F-35 with B61-12

F-35 Armament, fuel tanks, internal and external hardpoints, loadouts, and other stores.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

lookieloo

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1244
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2013, 08:04

Unread post30 Oct 2016, 05:00

sferrin wrote:
lookieloo wrote:It will demonstrate resolve and show the Russians that we have a reasonably survivable response to their so-called "nuclear de-escalation" plans without having to develop any new delivery systems of our own.


Better yet, make JASSM nuclear capable. Lots of W80s sitting on shelves with nothing to do.
I have advocated the same thing, but it would be expensive and probably at least a decade away. Sending bees to play around Eastern Europe now would be pocket change by comparison, and doesn't involve rejiggering our active-deterrent mix. Giving the Russians pause without having to spend extra money is a win to me, and it avoids the total green-party $hitstorm we'd have to deal with if new types of nukes were sent to Europe.
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post01 Nov 2016, 02:43

lookieloo wrote:In response to Russia's INF treaty violations, deploy F-35Bs in Europe to practice austere STOVL ops and toss-bombing/escape profile missions. Doesn't matter if they're actually nuke-capable yet.

It will demonstrate resolve and show the Russians that we have a reasonably survivable response to their so-called "nuclear de-escalation" plans without having to develop any new delivery systems of our own.


We have far superior conventional weapons and means to counter these few and limited Russian systems. No need for drastic ideas. Best response is to deploy in and arm Poland with lots of Patriot batteries, as is being done.

As for W-80s, they're not just sitting around. W-80s are planned to be upgraded to W-80-4, with work starting last year, and are to be deployed in the new nuclear-capable cruise missile (which may well be a JASSM-ER derivative, for all we know). But the W-80s in storage now require upgrade to be useful weapons as they are nearing the end of their lifespan.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5399
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post01 Nov 2016, 13:24

arian wrote:As for W-80s, they're not just sitting around. W-80s are planned to be upgraded to W-80-4, with work starting last year, and are to be deployed in the new nuclear-capable cruise missile (which may well be a JASSM-ER derivative, for all we know). But the W-80s in storage now require upgrade to be useful weapons as they are nearing the end of their lifespan.


Until they're actually deployed on a weapon they're just sitting around. And there are many times more of them doing so than the number of AGM-86 replacements they plan on building (assuming the democrats don't manage to get it cancelled). There's no reason there couldn't be both a nuclear AGM-86 replacement AND a nuclear JASSM variant. Yes, we need both. No, you wouldn't want to waste an LRSO on something a JASSM could handle. LRSO should have much more range and much lower RCS than JASSM.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post01 Nov 2016, 21:58

sferrin wrote:
arian wrote:As for W-80s, they're not just sitting around. W-80s are planned to be upgraded to W-80-4, with work starting last year, and are to be deployed in the new nuclear-capable cruise missile (which may well be a JASSM-ER derivative, for all we know). But the W-80s in storage now require upgrade to be useful weapons as they are nearing the end of their lifespan.


Until they're actually deployed on a weapon they're just sitting around. And there are many times more of them doing so than the number of AGM-86 replacements they plan on building (assuming the democrats don't manage to get it cancelled). There's no reason there couldn't be both a nuclear AGM-86 replacement AND a nuclear JASSM variant. Yes, we need both. No, you wouldn't want to waste an LRSO on something a JASSM could handle. LRSO should have much more range and much lower RCS than JASSM.


What exactly do we need a nuclear armed JASSM for? And most of those W-80s are inoperable for a reason. They are approaching their end of life. That's why they need to be modernized. Modernizing nuclear bombs is obviously hard and takes a while.
Offline

lookieloo

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1244
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2013, 08:04

Unread post02 Nov 2016, 08:13

arian wrote: No need for drastic ideas.
But that's just it. Sending a few bees to Europe is about as non-drastic as it gets while still showing a modicum of spine. No new nukes to deploy, no new delivery systems to develop, no new infrastructure to emplace. Enough to send a message and good training to-boot.
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2885
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post02 Nov 2016, 08:54

arian wrote:
lookieloo wrote:In response to Russia's INF treaty violations, deploy F-35Bs in Europe to practice austere STOVL ops and toss-bombing/escape profile missions. Doesn't matter if they're actually nuke-capable yet.

It will demonstrate resolve and show the Russians that we have a reasonably survivable response to their so-called "nuclear de-escalation" plans without having to develop any new delivery systems of our own.


We have far superior conventional weapons and means to counter these few and limited Russian systems. No need for drastic ideas. Best response is to deploy in and arm Poland with lots of Patriot batteries, as is being done.

