Military power lists frequently consider a variety of elements, including the size of a nation’s military, the quantity of weapons and equipment it possesses, and its defence budget. The popular Global Firepower list uses metrics such as coastlines, workforce and oil production provide a more accurate assessment of a nation’s overall power. These variables give a reasonable overview of a nation’s prowess, but they ignore the various complexities and subtleties of military strength.

For instance, a nation’s military might not be as effective as its size might suggest. A smaller, well-trained military may be more effective in war than a larger one because it may be more manageable and easier to coordinate. A nation’s military strength is not always indicated by the quantity of weapons and equipment it has. Even if a nation possesses the most cutting-edge weaponry, if its soldiers lack the knowledge and experience necessary to use them effectively, they will not be as strong as a nation with less cutting-edge weapons but better trained and more experienced soldiers.

While it is sometimes taken into account in military power rankings, a nation’s defence expenditure is not a precise indicator of its military might. A nation’s commitment to maintaining a robust military can be shown by a high defence budget, but this does not always imply that the force is well-trained or combat-ready.

There are numerous examples of nations with robust armed forces that do not appear to be major military powers. For instance, Israel has a well-trained, highly motivated, and competent military despite its comparatively modest size and population. Similar to Singapore, which has a small military but one that is highly skilled, well-equipped, and trained, they are able to outperform their size in terms of military prowess. These examples show that in terms of military strength, numbers do not always tell the whole picture.

Military power lists also seem to ignore the capabilities of different weapons platforms or vehicles. For instance 100 MiG-21s will add as much points to a nation’s rankings as 100 F-35s. Or nuances such beyond-visual range missiles, radar, and other key components will be completely ignored. Important assets in today’s militaries such as drones and air defence systems aren’t even featured in lists such as Global Firepower. These aspects seriously undermine the reliability of these lists

Battle experience is a major advantage which cannot be overlooked. Not only because it trains soldiers in real, stressful scenarios but because it can form new tactics and doctrines. Thus enabling brand new techniques of war unique to a particular force. This is especially true when combined with a robust domestic defence industry. A force which is actively participating in combat can provide accurate feedback to arms manufacturers, which can in turn lead to improved weapons, as well ideas for new innovative systems. Overall, a military which uses its domestic arms in real combat has in immense advantage over arms importers and/or militaries which aren’t participating in ongoing wars.

A crucial non-military aspect that can have a big impact on a nation’s military power is intelligence. Strong intelligence capabilities enable nations to obtain vital intelligence on their adversaries, enabling them to better plan for prospective wars and decide how to respond to them.

Conclusion: Rather than relying exclusively on military power lists, it is critical to take into account a wider range of variables when evaluating a nation’s military might. We urge people to evaluate the information they are given on military power seriously and to look at a variety of sources. We can get a better grasp of a nation’s military capabilities by adopting a more sophisticated approach to understanding military power. 

The post The Flaws of Military Power Rankings: Why They Don’t Tell the Whole Story first appeared on DefenceHub.

Washington has long been reluctant to export its bleeding edge aircraft. The F-22 stealth air superiority fighter has an export ban placed on it. Similarly, strategic bombers such as the B-52, B-1 and B-2 have never been exported. Things then changed. Wanting to arm its allies for the next evolution of warfare, the US launched the Joint Strike Fighter program, which resulted in the F-35. By offering what was supposed to be an affordable stealth fighter, the United States not only expected to give their close allies 5th gen capabilities but also bring buyers further into the influence of Washington.

As a replacement for not only the F-16, but also the F-18, Harrier and others, the F-35 is the jack of all trades. Its range of features is impressive. It provides capabilities light years ahead of its predecessors. However, despite its versatility, it has its limitations. Limitations that Australia can’t ignore.

Without aerial refuelling, the F-35A has a reported combat radius of just over 1,090 kilometers (677 miles). This is more than enough for use in overseas coalition operations. However, it isn’t enough for a confrontation with China. Even when taking off from RAAF Base Darwin, the F-35 barely approaches one-quarter of the distance to China’s coastline before needing to turn back to base. Meaning aerial refuelling would be necessary to truly project power. Whether that’s north in support of regional allies, or out in the Pacific, where China is looking to expand its influence. Currently, there are no stealth tanker aircraft. This means a confrontation beyond the combat radius of the F-35 would be unnecessarily risky. Australia must be wary of the combat radius limitations and how it could effectively tie the hands of the RAAF in the worst-case scenario.

The B-21 makes up for the shortfalls of the F-35. It’s expected to have a combat radius of 5,000 kilometers (3,100 miles). This is nearly five times that of the F-35A. To put things into perspective this is enough to reach the Chinese mainland and return back to Australia. This is also enough range to cover a significant portion of the Pacific. Furthermore, it can take advantage of Australia’s land size. In other words, it can cash in on strategic depth if the need arises.

There is also the aspect of payload. The B-21’s payload is unknown, though it would be close to that of the B-2. The B-2 has a payload limit of 18,000 kilograms (40,000 pounds). In contrast, the F-35A has an internal payload capacity of 2,600 kilograms (5,700 pounds). Though the F-35 can carry over 8,000 kilograms (18,000 pounds) when external hardpoints are used, it must be understood that this will significantly increase its radar cross-section. Even if the B-21 were to have half the payload capacity of the B-2, this would still be substantially higher than the F-35.

Australia recently ordered 200 AGM-158C LRASM stealthy long-range anti-ship cruise missiles as part of an extensive $270 billion overhaul. However, according to Lockheed Martin, these missiles cannot be carried internally by F-35s. On the other hand, the current B-2 can carry 16 LRASMs in its internal weapon bay. Meaning that a single B-2 is a threat to an entire carrier strike group. The HALO,  (Hypersonic Air-Launched Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare Missile), is Washington’s answer to Chinese and Russian hypersonic anti-ship missiles. It is expected to be ready by 2028. Like the LRASM, it’s highly unlikely that the F-35 will be able to carry it internally. Therefore, if the Royal Australian Air Force wants a platform that is a true deterrent over the oceans, the B-21 is a logical choice.

With the addition of B-21s, the RAAF’s F-35s will have less of a burden placed on them. F-35s will be better prepared for air superiority. That’s not to say that F-35s will be relegated purely to air-to-air missions, but B-21s would replace the F-35 for long-range, heavy strike or bombardment operations. This would ensure that F-35s don’t get overstretched.

In USAF Secretary Frank Kendall’s recent visit to Canberra, The Strategist enquired about the possibility of Australia joining the B-21 program. The response by Kendall was positive.

“I don’t think that there’s any fundamental limitation on the areas in which we can cooperate, if Australia had a requirement for long-range strike… then we’d be willing to have a conversation with them about that.”

USAF Secretary Frank Kendall to The Strategist

Overall, the B-21 would be an excellent addition to the RAAF. The cost of 12 B-21s would be less than $10 billion USD (not including bases, training and maintenance). The capabilities these aircraft would grant to the Australian Defence Force would far outweigh their cost, which is a small dent in the $270 billion defence overhaul budget. Critics must understand the B-21 is the best possible long-term investment for the ADF. The deployment of 4 USAF B-2s to Australia just weeks ago suggests just how crucial strategic bombers are for the defence of Australia. Australia’s unique geographical position coupled with the incoming storm to the north means Australia can no longer ignore long-range strike options.

This article was submitted to DefenceHub by an author who wishes to remain anonymous

The post Why Australia Needs The B-21 first appeared on DefenceHub.