Page 7 of 7

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2018, 20:12
by landis
hythelday wrote:
landis wrote:
marsavian wrote:F-35 with B-61 will increase deterrence not decrease it as it is a stealthy delivery platform. If fact with the way the warhead can be dialled down it is the ultimate tactical weapon too. S-400 is not an issue, they can be jammed or taken out before warhead delivery if they are not avoided. 1750 F-35A with B-61 is an awesome surprise first strike package too. F-35 will enhance an old weapon which previously needed a benign permissive environment in which to operate. F-35 + B-61 is the ultimate expression of this aircraft's lethality and the Russians know it.


All good points, but the S-400 as part of an integrated air defense and denial system can make even the F-35 stealth problematic. Yes the S-400 one on one can be defeated, but that defense system involves many other assets including S-400s and many others, that compromise the certainty of stealth. Remember, stealth does NOT make an aircraft invisible, just more difficult to track, at closer range. If you have many of these assets spread all over and integrated then Stealth isn't the slam dunk it was over Iraq in 2003. And we have put all our eggs in the stealth basket. A breakthrough in detection of stealth would be disastrous for the US.

As a tactical nuclear delivery system, the Iskander is probably superior. Mach 6, easy to hide, not tied to a runway/base, along with decoys and jammers associated in the warhead to defeat anti-missile defenses.


RF VLO is not the only asset of F-35, by far.

Again, what is it that you are trying to say, apart from praising Russian missile syatems?


The B-61-12 is a modernized gravity bomb from the 1960s... It has no standoff compared to Russian weapons like their new hypersonic weapons like kinzhal that they even claim are nuclear armed, stand off range and mach 10.
Stealth doesn't even matter with that delivery method.
And for some reason we don't want to admit to any nuclear role for our hypersonic weapons we are lagging behind on developing. Our tactical nuclear weapons consist of the B-61. A gravity bomb. Do we have something against tactical nuclear weapons with some standoff range? Why do we insist on requiring our tactical nuclear deterrent to have to drive into the range of the air defenses instead of launching outside them?
The Russians have a dozen different tactical and naval weapons, and they have new ones with more modern concepts. And you have to assume that any target worth nuking will be defended by a dedicated and capable integrated air defence system. And we still want to fly over the target and deliver a gravity bomb??? With everything in that operation totally dependent on stealth? No, I don't get it. I don't mean to praise the Russians, but it does seem their strategy is more modern and sound given the realities of the battlefield.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2018, 20:31
by castlebravo
landis wrote:The B-61-12 is a modernized gravity bomb from the 1960s... It has no standoff compared to Russian weapons like their new hypersonic weapons like kinzhal that they even claim are nuclear armed, stand off range and mach 10.
Stealth doesn't even matter with that delivery method.
And for some reason we don't want to admit to any nuclear role for our hypersonic weapons we are lagging behind on developing. Our tactical nuclear weapons consist of the B-61. A gravity bomb. Do we have something against tactical nuclear weapons with some standoff range? Why do we insist on requiring our tactical nuclear deterrent to have to drive into the range of the air defenses instead of launching outside them?
The Russians have a dozen different tactical and naval weapons, and they have new ones with more modern concepts. And you have to assume that any target worth nuking will be defended by a dedicated and capable integrated air defence system. And we still want to fly over the target and deliver a gravity bomb??? With everything in that operation totally dependent on stealth? No, I don't get it. I don't mean to praise the Russians, but it does seem their strategy is more modern and sound given the realities of the battlefield.


You are comparing what is likely a 9,000lb+ missile to a ~700lb bomb. There is an extremely low number of aircraft capable of carrying the Kinzhal, and all of them will undoubtedly be targeted by ICBM/SLBM warheads if a nuclear war breaks out. The B61 by contrast can be carried by literally thousands of active NATO tactical fighters deployed at airbases across the globe. There aren't enough S-400 batteries to cover every target, and the ones that are in our way will have SEAD/DEAD flights tasked with neutralizing them.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2018, 05:57
by Dragon029
Don't forget the ALCM is still in service and is soon to be replaced by the LRSO.

