F-35 with B61-12

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

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

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

Unread post06 Nov 2016, 16:06

count_to_10 wrote:I recently had some rather eye opening experiences in trying to re-create work that had been done by a predecessor. However, as I wrote above, even if you had all of those old people still around, their experience frequently wouldn't help with the new weapons, because of all the new technology that has to be worked into them.


Depends what it is. Fields that have moved steadily forward (materials science, and electronics for instance) that could be the case. Others, such as ballistic missile development, RV design, nuclear warhead design, etc., where there have been decades long vacations . . .not so much.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

gtg947h

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 199
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2008, 16:52

Unread post07 Nov 2016, 14:41

sferrin wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:I recently had some rather eye opening experiences in trying to re-create work that had been done by a predecessor. However, as I wrote above, even if you had all of those old people still around, their experience frequently wouldn't help with the new weapons, because of all the new technology that has to be worked into them.


Depends what it is. Fields that have moved steadily forward (materials science, and electronics for instance) that could be the case. Others, such as ballistic missile development, RV design, nuclear warhead design, etc., where there have been decades long vacations . . .not so much.


A lot of what also gets lost is lessons like "yeah, we tried that; it didn't work, and here's why". New technology sometimes makes those things possible now, but many times it doesn't. Or, safety and operational lessons that so often wind up having to be relearned by the young bucks because they didn't have a graybeard around to mentor them properly.
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

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

Unread post08 Nov 2016, 01:54

sferrin wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:I recently had some rather eye opening experiences in trying to re-create work that had been done by a predecessor. However, as I wrote above, even if you had all of those old people still around, their experience frequently wouldn't help with the new weapons, because of all the new technology that has to be worked into them.


Depends what it is. Fields that have moved steadily forward (materials science, and electronics for instance) that could be the case. Others, such as ballistic missile development, RV design, nuclear warhead design, etc., where there have been decades long vacations . . .not so much.

Lets put it this way -- as far as the old guys would be concerned, new weapons wouldn't even have a fuze. It's all electronic safe-and-arm and direct initiation of boosters.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

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

arian

Banned

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

Unread post08 Nov 2016, 02:37

Same old vague generic argument. I asked for SPECIFIC. Apparently, specifics seem hard to come by. :roll:

Sferrin, don't worry, I have plenty of work experience to know what I'm talking about. No need for me to share that with you, as long as you continue to provide little more than generic and vague arguments lacking in any sort of specific details. I gave you a specific detail as to why such things may cost a lot, you not so much. So we can see here who has real world experience and who doesn't :P

Now, as far as "experience" and passing on "experience" from one person to another across time, within an organization. While this does exist, this is at best a secondary issue. And here's why:

1) In this SPECIFIC situation, we're dealing with entirely new technologies which didn't even exist before. So right there, the argument of "experience" falls flat in this SPECIFIC situation.

2) We're dealing with organizations here whose whole purpose is knowledge. These people aren't mechanics on the shop floor who figured out a more convenient way of shaving off some material, and decided to keep it secret from the other mechanics and not teach anyone else in order to protect their job. This sort of situation is common on the manufacturing floor. It is absolutely antithetical on the design floor.

We're talking about scientists. Their job is SPECIFICALLY to create processes which they themselves aren't going to be implementing. Working in groups of dozens or hundreds of people. How do hundreds of people, each possessing only a small fraction of the required knowledge to make a completed product, coordinate their activities if the knowledge only resides in each individual? Literally nothing would ever get done if that was the case.

3) In an organization full of scientists and based on knowledge, obviously everything is recorded, codified, and transmitted. "We tried that and it didn't work" isn't a word of mouth factor. We tried that and it didn't work is recorded in great detail and published internally. That's how such an organization functions, and that's how knowledge is created and advanced.

On the manufacturing floor this doesn't happen, but it doesn't happen because the people there are interested in keeping others from gaining the knowledge, not in created reproducible processes.

4) In the case of the F-22, of course saving the tools etc is prudent. But we're talking of a different problem here that the "reinventing the wheel" problem. It's ramp-up time and costs. Obviously it takes time and effort to ram-up a process, regardless how much you know about it. It doesn't imply they are reinventing the wheel in every situation. It certainly isn't the case in this SPECIFIC example since they are doing neither. They are designing new components using different technologies from the prior time they were designed.

5) There's 10,000 people working at Los Alamos, for example. How much do you think each individual's contribution matters? Very little. How does such an organization function if magical pixie dust knowledge was the way things were done? How would 10,000 people cooperate, today, never-mind 30 years in the future, is knowledge couldn't be transmitted and utilized in other parts of the organization?

You're applying factory floor logic to design and scientific problems.

More specifically to the issue at hand, how EXACTLY did they replace just about all the components of missile, a warhead, design essentially new warheads, test all these warheads, rockets, guidance systems and all the things that go into it, if they had been on vacation for 30 years and somehow it was just a bunch of new 22 year olds who know nothing of what happened 30 years ago? How exactly did they manage to design maneuvering ballistic missile targets to test ABM missiles on, if they're so...ignorant...that they need to redesign the wheel from 30 years ago?

How exactly did they design hypersonic X-51 and boost-glide vehicles, if they are all so dumb that they have to reinvent the wheel everytime?

Los Alamos and Sandia are the sort of organizations who haven't figured out how to do science?

There's no way anything would ever get done if this vague and generic argument held. And it is obvious it doesn't hold because you need to resort to "designing new RVs" hypothetical rather than the SPECIFIC example at hand. This is why specifics are important.

Of course, the "they've been on vacation for 30 years" argument is also false on face value. Please show me IN DETAIL how and where and when Los Alamos or Sandia or some other related organization laid off a few thousand scientists, or wasn't constantly hiring new ones, and how this brain loss happened. Don't forget to be SPECIFIC.

One SPECIFIC example of how this didn't happen is given exactly in the article I linked to. The new microchip fab at Sandia to serve nuclear weapons was completed in 1988. Upgraded over the years, with an additional upgrade to come about in 2020. They have been designing and building new microchips for nuclear weapons, and other applications which require radiation hardening, for several decades. WHO are the people who work there? What have they been doing since 1988? When did the process start to get to 1988? What was the continuity of individuals, and the rate of new individuals coming in? What happened to those people from 1988? HOW exactly does a new PhD going into this fab in 2020, be able to operate? But we're supposed to believe that such a facility would grind to a halt if this one guy from 1988 was to retire. Catastrophe!

PS: Yes yes I know the response that will follow: "let me tell you about this one time when my company spend 6 months trying to figure something out, and then we called this old guy who retired 30 years ago and he solved the problem in 10 seconds!" (which is the same story repeated by multiple people, even though apparently no one specifically experienced this particular story. Strange). That's called...the exception that proves the rule.

PPS: Of course, on the flip side we're supposed to believe that entire manufacturing lines can be dispersed across the globe, for extremely complex products, even though they were created in one place by entirely different people, and that this happens every day and relatively easily. R&D labs dispersed across the globe in one organization, and yet somehow they manage to communicate and ideas flow across thousands of miles. But inside an organization, everything is done through magical pixie dust communication. Not only that, but the most critical and costly components which are supposed to be responsible for these massive costs...are even more magical pixie dust!
Offline

arian

Banned

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

Unread post08 Nov 2016, 02:53

sferrin wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:I recently had some rather eye opening experiences in trying to re-create work that had been done by a predecessor. However, as I wrote above, even if you had all of those old people still around, their experience frequently wouldn't help with the new weapons, because of all the new technology that has to be worked into them.


Depends what it is. Fields that have moved steadily forward (materials science, and electronics for instance) that could be the case. Others, such as ballistic missile development, RV design, nuclear warhead design, etc., where there have been decades long vacations . . .not so much.


Or to say it other words, fields which don't move as fast are fields where there is little left to advance on. Most of the improvements have already been made and perfected. And hence, the knowledge is mostly set.

It is a lot harder to design a new microchip technology than it is to design a new warhead, or rocket booster. Because there isn't much else different you can do to a rocket booster that we haven't figured out decades ago. The very factor which makes these fields less dynamic are the very factors which make "magic pixie dust" knowledge less relevant.

Of course, this isn't related to the specific question at hand either.
Offline

arian

Banned

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

Unread post09 Nov 2016, 01:39

Here are some more specific examples of what they've been doing:

1) Extending life of nuclear warheads by several decades, as the case of W76 extending it by 30 years: http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/local/nav ... 33871.html

Now, extending the life of a nuclear warhead by 30 years is a feat that is even more difficult that the initial design and construction of the warhead! It involves in the case of the W76, replacing virtually every component of the warhead with new designs. How did they do this is supposedly they had to re-invent the wheel?

I wonder why Russian nukes are said to have a shelf life of 10-15 years, while US ones, despite our infrastructure supposedly being decimated and destroyed by incompetent politicians...manages to to do double and triple that. All that brain loss I suppose.

2) Figuring out how to extend pit lifetime out to 100 years: http://www.nukewatch.org/facts/nwd/JASO ... uAging.pdf

The investment in doing this testing and figuring out mitigation plans is a process that is FAR more complex and difficult that designing the nukes in the first place. How did Los Alamos and LLNL manage to do such a stellar job at this, if they supposedly went on vacation 30 years ago and have nobody left there to figure out nukes?

This is not the sort of stuff you do if you have to "reinvent the wheel".

3) Pantex has mostly been disassembling warheads for several decades now. But what is involved in disassembling nuclear warheads? It is a process that requires even greater know-how of the design than assembling the warhead in the first place. How exactly does Pantex manage to disassemble thousands of warheads, if the people working there supposedly have no idea about these warheads, how they are designed etc? On top of having to know exactly what can go wrong with each warhead type as it ages and all its components.

Not the sort of thing you do when you have to "reinvent the wheel".

4) Minuteman III upgrades have been continuous from 1992 till today. GRP started in 1993, testing from 94-96, begun production in 1999 and finished in 2008. In 2016 a new guidance upgrade program was initiated: http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articl ... dance.html The boosters were also replaced: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2 ... uteman.pdf

So basically new motors, new guidance, new warheads, in a program which had a continuity from 1992 till today, with more upgrades to come.

I wonder what "wheel" they had to reinvent?

5) We don't even need to talk about all the activities of Los Alamos, Lawerence Livermore, Sandia etc. Los Alamos, 10,000+ people $2.2 billion budget. LLNL, 5,800 people and $1.5 billion budget, Sandia 8,4000 people and $2.4 billion budget (they are a bit more diversified however) etc. They have all been doing the type of research over the past decades on developing new materials, new testing, extending life etc on nuclear weapons, besides designing the new components that go into the upgraded weapons. Each of these things requires a HELL of a lot more knowledge and expertise than went into designing any of these warheads in the first place.

Somehow, this doesn't strike me as the sort of operation by idiots who know nothing of nukes but need to "reinvent the wheel" every-time they try something.

But what do I know. I'm sure Sferrin will be able to provide specific details of which wheel they need to re-invent, why exactly that is, when did this "30 year vacation" occur, where and when did this massive brain loss occur etc.

I'm sure, very specific details will be forthcoming.
Offline
User avatar

zerion

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 645
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2014, 01:47
  • Location: Everywhere like such as...

Unread post11 Jan 2017, 02:50

F-35 could get B-61 sooner than planned

http://www.defensetech.org/2017/01/10/f ... r-planned/
Offline
User avatar

smsgtmac

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 863
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2013, 04:22
  • Location: Texas

Unread post11 Jan 2017, 04:58

zerion wrote:F-35 could get B-61 sooner than planned

http://www.defensetech.org/2017/01/10/f ... r-planned/

I think Ash Carter said something yesterday about the F-35 being 'dual mission' by Block 5 (maybe 4) as part of a farewell address/going away ceremony at the Pentagon (or in conjunction with it). I'll try to find the transcript tomorrow at work if no one dredges it up first.

Updated:
Sorry, It was his 'Exit' memo :
FINAL-DOD-Exit-Memo-1.pdf
(304.1 KiB) Downloaded 609 times

Investing in our nuclear forces and supporting infrastructure is essential for maintaining a safe, secure,
and effective deterrent. In addition, the United States has begun, and must continue, to invest in a
modern physical infrastructure – consisting of the national security laboratories and a complex of
supporting facilities – and a highly capable workforce with specialized skills needed to sustain the
nuclear deterrent. To ensure the security and reliability of our nuclear arsenal, DoD is working together
with the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to refurbish aging
weapons. To that end, the NNSA has begun a series of life extension programs for our nuclear arsenal,
beginning with the W76 submarine-launched ballistic missile warhead and continuing with the B61
gravity bomb. At the same time, DoD has also begun the process of recapitalizing our aging nuclear triad.
We initiated the program to build the Columbia-class nuclear ballistic missile submarine to replace the
Ohio-class submarine. We selected a designer for the B-21 Raider long-range strike bomber, which will
ensure that the United States maintains a penetrating bomber. We are developing the Long-Range
Standoff (LRSO) cruise missile, which replaces the aging air-launch cruise missile. Taken together, the
new penetrating bomber armed with an effective standoff missile will continue to provide an adaptable,
recallable, flexible, and highly visible force to extend deterrence, demonstrate resolve, and signal
commitment to allies and partners, even as adversaries continue to modernize their air defenses. We are
continuing production of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter which will be updated in Block IV to assume the
role of dual-capable aircraft and provide the U.S. and Allies a 21st century capability
. Finally, we’ve
begun the replacement of the land-based Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, the Ground-Based Strategic
Deterrent, to continue to provide a stabilizing and responsive deterrent capability.
--The ultimate weapon is the mind of man.
Offline
User avatar

smsgtmac

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 863
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2013, 04:22
  • Location: Texas

Unread post12 Jan 2017, 04:27

So Block 4 it is (for now) :D
--The ultimate weapon is the mind of man.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23257
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post03 Mar 2017, 09:44

The F-35 in the Second Nuclear Age
02 Mar 2017 Robbin Laird

"...The Current F-35 and Tactical Nuclear Weapons Approach
The F-35 is a block upgradeable aircraft; in the fourth block in the evolution of the aircraft, currently under design and testing, nuclear weapons delivery will be integrated onto the aircraft.

