Australia urged to consider B-21 Raider bomber as interim capability to address AUKUS submarine gap

Paterson said the aircraft could provide long-range strike capability while Australia awaits the arrival of Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines. The suggestion reflects broader concerns about a potential capability gap in the late 2020s and early 2030s.

“Only the government can know whether the [Royal Australian Air Force] is well-placed to acquire these planes and put them into service,” Paterson said. “Perhaps there are good reasons why a B-21 does not work for Australia.”

“If that is the case, I hope the government is very closely examining other similar options which could fill this serious potential capability gap,” he added. “Because I do not want Australia to enter the moment of maximum peril in the late 2020s and early 2030s without this critical deterrent capability.”

The B-21 Raider, developed by Northrop Grumman for the U.S. Air Force, is described as a sixth-generation stealth bomber designed to penetrate advanced air defenses. It is intended to deliver long-range, highly survivable strike capability with flexible mission payloads, including both conventional and nuclear options.

The aircraft leverages decades of strike and stealth innovation, with advanced low-observable design and fuel-efficient engines integrated into a streamlined airframe. These features are intended to reduce reliance on tanker support and enable extended operational reach in contested environments.

Northrop Grumman states that the B-21 is designed to “hold any target at risk, anywhere in the world,” providing decision-makers with adaptable response options. Its open architecture is intended to allow continuous upgrades, enabling the platform to evolve alongside emerging threats.

The United States plans to acquire around 100 B-21 aircraft to replace its B-2 bomber fleet, with each unit estimated to cost about $1 billion. Multiple aircraft are currently undergoing flight testing, with reported performance exceeding expectations and demonstrating high reliability.

Australia has not operated a bomber since retiring the F-111 in 2010, and a 2023 defence review recommended against pursuing the B-21. However, the platform has been discussed in U.S. policy circles as a potential way to enhance Australia’s strike capability during the transition to nuclear submarines.

Paterson also defended the AUKUS submarine agreement, describing it as necessary despite implementation challenges. He said no realistic alternative submarine options are available to Australia.

“Our primary security threat is not an invasion of our homeland. It is coercion leveraging our supply chain vulnerabilities,” he said. “If we think closure of the Hormuz has been uncomfortable, just imagine a scenario where the Straits of Malacca are.”

“Australia must have the ability to deter coercion like this,” he added, referencing concerns about disruptions to key maritime routes in the Indo-Pacific.

The opposition also renewed calls for increased defence spending to support AUKUS and broader military capabilities. Paterson argued that delivering the submarine program would require higher investment than currently planned.

“If we try to deliver AUKUS without quickly and meaningfully increasing defence spending, we will cannibalise the other services, as [former chief of defence] Sir Angus Houston has warned,” he said. “Yet, as a percentage of GDP, the Albanese government has over the last four years failed to shift the dial on defence spending to make room for AUKUS.”

“The only way to deliver AUKUS without lifting defence spending is to make cuts to the other services,” he added. The Coalition has committed to increasing defence spending to at least 3 percent of gross domestic product.

Paterson also underscored the importance of the U.S. alliance for Australia’s security. He said no alternative coalition could match its role in supporting stability in the Indo-Pacific.

“It is impossible to imagine a coalition big or powerful enough to support our core national interests — like the peace and stability of the Indo-Pacific — without the US as part of it,” he said. “So, while I respect and understand why many Australians are confounded by the rhetoric and sometimes policies of the Trump administration, the idea that we can make our way safely in the world without them is absurd.”

Source: ABC.