Either way though, what's wrong with having tactical nuclear weapons delivered at the same time or immediately after SEAD is performed? I doubt a battalion of tanks or some static facility is going to disappear beyond the reach of a B61-12 delivered via F-35 while the SEAD sortie is taking place.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2018, 06:39
by element1loop
castlebravo wrote:You are comparing what is likely a 9,000lb+ missile to a ~700lb bomb. There is an extremely low number of aircraft capable of carrying the Kinzhal, and all of them will undoubtedly be targeted by ICBM/SLBM warheads if a nuclear war breaks out. The B61 by contrast can be carried by literally thousands of active NATO tactical fighters deployed at airbases across the globe. There aren't enough S-400 batteries to cover every target, and the ones that are in our way will have SEAD/DEAD flights tasked with neutralizing them.


High-speed high altitude loft-tossed guided B-61s will go a lot further than wings-level released B-61. And if one of those cooked-off at 30 k ft at the end of a ballistic toss, EO detection, tracking or targeting sensors looking upwards are going to be fried or damaged fairly well and radars probably a bit noisy (for a range of reasons). F-35 can carry two, so there's no reason why they can't 'shape' the delivery environment which is needed to be successful with one of them.

On the other hand, Perishing was an in your face first-strike weapon with little time delay and a full commitment with no recall.

Having two B-61s inside A2A patrol F-35 flights, with tanker support during any crisis period provides rapid reaction and delivery flexibility, plus good range, with much better than even chance of success, plus this prevents a first-strike completely eliminating weapons still in forwards storage. Which adds to deterrence in a crisis and makes first-strike to try to eliminate these weapons much less attractive to try, nor likely to work.

Which is a counter intuitive picture of tactical effectiveness plus balanced priorities and deterrence available from a small VLO optimized human-delivered gravity bomb than a large missile and ground launcher, whose existence and launch can be monitored.

Frankly I think delivery capability potential by other tactical aircraft becomes moot as this bomb deploys as it's clearly intended to be delivered by VLO aircraft. Not that I think they will ever be used, for all the same sorts of reasons.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2018, 06:42
by Corsair1963
element1loop wrote:
High-speed high altitude loft-tossed guided B-61s will go a lot further than wings-level released B-61. And if one of those cooked-off at 30 k ft at the end of a ballistic toss, EO detection, tracking or targeting sensors looking upwards are going to be fried or damaged fairly well and radars probably a bit noisy (for a range of reasons). F-35 can carry two, so there's no reason why they can't 'shape' the delivery environment which is need to be successful with one of them.

On the other hand, Perishing was an in your face first-strike weapon with little time delay and a full commitment with no recall.

Having two B-61s inside A2A patrol F-35 flights, with tanker support during any crisis period provides rapid reaction and delivery flexibility, plus good range, with much better than even chance of success, plus this prevents a first-strike completely eliminating weapons still in forwards storage. Which adds to deterrence in a crisis and makes first-strike to try to eliminate these weapons much less attractive to try, nor likely to work.

Which is a counter intuitive picture of tactical effectiveness plus balanced priorities and deterrence available from a small VLO optimized human-delivered gravity bomb than a large missile and ground launcher, whose existence and launch can be monitored.

Frankly I think delivery capability potential by other tactical aircraft becomes moot as this bomb deploys as it's clearly intended to be delivered by VLO aircraft.


It's also the reason why the F-35A is the only real option for the Luftwaffe (German Air Force) in the Nuclear Strike Role.... :wink:

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2018, 20:19
by jetblast16
B61-12: strategic-like effects using tactical aviation

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2018, 02:29
by landis
element1loop wrote:
castlebravo wrote:
High-speed high altitude loft-tossed guided B-61s will go a lot further than wings-level released B-61. And if one of those cooked-off at 30 k ft at the end of a ballistic toss, EO detection, tracking or targeting sensors looking upwards are going to be fried or damaged fairly well and radars probably a bit noisy (for a range of reasons). F-35 can carry two, so there's no reason why they can't 'shape' the delivery environment which is needed to be successful with one of them.

On the other hand, Perishing was an in your face first-strike weapon with little time delay and a full commitment with no recall.

Having two B-61s inside A2A patrol F-35 flights, with tanker support during any crisis period provides rapid reaction and delivery flexibility, plus good range, with much better than even chance of success, plus this prevents a first-strike completely eliminating weapons still in forwards storage. Which adds to deterrence in a crisis and makes first-strike to try to eliminate these weapons much less attractive to try, nor likely to work.

Which is a counter intuitive picture of tactical effectiveness plus balanced priorities and deterrence available from a small VLO optimized human-delivered gravity bomb than a large missile and ground launcher, whose existence and launch can be monitored.

Frankly I think delivery capability potential by other tactical aircraft becomes moot as this bomb deploys as it's clearly intended to be delivered by VLO aircraft. Not that I think they will ever be used, for all the same sorts of reasons.


I guess this answers my question. The advantages of a gravity bomb over a ground launched missile. Still, standoff is still a concern, given stealth is not an absolute or guarantee in the future. What kind of range could you get in a B-61-12 released in a high altitude toss and high speed? How about a low altitude toss? I have no real idea other than a guess at the ballistics, but maybe 15 miles?

Also, what I was thinking is that any rocket motor, especially a large one with a heavy missile, would be observable with the various IR sensors available, making the Iskander or other hypersonics a fast, but very visible attack. A 'lofted' bomb from a stealth fighter might have advantages. But given the latest Russian point defence systems that are integrated and very fast reacting, I have doubts overflying any target, no matter how stealthy, is a good idea.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2018, 21:32
by landis
Is there such a thing as "Long Range Toss Bombing"? A basic gravity bomb with mid course corrections would be a viable weapon with stealth, but how far could you toss a bomb from 50,000 feet without the glide wings of the SDB, for example? The fact that, according to the latest Youtube of the F15 dropping the B-61-12 test demonstrates spin stabilizing rockets which could logically be used for such a tactic. Would you be outside the latest Russian integrated air defense detection zone for a stealth fighter or bomber? My guess, 50k feet at Mach 1.5, maybe 50 nm?

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2018, 07:43
by element1loop
landis wrote:Is there such a thing as "Long Range Toss Bombing"? A basic gravity bomb with mid course corrections would be a viable weapon with stealth, but how far could you toss a bomb from 50,000 feet without the glide wings of the SDB, for example? The fact that, according to the latest Youtube of the F15 dropping the B-61-12 test demonstrates spin stabilizing rockets which could logically be used for such a tactic. Would you be outside the latest Russian integrated air defense detection zone for a stealth fighter or bomber? My guess, 50k feet at Mach 1.5, maybe 50 nm?


Numbers:
11 foot 8 inch length
13-inch diameter
700 lb
FL500
M=1.5
33-deg nose-up toss
(more or less angle around this value doesn't make much difference to the range)

Result:
15.5 nm (28.8 km) to ground impact (sea level).
106.2 sec flight-time to ground.
Max altitude of toss, 58,911 ft.
Passes through FL300 at 67.5 sec @ 11.3 nm (21 km) down-range from launch.
Enough time for a launch jet to get ~18 nm clear (~33km) from a FL300 air-burst, about double that for a ground-burst.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2018, 17:55
by landis
element1loop wrote:
landis wrote:Is there such a thing as "Long Range Toss Bombing"? A basic gravity bomb with mid course corrections would be a viable weapon with stealth, but how far could you toss a bomb from 50,000 feet without the glide wings of the SDB, for example? The fact that, according to the latest Youtube of the F15 dropping the B-61-12 test demonstrates spin stabilizing rockets which could logically be used for such a tactic. Would you be outside the latest Russian integrated air defense detection zone for a stealth fighter or bomber? My guess, 50k feet at Mach 1.5, maybe 50 nm?


Numbers:
11 foot 8 inch length
13-inch diameter
700 lb
FL500
M=1.5
33-deg nose-up toss
(more or less angle around this value doesn't make much difference to the range)

Result:
15.5 nm (28.8 km) to ground impact (sea level).
106.2 sec flight-time to ground.
Max altitude of toss, 58,911 ft.
Passes through FL300 at 67.5 sec @ 11.3 nm (21 km) down-range from launch.
Enough time for a launch jet to get ~18 nm clear (~33km) from a FL300 air-burst, about double that for a ground-burst.


Thanks!

I am a little surprised. I would have thought a toss at altitude and speed would produce more range (since the initiation is already 10 miles straight up) , but I guess not.

So using just about any method, with a gravity bomb with no wings (like SDB) you really are just about over the target to deliver it.

Reason I ask, is the Ed Thaylen Nike Missile website (http://ed-thelen.org) mentioned somewhere that one of the reasons for the nuclear warhead on the Nike Hercules was to be sure of getting the nuke bomb, given if a conventional SAM would only shoot down the bomber, and the bomb might, from high altitude, go as far as 60 miles, but perhaps that was considering a standoff missile with the Soviet bomber.
Anyway, thanks for the numbers.