As for W-80s, they're not just sitting around. W-80s are planned to be upgraded to W-80-4, with work starting last year, and are to be deployed in the new nuclear-capable cruise missile (which may well be a JASSM-ER derivative, for all we know). But the W-80s in storage now require upgrade to be useful weapons as they are nearing the end of their lifespan.


Current functional lifespan, but the plutonium pit is good for upgrades for another fifty years, IMHO. :)
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5399
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post02 Nov 2016, 16:32

arian wrote:What exactly do we need a nuclear armed JASSM for?


Delivering nuclear warheads to tactical targets. Enabling any JASSM-qualified platform to carry nuclear standoff munitions. That should be obvious.

arian wrote:And most of those W-80s are inoperable for a reason. They are approaching their end of life. That's why they need to be modernized. Modernizing nuclear bombs is obviously hard and takes a while.


Yeah. That's what happens when you let your nuclear industrial base go to sh*t. It didn't use to be that way. It's also why just modifying the B61 is costing billions. Between 1970 and 1975 we built over 5000 W68s, so it's obviously not THAT hard (when you've got the industrial base and talent anyway). And that wasn't even the only type of warhead being built at the time.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3264
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post02 Nov 2016, 18:25

arian wrote:

What exactly do we need a nuclear armed JASSM for?

Greater survivability for the launch platform, so that it can attack targets, without flying through air defenses. It allows well defended targets, deep in enemy territory to be targeted.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5399
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post02 Nov 2016, 19:16

wrightwing wrote:
arian wrote:

What exactly do we need a nuclear armed JASSM for?

Greater survivability for the launch platform, so that it can attack targets, without flying through air defenses. It allows well defended targets, deep in enemy territory to be targeted.


No doubt he would be shocked to the core to learn that in the past many weapons had the nuclear option, including some SAMs and AAMs. :roll:
"There I was. . ."
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post02 Nov 2016, 22:15

sferrin wrote:No doubt he would be shocked to the core to learn that in the past many weapons had the nuclear option, including some SAMs and AAMs. :roll:


I'm shocked. Shocked I tells ya! Good job Sferrin. As always.

Greater survivability for the launch platform, so that it can attack targets, without flying through air defenses. It allows well defended targets, deep in enemy territory to be targeted.


Greater survivability for the launch platform is the intended purpose for the existence of the JASSM. For the nuclear role, we have cruise missiles and the intended stealth platform follow up, not to mention much more survivable platforms besides that.

The question was simple: what is this "need" for a nuclear armed JASSM? No one in the air force has even dreamt of this need. Needs aren't just made up.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5399
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post02 Nov 2016, 22:53

arian wrote:Greater survivability for the launch platform is the intended purpose for the existence of the JASSM.


You know those types of targets they'd use a JASSM against? Now imagine for a moment you wanted to put a nuclear warhead there instead. Or consider the targets B61 would be intended for. Now, instead of throwing away aircraft trying to deliver friggin' GRAVITY bombs, you get to stand off and use a stealth cruise missile. See, that wasn't too difficult was it?

arian wrote:For the nuclear role, we have cruise missiles and the intended stealth platform follow up, not to mention much more survivable platforms besides that.


Only so many strategic systems are allowed (assuming we're going to stick to treaty requirements) and they're already tasked. Furthermore, when START is inevitably jettisoned, nuclear armed JASSM would be perfect for B-1Bs. Not so the AGM-86 replacement. Too big. No, you don't want to go AGM-86A. Already been down that road.

arian wrote:The question was simple: what is this "need" for a nuclear armed JASSM? No one in the air force has even dreamt of this need. Needs aren't just made up.


No one has even dreamed of one huh? :roll: Really?

F-15.jpg


asalm-ptv.jpg


(Spare us the pedantic, "that's not a JASSM" everybody already knows.)

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-53.html
"Other proposed options for Condor included a turbojet propulsion for increased range (185 km (100 nm)), and a W-73 nuclear warhead."

So yeah, they've looked at tactical air-launched missiles with nuclear warheads before. As for JASSM specifically, well, given the state of our nuclear industrial base, the people in Washington blindly thinking nukes last forever, and (until the last ten years or so) the relatively calm state of the world, there was not only no need but asking for one would be a bit like asking Santa Clause for heart transplant. The world didn't stay calm. Things have a way of changing.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post02 Nov 2016, 23:19

So yeah they've looked at tactical air-launched missiles with nuclear warheads before.


