Anonymous, on Nov 1, 2022, made some very valid comments (Pete's inevitably added some [...] comments) as follows:
"Various Australian Department of Defence and ASPI comments [and SubMattshere and here] have hinted at B-21s for months. I suspect this was ever since they [Aus DoD] realised there were no quick solutions for UK or US designed SSNs.
B-21s under AUKUS [eg. developed under AUKUS' hypersonic ALCM heading] would help justify the program after the original [SSN centric?] purpose failed.
B-21s would be a high cost capability allowing nuclear strike options. Yet we are already covered under the US nuclear umbrella (US Extended Nuclear Deterrence Security guarantees). So why spend a lot more duplicating that?
My concern is that B-21s still do not solve Australia’s submarine problem. If the Collins Class are not replaced within a suitable timeframe and a “gap” occurs, we will lose the sailors and maintenance people at a time of low unemployment when skilled people will easily get work elsewhere. Developing the skills to maintain and operate subs - SSK or SSN - is a hard won capability that takes decades to develop and not all navies have succeeded at it. Submarines can still perform many missions strike aircraft cannot, in all months of the year.
We seem to be focusing our long term defence decisions on a very narrow range of scenarios with China. I support the US alliance. But what if, 20 years from now, Australia had a conflict with another regional power other than China where the USA did not wish to be involved? It happened to the UK with the Falklands. Submarines then might be very valuable."