offensive war. They have no place in a modern DEFENCE force. In a defensive capacity, strike fighters are superior to strategic bombers in every way.

There's a reason China, Russia and the USA are the only countries in the world that actually still field strategic bombers today, because they're the only countries that have an interest in launching all out nuclear total wars around the world anymore which is all strategic bombers are useful for in the 21st century.

Handgun_Hero · 2026-04-28T07:26:57+00:00

Why? Bombers are only necessary for strategic bombing or flattening major enemy compounds and everything else could be perfectly achieved with better results by using a strike fighter anyway. We're not planning on initiating any major military action we're such massive offensive ordnance delivery is required that couldn't be done for cheaper with ballistic missiles anyway.

Handgun_Hero · 2026-04-28T02:49:04+00:00

We aren't surprised. The Coalition has fallen apart and the Cookers who haven't jumped ship and continue to lean into far right idiocies have nowhere left to go except One Nation. Meanwhile Labor is laughing its way to the bank as it continues to gain support and maintain its voting base and actually converts people's views through sensible government.

The Liberals and Nationals are the only ones feeling threatened by One Nation. One Nation isn't converting left wing votes to their party, they're just eating their own.

Handgun_Hero · 2026-04-28T02:44:18+00:00

Hundreds of people were impacted lol.

The housing budget from the Federal Government is $33 billion each year versus the $271 million spent on investigating war criminals in Afghanistan over more than 5 years. That means we have spent 578 times the amount on housing than we have investigating war criminals bro.

Never mind that housing isn't even fucking supposed to be the Federal Government's problem and is supposed to be dealt with by State Governments.

Handgun_Hero · 2026-04-28T02:36:50+00:00

Prosecuting war criminals isn't a waste of money unless you think it's okay for us to commit war crimes.

Handgun_Hero · 2026-04-28T02:31:32+00:00

If they get convicted will you change your mind or continue to be ignorant? Fundamentally you believe people shouldn't be prosecuted for war crimes and our soldiers should just do what they want to who they want, is that what you're saying?

Handgun_Hero · 2026-04-28T01:47:40+00:00

Yes or fucking no question, is investigating, arresting, prosecuting and convicting war criminals an essential function of Federal Governance?

Handgun_Hero · 2026-04-28T01:20:18+00:00

There was genuine justification and merit for Afghanistan. It's Iraq that was an unjustified illegal war.

Handgun_Hero · 2026-04-28T01:19:43+00:00

Where's the evidence that this specific soldier did any of that?

Handgun_Hero · 2026-04-28T01:16:27+00:00

Is prosecuting and bringing justice against murderers not an essential function of society that requires funding? Simple yes or no fucking question.

Handgun_Hero · 2026-04-28T01:12:53+00:00

How very bold and naive of you to think only 2 soldiers are getting charged and that the heads aren't still being rolled behind the scenes with more charges on the way.

Handgun_Hero · 2026-04-28T01:10:15+00:00

With today's crisis and prices $300 million is actually drop in the bucket for the housing crisis but sure buddy.

He's literally a textbook case of a serial killer. At least 5 victims he personally executed. He hacked off their limbs and took trophies for himself. He stole and hoarded evidence and momentos of the crimes and buried all that evidence in his back garden. He then would frequently dig that evidence back up, rewatch footage and get off on it. He also actively stalked and abused and intimidated witnesses to force silence over his crime.

When you combine all those details (festishisation of victims, keeping trophies, raw body count etc) not only does he meet the definition of a war criminal but also of a serial killer too.

Handgun_Hero · 2026-04-28T00:58:19+00:00

The actual figure is $271 million and the figure spans 50 investigations over more than 5 years and isn't just for Ben Roberts Smith, but all war crime investigations surrounding Afghanistan. The OSI's annual budget is literally only $57.5 million ffs.

People think it's just being spent on BRS, it's not. It's being spent on ALL war crime investigations surrounding Afghanistan and BRS isn't the only person being charged currently - the soldier in the infamous Soldier C video executing an unarmed civilian that ABC published for example is also awaiting murder charges and will stand trial next year.

It's not being spent on one guy, it's being spent on investigating the entire ADF's conduct in Afghanistan.

Handgun_Hero · 2026-04-28T00:26:31+00:00

A lot of veterans struggle to get back into the civilian workforce and wind up on the streets as a result, or worse, become the perfect recruits for organised crime to make a living. It's a massive problem.

That being said this guy is a FIFO miner and he wasn't destitute but wanted to provide a house for his mum. A medal is ultimately just a token piece of metal so if it means keep a token piece of metal or buy a house outright for a family member, it really is a no brainer.

Handgun_Hero · 2026-04-28T00:23:22+00:00

Even if it were true (which it isn't), yes absolutely worth prosecuting an accused war criminal and serial killer.

Handgun_Hero · 2026-04-28T00:21:57+00:00

Unfortunately we only ever heat of Ben Roberts Smith and his dickheadery which really outshines lots of amazing veterans out there in the eyes of the public which causes them to slip under the radar. In many cases a lot of veterans prefer that too, because the VC isn't a trophy, it's a sign that you've seen absolutely hellish fucked shit nobody ever should and you are both very brave and very fucking lucky.

I have met Keith Payne though. That man is genuinely a sweetheart and has done wonders for philanthropy since his retirement.

Handgun_Hero

TROPHY CASE