XBradTC

By

XBradTC

·

US reportedly considering stationing B-1 bombers in Australia, conducting more B-52 missions | Fox News

The U.S. is reportedly in talks with Australia about housing long-range bombers that would be within striking distance of the South China Sea, a move that would increase the tensions between Washington and Beijing. Lt. Col. Damien Pickart, a spokesman for the U.S. Air Force, told Reuters Wednesday the deployments could include B-1 bombers and…

The U.S. is reportedly in talks with Australia about housing long-range bombers that would be within striking distance of the South China Sea, a move that would increase the tensions between Washington and Beijing.

Lt. Col. Damien Pickart, a spokesman for the U.S. Air Force, told Reuters Wednesday the deployments could include B-1 bombers and an expansion of B-52 bomber missions. However, Pickart noted that talks between the two countries were preliminary.

"These bomber rotations provide opportunities for our airmen to advance and strengthen our regional alliances and provide (Pacific Air Forces) and U.S. Pacific Command leaders with a credible global strike and deterrence capability to help maintain peace and security in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region," Pickart told Reuters.

via www.foxnews.com

Forward deploying the B-1 to Australia would certainly give the Bones an ability to cover the South China Sea and the Western Pacific.

On the other hand, China is a huge trading partner for Australia, and they are often reluctant to upset them.

Tags:

Responses to “US reportedly considering stationing B-1 bombers in Australia, conducting more B-52 missions | Fox News”

  1. Diogenes of NJ

    Do you think that they would want B-1s after we stuck them with those F-111s?

    Like

  2. timactual

    But aren’t those B-1s needed for CAS in Afghanistan? There are, after all, fewer than 100 of them.

    Like

  3. Hmm

    “Forward deploying the B-1 to Australia would certainly give the Bones an ability to cover the South China Sea and the Western Pacific.”
    They are “within range” of the South China Sea even if they are NOT “forward deployed” – e.g., if they are in Hawaii or Alaska or even South Dakota (n.b. the B-1B has struck Libya and Syria directly from Ellsworth). If we can’t put them somewhere “within range” of the South China Sea because that might “increase tensions” with China, then there is literally nowhere we can put them.

    Like

  4. Jjak

    If bombers are too much how about a tanker squadron?

    Like

  5. Casey

    The F-111 were excellent strike aircraft. Don’t know why the Aussies would be upset.
    As for the bombers, perhaps this is political theater for our friends; send a message to China.
    …Or maybe they really are becoming that concerned.

    Like

  6. Zbz555

    exMil Ozzie aircrew guy here: There’s a couple of things going on here.
    First, both sides of politics here in Oz are generally supportive of the US re-engaging in Asia and accept that this is part of it. The right is probably more supportive than the left, but neither can get too carried away. The Green left/isolationist types can still mobilise a noisy minority and neither side of politics particularly wants to poke the bear too much. That’s why we will hear a lot about deployments and rotations instead of permanent bases. (Just how quick the turnaround is between deployments though is something that is easily massaged).
    I don’t think either side of politics is particularly deferential to China (one of the recent prime ministers from the left was heard to call a Chinese delegation a bunch of ratf**kers, actually), but they aren’t in a hurry to line up and deliberately piss-off one of our biggest trading partners. They pull a lot of punches, I guess, but no one is really in any doubt as to where we will end up in the event of any major stoush. I guess I’ll just say that because we effectively have disciplined party political positions (and few freelancers, as in the US system), we don’t tend to hear too many off-the-cuff outbursts against China or foreign policy grandstanding. It’s a little more toned down, but in the end not terribly dissimilar to US attitudes to China.
    Second, the Northern air force bases are pretty large and capable of moderate numbers of aircraft, especially fighters and a few tankers, but they are not really bomber bases in the style of US forces. Darwin has the length but not really the bomb dumps and tarmac space and worst of all is kind of in the middle of town. Tindal is more of a pure Air Force Base with some pretty decent facilities, but again, not really good tarmac space for U.S. Air Force style bombers or the length. And probably the bomb dumps are lacking too. Good news is that the Australian government actually put aside funds in the last White Paper to increase the capacity of both these bases to handle large bombers, but it would be premature to say that the negotiations over the cost of some of this are complete. But the intention is clearly there, particularly for Tindal. (Separately, the long-term future of the airport in Darwin is under consideration for relocation – long-term though).
    All things considered, the air force here in Australia is pretty happy with most of the fleet being renewed. There is absolutely no desire for another long-range bomber though. We moved on from the Pig. The intention will be to fill that niche with longer ranged cruise missiles off tactical fighters, I expect.

    Like

Leave a comment