You don't say.

What about nuclear mortars? Did we ever look into that? That must mean we...need...a nuclear warhead for the 120mm mortar. ASAP. Because if we did it in the past, it must mean we NEED one now. Did I get the gist of your argument about right?

You know those types of targets they'd use a JASSM against? Now imagine for a moment you wanted to put a nuclear warhead there instead


I can imagine lots of things. Nothing compared to your imagination, I must admit.

well, given the state of our nuclear industrial base, the people in Washington blindly thinking nukes last forever


Despite me reminding and correcting your wildly fantastic claims, such as this, both here and and secret projects forum, over and over, you keep repeating your same line as if none of us are capable of using Google and figuring out the state of upgrades and life extensions being carried out on nuclear warheads.

As I told you before, W-80s are in the early stages of being upgraded and extended. They are the last of the nukes to be going through this, with programs for all the other active nukes being well advanced. Yet here you are, again, repeating the "our politicians thinks this stuff will last forever OMFG they are doing nothing!" line.

You're like Solomon when it comes to making up dooms-day stuff. Only, somehow worst.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5399
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post02 Nov 2016, 23:42

arian wrote:
So yeah they've looked at tactical air-launched missiles with nuclear warheads before.


You don't say.



Sooo typical of you. Make one claim, get called on your BS, then you pretend you said no such thing.

"No one in the air force has even dreamt of this need." Sure sweetie. If you say so.


arian wrote:
You know those types of targets they'd use a JASSM against? Now imagine for a moment you wanted to put a nuclear warhead there instead


I can imagine lots of things. Nothing compared to your imagination, I must admit.


Oh, whatever shall I do? You have slain me.

arian wrote:
well, given the state of our nuclear industrial base, the people in Washington blindly thinking nukes last forever


Despite me reminding and correcting your wildly fantastic claims, such as this, both here and and secret projects forum, over and over, you keep repeating your same line as if none of us are capable of using Google and figuring out the state of upgrades and life extensions being carried out on nuclear warheads.


The amusing/sad thing is you actually believe that's suppose to amount to something. Apparently, in your tiny little world, anything more than nothing at all is all that is required, and is proof positive that our industrial base is humming right along. Your problem is you don't know what you don't know but are so arrogant you can't conceive that you might be completely out to lunch.

arian wrote:As I told you before, W-80s are in the early stages of being upgraded and extended. They are the last of the nukes to be going through this, with programs for all the other active nukes being well advanced. Yet here you are, again, repeating the "our politicians thinks this stuff will last forever OMFG they are doing nothing!" line.


Yeah, and Joe Redneck can change a tire on his '72 Pontiac, but he damn sure isn't going to be designing cars for Ferrari any time soon. But you're right there, holding Joe's beer wondering at the miracle of him changing a tire. The best part is you're too blind to see it. Ta-ta.
"There I was. . ."
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8390
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post03 Nov 2016, 00:17

arian wrote:The question was simple: what is this "need" for a nuclear armed JASSM? No one in the air force has even dreamt of this need. Needs aren't just made up.


https://www.armscontrol.org/ACT/2015_05 ... e-Missiles

Updated May 2015
The U.S. Air Force is planning to build about 1,000 new nuclear-capable air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs), several sources said last month.

...

The Air Force is aiming to receive approval later this year from the Office of the Secretary of Defense to go to the next stage of the acquisition process, which includes maturing the technology, refining requirements, and finalizing cost estimates for the new missile. The first new missile is slated for completion in 2026.

The Air Force does not currently plan to develop a conventional variant of the new missile, Jeter said. “There is currently no validated requirement” for a new conventional ALCM, “nor is there funding for such a variant,” she said.


Who cares what acronym you name it.. it is still a nuclear ACLM.

LRSO is currently funded.

http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y201 ... B_2017.pdf
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3282
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post03 Nov 2016, 01:15

sferrin wrote:
arian wrote:As I told you before, W-80s are in the early stages of being upgraded and extended. They are the last of the nukes to be going through this, with programs for all the other active nukes being well advanced. Yet here you are, again, repeating the "our politicians thinks this stuff will last forever OMFG they are doing nothing!" line.


Yeah, and Joe Redneck can change a tire on his '72 Pontiac, but he damn sure isn't going to be designing cars for Ferrari any time soon. But you're right there, holding Joe's beer wondering at the miracle of him changing a tire. The best part is you're too blind to see it. Ta-ta.

This is sounding a lot like your hyperventilation on the sensor fused weapon thread.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests