Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Two tidbits that I found while going through the FY2012 budget items.

Both items refer to this FY2012 Budget Document:
http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media ... 11-032.pdf

1. Blk 4 is scheduled for deliveries to the services & partners starting in 2015

Quote:

(pg274) Follow-on development Block 4 capabilities; includes logistics, weapons, security, sensors, survivability, upgrades & urgent operational requirements with 2015 delivery to services & partners.

2. The F-35A (at least) will be nuke capable (twin internal B-61s) with Blk4 which is 2015 (see #1).

Quote:

(pg 281) The Joint Contract Specification requirements call for the F-35A (CTOL) Variant Air Vehicle to have the capabilities and provisions for Dual Capable Aircraft (DCA) operations. DCA refers to the capability to carry and deliver conventional or non-conventional weapons. DCA operation is internal carriage of two B-61s. In accordance with the Operational Requirements Document, DCA will be integrated in the first post-SDD block upgrade in time to meet Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan force structure requirements.

(pg 282) Under the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) Phase of the F-35 Program (embedded within PE 0604800F), the F-35 Air Vehicle was designed to provide for the future full integration of the B61 weapon. This entailed ensuring that sufficient physical volume be reserved for the weapon and its parent carriage equipment, AME and the capability provide the system 2 interface. Design provision included the space necessary to load, carry, and release the B61 as well as the space needed for the physical interface points, both in the Main Weapon Bay (electrical access panels, harness points, and S&RE Access) and applicable pilot interface. Electrical and functional provisions include power and signals to support weapon statusing and employment as well as the relevant wiring harnesses.

F-16.net Sponsor

It appears our enemies have far more to fear when the F-35 goes online. Shocked

So what happens when the nuke is detonated? Is the F-35 fried? I ask because I wasn't aware that the F-35 was EMP-hardened. Is the nukes fuse is on a timer to detonate once the aircraft is long gone?

All military aircraft are EMP hardened due to their op environments. Consider the steel deck of an aircraft carrier with all sorts of radiation sources mere feet away - let alone the soon to be in service EMALS which gave concern and will be tested etc. Newer aircraft are more EMP hardened than older aircraft.

The early Skyhawk particularly was nuke enabled, having a shield which could be pulled down over the canopy after lofting a nuke into the ether. After that? Devil

There is a recent thread about this EMP issue. I'll look for it.

Is the F-35 protected from emp?

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... t-emp.html

Two things keep the F-35 (or any other DCA fighter like the F-16) from getting fried.

1. It can use a lob-toss attack profile which extends the range & time till impact.

2. The B-61 uses a retarding parachute to give the fighter time to retreat.

Quote:

Most versions of the B61 are equipped with a parachute retarder (currently a 24-ft (7.3 m) diameter nylon/Kevlar chute) to slow the weapon in its descent. This offers the aircraft a chance to escape the blast, or allows the weapon to survive impact with the ground in laydown mode. The B61 can be set for airburst, ground burst, or laydown detonation, and can be released at speeds up to Mach 2 and altitudes as low as 50 feet (15 m). Fusing for most versions is by radar.

SpudmanWP wrote:

Two things keep the F-35 (or any other DCA fighter like the F-16) from getting fried.

1. It can use a lob-toss attack profile which extends the range & time till impact.

2. The B-61 uses a retarding parachute to give the fighter time to retreat.

Quote:

Most versions of the B61 are equipped with a parachute retarder (currently a 24-ft (7.3 m) diameter nylon/Kevlar chute) to slow the weapon in its descent. This offers the aircraft a chance to escape the blast, or allows the weapon to survive impact with the ground in laydown mode. The B61 can be set for airburst, ground burst, or laydown detonation, and can be released at speeds up to Mach 2 and altitudes as low as 50 feet (15 m). Fusing for most versions is by radar.

Having sat alert with nukes in both the F-4 and F-16, and having been assigned to a SIOP planning staff, I am intimately aware of EMP effects on fighters. The escape maneuvers mentioned above have nothing to do with EMP. They were purely designed in order to enable the delivery aircraft to escape the immediate fireball from the detonating weapon. Even if the maneuver was executed perfectly, escaping the fireball was going to be a marginal thing. EMP travels at the speed of light, and depending on the selected kiloton level can have an impact radius of many hundreds of miles. On the planning staff one of our major concerns was not the EMP effect on the delivery aircraft from it's own weapon, but from all the other hundreds of weapons that were expected to be going off in a nuclear conflict. The ingress routes were carefully built in terms of flightpath and timing to avoid being fragged by ICBM, SLBM, ALCM, and other tactical nukes on the ingress to the target. It was known that all aircraft would be subject to multiple EMP blasts. In one regard the F-4 was a better strike aircraft, since we didn't have to worry that the hydraulic flight controls would be affected by EMP, unlike the F-16 electronic FLCS.

By the way, one of the major discussions regarding the proposed new USAF bomber is whether to expend the time, effort and money to EMP harden the aircraft.

That's what I meant by fried.. literally Smile

Maybe its time to arm our UAVs with tactical nukes---hmmm, that sounds kind of like using cruise missiles. In other words, don't visit ground zero with manned platforms, use stealthy cruise and ballistic missiles.
Besides, I hated taping my mirrors and relying on an eye-patch to survive.

Well we can add F-35A/B/C Lightening II to a long list of Neuclear capable US aircraft.

Including the A-1 Skyraider!?! Shocked

  A2F, A-6 Intruder
  A3D-1/2, A-3A/B Skywarrior
  A3J-1, A-5A Vigilante
  A4D-2/5, A-4B/C/E/J/M Skyhawk
  A-7 Corsair II
  AD-4B Skyraider
  AD-4B/7, A-1J Skyraider
  AD-6/7, A-1H/J Skyraider
  AJ, A-2 Savage
  B-1B Lancer
  B-29 Superfortress
  B-2A Spirit
  B-36 Peacemaker
  B-45A Tornado
  B-47A/B/E Stratojet
  B-50A/D Superfortress
  B-52 Stratofortress
  B-57B Intruder
  B-58 Hustler
  B-66 Destroyer
  F/A-18A/B/C/D/E/F Hornet
  F-111A/B/C/D/E/F Aardvark
  FB-111A Aardvark
  F-84E/F Thunderstreak
  F-84G Thunderjet
  F-86F/H Saber
  F-89J Scorpion (Genie Missile)
  F-100A/C/D/F Super Sabre
  F-101A/B/C Voodoo
  F-101B/F Voodoo (Genie Missile)
  F-102A Delta Dagger (Falcon/W42)
  F-104C/G/S Starfighter
  F-105B/D/F Thunderchief
  F-106A/B Delta Dart (Genie Missile)
  F-117A Nighthawk
  F-15E Strike Eagle
  F-16A/B/C/D Fighting Falcon
  F2H-2B Banshee
  F3H-2N, F-3C Demon
  F-4C/D/E Phantom II
  F9F-8B, AF-9J Cougar
  FJ-4B, AF-1E Fury
  P2V-5F/7, P-2E/H Neptune
  P-3 Orion
  S2F-1/2/3/3S, S-2A/C/D/E Tracker
  S-3 Viking

After all, if the F-35 is replacing other aircraft capable of carrying the B61, why wouldn't it? Shrug

TEG

Don't forget, the EMP's effective range and impact are greatly reduced in atmospheric detonations. With typical tactics, an aircraft doesn't need that much shielding to escape its own weapon. The EMP is most effective when detonated in space.

I've noticed that the F-35 is supposed to carry the AGM-158 JASSM as one of its external weapons. Looking at the JASSM, I see that its payload is the same as the longer ranged Tomahawks and ALCMs (1000 lbs). Does that mean the JASSM can carry a W80 warhead if needed?

Not unless a JASSM replaces the ALCMs. We're giving 2/3rds of our nuclear cruise missiles in SORT.

bjr1028 wrote:

Not unless a JASSM replaces the ALCMs. We're giving 2/3rds of our nuclear cruise missiles in SORT.

The U.S. got so punked in that treaty. Russia didn't have to give up anything except some obsolete junk. I suppose the F-35 (being somewhat stealthy) could make up some of the difference, unless Hillary decides to give away our tactical nukes as well. Russia has a butt-ton of those (way more than the U.S.), but the treaty didn't say anything on that subject.

The latest so-called "tactical" missile developed by Russia is the Iskander-K, which has a longer range than the Pershing IIs we gave up over 20 years ago in the IRBM treaty. Lady Bill is a complete moron at negotiating with the Russians. She's a lawyer for crying out loud; a senile washed-up actor was better at this kind of thing back in the 1980s.

it will be very hard to top the f-35. The only way I can now imagine is if speed matters more then stealth, which I could not find out how fast it is, but mach 1.5 or above, is that about 1200 miles per hour./

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

F-35 will be nuke capable by 2015 with Blk4