China’s harsh reaction to Australia’s new B-21 stealth bomber

Labelling it a “serious threat”, China retaliated by claiming their latest offering could be used to bomb Australian bases.

China has reacted harshly to the suggestion Australia may buy next-generation strategic stealth bombers. It says they would present a “serious threat” warranting attacks on their home airfields.

The prospect of buying Northrup Grumman B-21 Raider stealth bombers was raised by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) at a media briefing in Canberra earlier this week.

ASPI asked US Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall if he would consider allowing Australia to operate the yet-to-fly aircraft to restore the defence force’s long-range strike capability.

“I think the United States, in general, would be willing to talk to Australia about anything that there was an interest in from the Australian perspective that we could help them with,” Kendall replied.

This would be a VERY GOOD move for @AusAirForce to acquire B-21. Excellent news for developing Australia’s responsive long range strike and deterrence capability in the face of a very long wait for the SSNs. https://t.co/sIridNpEvD

— Dr. Malcolm Davis (@Dr_M_Davis) August 23, 2022

Beijing’s response was immediate.

“Since the B-21 is a long-range stealth bomber capable of intercontinental flight, it could pose serious threats to China,” Communist Party media spokesman Song Zhongpine told the state-run Global Times.

An artist's rendering of the B-21 Raider bomber. Picture: Northrop Grumman

Meanwhile, Chinese media is speculating that its own next-generation intercontinental stealth bomber – the Xian H-20 – will be revealed to the public in November.

A concept image of China’s H-20 bomber. Picture: Chinese state-controlled media.

And these, the Global Times says, can be used to bomb the B-21 in its Australian bases.

China’s ability to do so is the whole point, ASPI senior analyst Dr Malcolm Davis told news.com.au.

“I don’t see RAAF B-21s ‘going downtown’ over Beijing or Shanghai,” he said. “I see such a capability more as a central element of an Australian area denial capability designed to deny China the luxury of manoeuvring its air and naval forces against us in any future conflict. It’s about giving us the ability to strike at naval targets and forward land bases to deny them the freedom to launch attacks against Australia’s north.”

Plugging the gaps

Australia’s territorial interests are enormous, sweeping over 7500km from the Cocos Islands in the Indian Ocean to Norfolk Island in the South Pacific.

Such distances are often considered intercontinental.

And it’s a scope Australia’s defence forces struggle to cover.

“The case for long-range airpower, I think, is growing,” Dr Davis told news.com.au.

China has its own arsenal of long-range aircraft, missiles, submarines and warships. Australia needs a way to counteract these, he says.

One method involves sending submarines and warships into harm’s way. Another relies on building a deterrent force of our own intermediate-range ballistic missiles.

“Really, we are narrowing it down to ground-based missiles and a long-range bomber that is survivable inside a contested airspace,” Dr Davis argues.

The controversial F-35 stealth fighter only has an operational radius of some 1000km. And its payload, especially when relying on stealth, is limited. It’s a similar story for the F/A18F strike fighters, and the E/A-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft.

“Even with airborne refuelling, these aircraft cannot reach much beyond the Banda Sea from RAAF Tindal,” said Dr Davis.

And the P-8A Poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft are not built to survive high-intensity encounters with enemy aircraft and missiles. “The air delivered option would only work on a stealthy platform,” Dr Davis adds.

Meanwhile, the ongoing ability of Australia’s six ageing Collins-class submarines to slip undetected into hostile waters is becoming increasingly suspect. And they can only fire limited numbers of short-to-medium-range missiles anyway before embarking on the long return journey to port to reload.

The “80 per cent” aircraft

The B-21 Raider is intended to be a mass-production successor to the extremely expensive, handcrafted B-2 Spirit bombers now approaching the end of their operational lives.

The US Air Force wants some 220 B-21s to carry conventional and nuclear weapons. It is designed to attack well-defended, high-value targets.

It’s also intended to be a “low risk” and “rapid result” project.

US Air Force’s Rapid Capabilities Office director Randall Walden says that, unlike the F-35, the B-21 is not supposed to be “the perfect aircraft”. Instead, it’s supposed to be an “80 per cent solution”, – meaning it’s the best that can be built with existing technology. “80 per cent on a new platform is infinitely better than legacy platforms that can’t do the job,” he said last year.

But the bomber has already been delayed.

It uses two F-35 engines to exploit the proven, stealthy technology. But the B-21 has had to undergo an extensive redesign to address “airflow and thrust” issues related to its stealthy air intakes and exhausts.

And how long such stealth features remain viable is a crucial concern.

“I note the Global Times article suggests counters to stealth are on the horizon – and that’s broadly correct,” Dr Davis says. “That’s where crewed-autonomous teaming comes in, where autonomous drones such as Australia’s MQ-28 Ghost Bat (or more correctly, a future derivative) can go ahead of a B-21 to take out air defences to allow the B-21 to close within range to launch weapons.”

An artist's rendering depicts the B-21 at Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D., one of the bases expected to host the Raider once it reaches the force. Courtesy graphic/Northrop Grumman

Royal Australian Air Force chief Air Marshall Robert Chipman said the Labor Government’s defence strategic review would re-examine Australia’s long-range capability. “We’d also need to be able to protect and sustain those platforms while they’re on the ground in Australia. So, while we might work with the US on B-21, that’s a small part of an overall strike capability that we would need,” he said.

Buying the Raider?

“The Royal Australian Air Force could be operating this aircraft within half a decade, making it relevant to the current strategic situation,” former ASPI chief Peter Jennings argued earlier this year. “Strike capability will make the ADF a much more difficult opponent and thereby strengthen deterrence. That means keeping the region at peace.”

ASPI argues the B-21 represented a critical “Plan B” if the former Coalition Government’s desire to purchase nuclear-powered submarines fell through. A project to build French-designed diesel-electric submarines was cancelled last year, triggering a $550 million compensation payout and yet further delays in replacing the critical defence capability.

“Of course, they’d need to be affordable,” Dr Davis says, “but we’d need to do an analysis of the ‘cost-benefit’ ratio as compared to other options, including the SSNs down the track.”

Ultimately, the US Air Force wants to buy a B-21 for less than $A1 billion each. Building 12 nuclear-powered submarines for Australia by the 2050s have an early estimated cost of $89 billion.

But the controversial F-35 project – now the world’s most expensive military program ever – was also supposed to be affordable. It’s a goal still proudly displayed on its design team’s badge.

This month, Defence Minister Richard Marles agreed Australia has little choice but to respond to the most significant regional arms race since World War II.

He’s initiated another Defence Force strategic readiness review.

Meanwhile, a Coalition-initiated 18-month study into the feasibility of buying or building nuclear submarines is due to report early next year.

“We are in what I consider to be a race for military technological superiority with the Chinese,” Kendall told the Canberra gathering earlier this week.

Air Marshall Chipman emphasised the significance of the AUKUS technology sharing pact, “where we work together to collaboratively develop and research and engineer new technologies so that we can stay abreast and competitive.”

Meanwhile, the ability of Australia to buy the aircraft remains simply another thought bubble.

“I don’t think that there’s any fundamental limitation on the areas in which we can co-operate,” Kendall added. “If Australia had a requirement for long-range strike, and I think I’d turn it over to the chief of air staff to talk about that, then we’d be willing to have a conversation with them about that.”

Jamie Seidel is a freelance writer | @JamieSeidel