This design capability will be operational by 2018 but the testing and integration of the aircraft with the initial weapon to be carried on the aircraft will take longer.

Currently, only the F-35A is being considered for nuclear weapons delivery, although it would not take a great deal, to evolve the F-35C, the carrier-based F-35, to have this capability as well.

The head of the F-35 program, Lt. General Bogdan has argued that the F-35 will carry an update B-61 tactical nuclear weapon. The weapon is in development and its progress will determine when the integration actually occurs which then will be followed by testing and certification. According to Bogden: “We don’t see the marrying-up of our capability and that weapon until probably the mid-’20s, but it’s going to happen.”[3]

The Department of Energy is building the weapon itself and the Air Force is building the bomb’s tailkit.

The B-61-12 is a low yield weapon and can be delivered several miles from its target.

But all of that is part of the question of weapons design including the question of evolution beyond the B-61 itself.

Comb[in]ing an aircraft integrated sensors and target acquisition, and able to so in a passive sensing environment, with a low yield nuclear weapon clearly can introduce a new tool set into an integrated warfighting strategy appropriate to dealing with smaller nuclear powers, or deterring a power like Russia which has recently threatened the use of tactical nuclear weapons against NATO powers, notably in Northern Europe...."

Graphic: http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploa ... 02/B61.png

Source: http://www.sldinfo.com/the-f-35-in-the- ... clear-age/
Attachments
B61-12 tactical NUKE bomb FAS.gif
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

zerion

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 645
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2014, 01:47
  • Location: Everywhere like such as...

Unread post16 Apr 2017, 19:31

US conducts tests for upgraded nuclear bomb
BY MALLORY SHELBOURNE - 04/15/17 09:41 PM EDT 182

Scientists say they have successfully carried out an initial test flight for an improved version of a nuclear bomb that has been in the U.S. arsenal for decades, The Associated Press reported Saturday.

Sandia National Laboratories conducted a test last month to assess the non-nuclear capabilities of the B61-12, the report said. As part of the test, an F-16 dropped an inert version of the weapon over a Nevada desert.

"It's great to see things all come together: the weapon design, the test preparation, the aircraft, the range and the people who made it happen," said Anna Schauer, the director of the lab’s Stockpile Resource Center.


Work on the B61-12 has been going on for years, the AP noted, while government officials characterized the latest tests with mock versions of the bomb as vital to refurbishing efforts.
Scientists will conduct additional test flights, and the first batch of the weapon is expected to be finished by 2020, according to the AP.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/32900 ... clear-bomb
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

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

Unread post16 Apr 2017, 20:03

,,,,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. At 1,200 lbs. and 13" diameter, 0.3; 5; 10; and 50 kilotons, why does it not have a "wings kit" in addition to the B61-12 (JDAM) tail kit assembly?
:?
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2164
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post16 Apr 2017, 23:13

The illustration above shows "strakes" -- are not those the same strakes attached to regular gravity bombs (Mk82, Mk83, Mk84) to turn them into "JDAMS"?

Earlier versions of the B61 only weighed 700lbs. The Mod-11 reportedly weights 1200lbs, and was supposed to be an "earth penetrator" bunker buster. The Mod-12 appears to also weight 1200lbs. I am guessing the extra 500lbs is to aid the "earth penetrating" ability of the munition. Wikipedia :shock: quotes a CEP of 30m for the -12. I am guessing that results from the addition of the JDAM add-on doofers. If intended primarily as a bunker buster, I am guessing high altitude delivery from stealthy aircraft makes the most sense, and while wings may increase range, they could decrease penetration by trading kinetic energy (slower speed) for increased range (gliding).
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7703
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post16 Apr 2017, 23:18

I don't think wing kits impede penetration, SDB-1 doesn't seem to have a problem.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

zerion

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 645
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2014, 01:47
  • Location: Everywhere like such as...

Unread post17 Apr 2017, 01:16

neptune wrote:,,,,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. At 1,200 lbs. and 13" diameter, 0.3; 5; 10; and 50 kilotons, why does it not have a "wings kit" in addition to the B61-12 (JDAM) tail kit assembly?
:?

It's getting the tail kit.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests