F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2015, 00:34
by tritonprime
"General Confirms Enhanced Targeting Capabilities of B61-12 Nuclear Bomb"
Posted on Jan.23, 2014 in NATO, Nuclear Weapons, United States by Hans M. Kristensen

Source:
http://fas.org/blogs/security/2014/01/b61capability/

...General Schwartz’s answer was both clear and blunt: “Without a doubt. Improved accuracy and lower yield is a desired military capability. Without a question.”

When asked whether that would result in a different target set or just make the existing weapon better, General Schwartz said: “It would have both effects.”

General Schwartz said that the B61 tail kit “has benefits from an employment standpoint that many consider stabilizing.” I later asked him what he meant by that and his reply was that critics (myself included) claim that the increased accuracy and lower yield options could make the B61-12 more attractive to use because of reduced collateral damage and radioactive fallout. But he said he believed that the opposite would be the case; that the enhanced capabilities would enhance deterrence and make use less likely because adversaries would be more convinced that the United States is willing to use nuclear weapons if necessary.


..."Nuclear capable aircraft may have many advantages. Accuracy (as compared to other systems) is not one of them,” the Joint Staff argued in 2004 during drafting of the Doctrine for joint Nuclear Operations. Test drops of U.S. nuclear bombs normally achieve an accuracy of 110-170 meters, which is insufficient to hold underground targets at risk except with very large yield. The designated nuclear earth-penetrator (B61-11) has a 400-kiloton warhead to be effective. Therefore, increasing the accuracy of the B61 to enhance targeting and reduce collateral damage are, as General Schwartz put it at the conference, desired military capabilities.

Increasing the accuracy broadens the type of targets that the B61 can be used to attack. The effect is most profound against underground targets that require ground burst and cratering to be damaged by the chock wave. Against a relatively small, heavy, well-designed, underground structure, severe damage is achieved when the target is within 1.25 the radius of the visible crater created by the nuclear detonation. Light damage is achieved at 2.5 radii. For a yield of 50 kt – the estimated maximum yield of the B61-12, the apparent crater radii vary from 30 meters (hard dry rock) to 68 meters (wet soil). Therefore an improvement in accuracy from 100-plus meter CEP (the current estimated accuracy of the B61) down to 30-plus meter CEP (assuming INS guidance for the B61-12) improves the kill probability against these targets significantly by achieving a greater likelihood of cratering the target during a bombing run. Put simply, the increased accuracy essentially puts the CEP inside the crater.

Cratering targets is dirty business because a nuclear detonation on or near the surface kicks up large amounts of radioactive material. With poor accuracy, strike planners would have to choose a relatively high selectable yield to have sufficient confidence that the target would be damaged. The higher the yield, the greater the radioactive fallout.

With the increased accuracy of the B61-12 the strike planners will be able to select a lower yield and still achieve the same (or even better) damage to the underground target. Using lower yields will significantly reduce collateral damage by reducing the radioactive fallout that civilians would be exposed to after an attack. The difference in fallout from a 360-kiloton B61-7 surface burst compared with a B61-12 using a 10-kiloton selective yield option is significant.

No U.S. president would find it easy to authorize use of nuclear weapon. Apart from the implications of ending nearly 70 years of non-use of nuclear weapons and the international political ramifications, anticipated collateral damage serves as an important constraint on potential use of nuclear weapons. Some analysts have argued that higher yield nuclear weapons are less suitable to deter regional adversaries and that lower yield weapons are needed in today’s security environment. The collateral damage from high-yield weapons could “self-deter” a U.S. president from authorizing an attack.


... For NATO, the improved accuracy has particularly important implications because the B61-12 is a more effective weapon than the B61-3 and B61-4 currently deployed in Europe.

The United States has never before deployed guided nuclear bombs in Europe but with the increased accuracy of the B61-12 and combined with the future deployment of the F-35A Lightning II stealth fighter-bomber to Europe, it is clear that NATO is up for quite a nuclear facelift.

Once European allies acquire the F-35A Lightning II it will “unlock” the guided tail kit on the B61-12 bomb. The increased military capability of the guided B61-12 and stealthy F-35A will significantly enhance NATO’s nuclear posture in Europe.

Initially the old NATO F-16A/B and Tornado PA-200 aircraft that currently serve in the nuclear strike mission will not be able to make use of the increased accuracy of the B61-12, according to U.S. Air Force officials. The reason is that the aircraft computers are not capable of “talking to” the new digital bomb. As a result, the guided tail kit on the B61-12 for Belgian, Dutch, German, Italian and Turkish F-16s and Tornados will initially be “locked” as a “dumb” bomb. Once these countries transition to the F-35 aircraft, however, the enhanced targeting capability will become operational also in these countries.

The Dutch parliament recently approved purchase of the F-35 to replace the F-16, but a resolution adopted by the lower house stated that the F-35 could not have a capability to deliver nuclear weapons. The Dutch government recently rejected the decision saying the Netherlands cannot unilaterally withdraw from the NATO nuclear strike mission.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2015, 01:30
by smsgtmac
Hmmm. This is only marginally related to the F-35. It is entirely about a new weapon upgrade that (Shocker!) a FAS nuclear disarmament wonk went on ad nauseum about what the weapon upgrade itself 'means' and only in passing lists the F-35 in the litany of several aircraft that could carry it.

It was mildly entertaining to read a rabid disarmament advocate refer to himself as merely a 'critic'. :roll:

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2015, 04:35
by tritonprime
smsgtmac wrote:Hmmm. This is only marginally related to the F-35. It is entirely about a new weapon upgrade that (Shocker!) a FAS nuclear disarmament wonk went on ad nauseum about what the weapon upgrade itself 'means' and only in passing lists the F-35 in the litany of several aircraft that could carry it.

It was mildly entertaining to read a rabid disarmament advocate refer to himself as merely a 'critic'. :roll:


I expected some of you were going to object because this article came from the Federation of American Scientists. Sorry, I couldn't find a more politically neutral article.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2015, 23:24
by archeman
smsgtmac wrote:Hmmm. This is only marginally related to the F-35. It is entirely about a new weapon upgrade that (Shocker!) a FAS nuclear disarmament wonk went on ad nauseum about what the weapon upgrade itself 'means' and only in passing lists the F-35 in the litany of several aircraft that could carry it.

It was mildly entertaining to read a rabid disarmament advocate refer to himself as merely a 'critic'. :roll:


Well technically, any country that signed the NPT (Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty) has agreed to the principal (in Artical IV) that this weapons type should EVENTUALLY be removed from operational military inventories worldwide....... when the conditions to do so exist.

Exactly how many commies and whackos we have to kill to get to those 'conditions' I'm not sure????

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2015, 04:03
by smsgtmac
archeman wrote: Well technically, any country that signed the NPT (Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty) has agreed to the principal (in Artical IV) that this weapons type should EVENTUALLY be removed from operational military inventories worldwide....... when the conditions to do so exist.

Exactly how many commies and whackos we have to kill to get to those 'conditions' I'm not sure????


LOL. When the "conditions to do so" exist, we will have by definition killed off all the commies and whackos. And so the solution is a closed-form one. :D Gotta love high-minded diplo-speak

Unfortunately, it is also an infeasible solution...in this universe anyway. Due to the unchanging nature of man (the only constant in warfare down through the ages) there will ALWAYS BE a certain number of Commie whackos and/or non-Commie whackos needing killin'. So even if we don't WANT to kill them, we must maintain sufficient stockpiles of weaponry and means of delivery to disabuse them of any idea they could kill us without care. I think of it as a form of 'tough love'. :wink:

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2016, 14:04
by spazsinbad
A Matter of Perception
22 Jul 2016 Will Skowronski

"​Equipping the Air Force’s F-35A with nuclear weapons would not lower the threshold of their use, Lt. Gen. Jack Weinstein, the deputy chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration, said Thursday. “Using nuclear weapons is a decision made by the President of the United States, nobody else,” Weinstein said during an AFA-sponsored, Air Force breakfast in Arlington, Va. “I don’t see a potential use of an F-35 [as being] any different than having a dual-capable aircraft now with the F-15E ... or the F-16, so I look at it as continued modernization of our force,” he noted.

When asked whether the F-35’s stealth capability changes the equation, Weinstein said the aircraft doesn’t change who authorizes the use of nuclear weapons. He suggested the perception of a dual-capable F-35 will act as a stronger deterrent. Weinstein also said he traveled to Europe a few months ago and that NATO’s commitment to maintaining dual-capable aircraft “is as strong as it’s ever been.” In April, F-35 program director Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan told lawmakers the service anticipates beginning B61 Mod 12 integration on the F-35A in 2018. The first production of B61 Mod 12, which pairs an upgraded warhead with a precision-guided tailkit, is expected by 2020."

Source: http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pa ... ption.aspx

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 23 Jul 2016, 12:03
by uclass
archeman wrote:Well technically, any country that signed the NPT (Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty) has agreed to the principal (in Artical IV) that this weapons type should EVENTUALLY be removed from operational military inventories worldwide....... when the conditions to do so exist.

I doubt that will happen for some time. Given China's move to MIRVs/MaRVs, there's even a case for having more in service, since China appears to be ramping up. Russian and Chinese warheads combined could well outnumber those of the US, UK and France.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2016, 03:54
by arian
uclass wrote:I doubt that will happen for some time. Given China's move to MIRVs/MaRVs, there's even a case for having more in service, since China appears to be ramping up.


That doesn't mean they are producing more actual warheads.

As for the FAS article, I'm not sure why some of you are objecting. I didn't read anything that appears controversial or even "anti-nuclear" in that article. The author is correct that a bunker-buster nuke will create a lot of fallout simply due to the nature of nuclear weapons: the closer to the surface the detonation, the higher the fallout.

Which is the irony of nuclear weapons: large nukes designed to take down cities with air burst actually create very little if any fallout. Small nukes that require surface burst or penetrating hits to take out small targets like bunkers and silos actually create a lot of fallout.

The description of why accuracy matters, however, was pretty good and important to keep in mind.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2016, 09:23
by uclass
arian wrote:
uclass wrote:I doubt that will happen for some time. Given China's move to MIRVs/MaRVs, there's even a case for having more in service, since China appears to be ramping up.


That doesn't mean they are producing more actual warheads.

If they're replacing single warhead ICBMs with up to 8 MIRVs on DF-5s and DF-31s then that strikes me as more warheads.

Many estimate they have over 1,000 warheads.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2016, 13:39
by wrightwing
arian wrote:
uclass wrote:I doubt that will happen for some time. Given China's move to MIRVs/MaRVs, there's even a case for having more in service, since China appears to be ramping up.


That doesn't mean they are producing more actual warheads.

As for the FAS article, I'm not sure why some of you are objecting. I didn't read anything that appears controversial or even "anti-nuclear" in that article. The author is correct that a bunker-buster nuke will create a lot of fallout simply due to the nature of nuclear weapons: the closer to the surface the detonation, the higher the fallout.

Which is the irony of nuclear weapons: large nukes designed to take down cities with air burst actually create very little if any fallout. Small nukes that require surface burst or penetrating hits to take out small targets like bunkers and silos actually create a lot of fallout.

The description of why accuracy matters, however, was pretty good and important to keep in mind.


Actually, a bunker busting nuke wouldn't produce nearly the fallout, as a surface burst nuke, as much of the blast effect would be below ground.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2016, 14:07
by sferrin
arian wrote:
uclass wrote:I doubt that will happen for some time. Given China's move to MIRVs/MaRVs, there's even a case for having more in service, since China appears to be ramping up.


That doesn't mean they are producing more actual warheads.


You can't possibly be that naïve. It's not like they have thousands of warheads sitting on a shelf doing nothing.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 29 Jul 2016, 02:51
by arian
wrightwing wrote:Actually, a bunker busting nuke wouldn't produce nearly the fallout, as a surface burst nuke, as much of the blast effect would be below ground.


Blast effect is irrelevant. And yes, it won't have as much fallout as a surface burst, but certainly more than an airburst. The point FAS is making, is that making the warhead smaller and more precise, giving it strong capabilities in bunker busting may give the illusion of a "safe" nuclear weapon, but the fallout problem is still going to be there.

There's nothing controversial in that. You don't have to like FAS or their agenda (I don't) to at least accept physical facts.

If they're replacing single warhead ICBMs with up to 8 MIRVs on DF-5s and DF-31s then that strikes me as more warheads.

Many estimate they have over 1,000 warheads.


Most estimates are at ~260 warheads. http://bos.sagepub.com/content/71/4/77.full.pdf

You can't possibly be that naïve. It's not like they have thousands of warheads sitting on a shelf doing nothing.


Sure they do. Just as does the US. China's peak number of warheads was ~500, now down to half that. You seem to think China's nuclear "buildup" is in the hundreds or thousands of warheads region. In reality, we're talking a few dozen missiles in total. It's a tiny arsenal by comparison to US or Russia.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2016, 03:55
by spazsinbad
LIGHTNING II WILL BE NUCLEAR CAPABLE
Oct 2016 Combat Aircraft Magazine

"THE USAF HAS confirmed that F-35s operated by partner nations as well as international customers will eventually be capable of delivering nuclear weapons. The capability to carry two B61-12 nuclear bombs internally is included as part of Block 4 follow-on development, it was confirmed on July 21. Test flights to assess vibration, acoustic and thermal environments of the F-35A weapons bay with the B61-12 began in mid-2015...."

Source: Combat Aircraft Magazine October 2016 Volume 17 Number 10

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2016, 22:41
by lookieloo
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.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2016, 23:32
by sferrin
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.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2016, 05:00
by lookieloo
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.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2016, 02:43
by arian
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.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2016, 13:24
by sferrin
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.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2016, 21:58
by arian
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.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2016, 08:13
by lookieloo
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.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2016, 08:54
by neptune
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. :)

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2016, 16:32
by sferrin
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.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2016, 18:25
by wrightwing
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.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2016, 19:16
by sferrin
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:

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2016, 22:15
by arian
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.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2016, 22:53
by sferrin
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.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2016, 23:19
by arian
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.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2016, 23:42
by sferrin
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.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2016, 00:17
by SpudmanWP
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

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2016, 01:15
by count_to_10
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.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2016, 01:24
by sferrin
count_to_10 wrote:
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.


"Hyperventilation"? I guess it's true what they say, "ignorance is bliss". No? Maybe you can explain why it's costing billions to modify the B61. (And please leave "evil MIC" nuttery out of it.)

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2016, 01:31
by arian
Sooo typical of you. Make one claim, get called on your BS, then you pretend you said no such thing.


What's typical is you creating a strawman, and then proceeding to knock it down. Not only did I never say anything...at all...in relation to your response, but no one else did either.

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


THIS need being a nuclear armed JASSM. That wasn't clearly enough spelled out? :doh:

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.


So, absolutely no response at all in here.

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.


So, yet another non sequitor that doesn't address the point. You're again making up some strawman which you again proceed to quickly knock down.

You made up the claim that, supposedly, people in government think nukes have unlimited shelf life. Yet when confronted with the fact, on numerous times and in numerous places, that there are billions of dollars and multiple programs to extend the life of several types of nukes in service, many of these programs being essentially creating whole new delivery systems (not just the warheads themselves but most of the missile components being entirely new updated designs...you just make some non-sequitor joke and call it a day.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2016, 01:33
by arian
SpudmanWP wrote:
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


I completely agree with you and I said it in my earlier response as well: W-80s are slated to be upgraded for use in the future stealthy cruise missile, which may itself be a JASSM derivative.

This is my exact quote from yesterday:

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.


I said exactly what you said. My point was, JASSM as it currently stands isn't envisioned nor has any need been through of, for it being nuclear armed. Nor would there be warheads available for it. That's all I said, and somehow this turned into a discussion of the usual wild hypotheticals.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2016, 01:42
by arian
sferrin wrote:"Hyperventilation"? I guess it's true what they say, "ignorance is bliss". No? Maybe you can explain why it's costing billions to modify the B61. (And please leave "evil MIC" nuttery out of it.)


Before you start accusing others of ignorance, reflect back a little bit on this thread. First you made factually incorrect claims on China's nuclear capabilities. Proven wrong. Then you made factually incorrect claims on W-80. Proven wrong. Then you made factually incorrect claims about the extension of life and upgrading of the US nuclear arsenal. Proven wrong.

Then you come back and accuse others of ignorance.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2016, 02:06
by count_to_10
sferrin wrote:"Hyperventilation"? I guess it's true what they say, "ignorance is bliss". No? Maybe you can explain why it's costing billions to modify the B61. (And please leave "evil MIC" nuttery out of it.)

I would like to take this moment to state that the "Military Industrial Complex" has always been a sad myth, and it's power a failed prediction.
As to the cost of anything relating to nuclear weapons, that is going to have a lot to do with the Regulatory-Litigation Complex and the Hippie-Soviet Complex.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2016, 02:19
by sferrin
count_to_10 wrote:
sferrin wrote:"Hyperventilation"? I guess it's true what they say, "ignorance is bliss". No? Maybe you can explain why it's costing billions to modify the B61. (And please leave "evil MIC" nuttery out of it.)

I would like to take this moment to state that the "Military Industrial Complex" has always been a sad myth, and it's power a failed prediction.
As to the cost of anything relating to nuclear weapons, that is going to have a lot to do with the Regulatory-Litigation Complex and the Hippie-Soviet Complex.



It has mainly to do with the upgrade being stretched out as long as possible to keep people working. That and the on again, off again funding doesn't help. There are real problems in the nuclear industrial base and when people like Arian continue to practically brag about their own ignorance, it's not only difficult to take them seriously, it really shows the lack of awareness the general public has with the problem. We'll be seeing similar things with the new ICBM. Having to reinvent a LOT of wheels.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2016, 12:28
by botsing
sferrin wrote:We'll be seeing similar things with the new ICBM. Having to reinvent a LOT of wheels.

Isn't this not only about reinventing the wheel but also about taking into account new technology and new thread vectors?

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2016, 12:55
by sferrin
botsing wrote:
sferrin wrote:We'll be seeing similar things with the new ICBM. Having to reinvent a LOT of wheels.

Isn't this not only about reinventing the wheel but also about taking into account new technology and new thread vectors?


New technology, possibly, if they want to go with terminally guided RVs and/or boost gliders. They'll have to look at both if they want to remain viable against future defenses. I've not heard of either being looked at in conjunction with GBSD though. It looks like they're looking at something somewhere between Minuteman and Peacekeeper in size, with your standard RVs. I'd be shocked if they did anything other than re-use Mk21s & Mk12As though. Again, they've lost a lot of knowledge and that will be time consuming and expensive to get back. As for the booster I'll be surprised if it's even as advanced as Peacekeeper. We'll see.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2016, 01:34
by arian
sferrin wrote:There are real problems in the nuclear industrial base and when people like Arian continue to practically brag about their own ignorance, it's not only difficult to take them seriously


Dear Sferrin, I most certainly don't expect you to take anything seriously. God knows, when your argument shifts every day from one extreme down to "there's problems and it costs a lot"...no one can take you seriously.

From "the politicians are doing nothing!" down to "but it's costing so much!".

It would be funny, if it weren't so tiresome.

Now, as to the question of why does it cost so much to upgrade several hundred nuclear bombs from one role to a completely different role, I would guess you nor I have any idea of what is involved. I would guess, it involves a lot of things they don't share with the public as well. Not that not knowing what is involved in the project will necessarily stop you from coming to conclusions that are, predictably, aimed at pointing out that everything is always going wrong.

sferrin wrote:New technology, possibly, if they want to go with terminally guided RVs and/or boost gliders. They'll have to look at both if they want to remain viable against future defenses. I've not heard of either being looked at in conjunction with GBSD though. It looks like they're looking at something somewhere between Minuteman and Peacekeeper in size, with your standard RVs. I'd be shocked if they did anything other than re-use Mk21s & Mk12As though. Again, they've lost a lot of knowledge and that will be time consuming and expensive to get back. As for the booster I'll be surprised if it's even as advanced as Peacekeeper. We'll see.


So, because you haven't heard anything, and because the US military isn't in the habit of making up BS PR propaganda as other countries are, especially about a project that is relatively far off, the default conclusion must be "everything is going wrong".

I am always amazed by the "loss of expertise" argument that you and some others use on everything from nuclear weapons down to...the smallest things like gatling guns (really?) . Somehow, despite the fact that they essentially have replaced and modernized every component on a Minuteman, or on submarine ballistic missiles, or despite the fact that there's plenty of civilian industrial activity on all sorts of related fields, despite the fact that they make highly advanced maneuverable test targets to test ABM missiles on, you somehow come to the conclusion that knowledge has been lost, because apparently all this knowledge is magic and mysticism and somehow just can't be transmitted anywhere.

HOW do you know that? I mean, HOW? Please explain. BE SPECIFIC. Take the B-61-12 as an example, and in GREAT DETAIL, explain what exactly is the wheel they have to reinvent, what knowledge have the lost, when did this happen, and HOW do you know this?

Claims like this, needs support. Lets see yours.

I would GENUINELY be interested in knowing. I have several physics and engineering PhD friends working at Los Alamos right now, and they don't seem to be suffering from any brain drain or lack of knowledge. Quite the contrary, they are there to develop entirely new systems. HOW exactly do they create entirely new technologies for testing weapons, for example, if somehow all the old curmudgeons of the field went the way of the dinosaurs 30 years ago?

If only there was a way to transmit knowledge across people and time.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2016, 02:50
by arian
Here's another, more believable, explanation why such a program may cost a lot of money:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 204631.htm

Basically, Sandia is replacing all the electronics of the bomb. So it's in essence designing a new bomb (which it also did for all the other upgrade programs in the past and undergoing). This just one of many things they are doing, many of which we have no idea of.

All this work needs to be in-house using dedicated facilities for, mainly, this purpose. So just an example of making new chips for the warheads, Sandia has its own 400,000 sq ft facility to design and produce the needed chips for this one application. So relatively tiny volumes of production, highly specialized and specific equipment, design and need. So massive fixed costs, and small volume production.

You can't escape economies of scale, so designing and building a whole new component for such a weapon will cost many many times more than a similar system for a civilian application or even conventional munition (which is probably, or almost certainly, outsourced to civilian fabs which have immense economies of scale).

So why this one component may cost so much has nothing to do with the US government being dumb, or the people at Sandia being ignorant and having to reinvent the wheel and not knowing anything...bla bla bla.

It has to do with economies of scale and the need to keep it all in-house. But the people at Sandia aren't running around like chickens without a head trying to figure out how to re-create the wheel. They almost certainly know a lot more than the people who designed the original systems did. Not almost certainly. Absolutely certainly.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2016, 03:25
by count_to_10
Incidentally, on the cost of new technology, one of the things that has changed is the Insensitive Munition requirements. As fuzing tech has improved, those requirements have gotten tighter, so it isn't just a matter of re-manufacturing the same thing over again, it now has to include improvements that reduce vulnerabilities.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2016, 00:26
by arian
count_to_10 wrote:Incidentally, on the cost of new technology, one of the things that has changed is the Insensitive Munition requirements. As fuzing tech has improved, those requirements have gotten tighter, so it isn't just a matter of re-manufacturing the same thing over again, it now has to include improvements that reduce vulnerabilities.


It is obviously not remanufacturing the same thing again. They are replacing just about every system in these weapons with completely new designs.

There's nothing the guy who designed some vacuum tube systems (I'm exaggerating) would be able to teach people today trying to make modern chips for these systems.

The whole argument of "reinventing the wheel" assumes that somehow knowledge in organizations like this is some secret sauce magical formula which the guy who figured it out refused to share with anyone else or somehow never transmitted that info to the organization. That is precisely what doesn't happen in such organizations.

These are scientists and engineers. The WHOLE point of any activity they do is to make something reproducible. If its not reproducible, then they haven't done jack s**t.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2016, 01:01
by count_to_10
arian wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:Incidentally, on the cost of new technology, one of the things that has changed is the Insensitive Munition requirements. As fuzing tech has improved, those requirements have gotten tighter, so it isn't just a matter of re-manufacturing the same thing over again, it now has to include improvements that reduce vulnerabilities.


It is obviously not remanufacturing the same thing again. They are replacing just about every system in these weapons with completely new designs.

There's nothing the guy who designed some vacuum tube systems (I'm exaggerating) would be able to teach people today trying to make modern chips for these systems.

The whole argument of "reinventing the wheel" assumes that somehow knowledge in organizations like this is some secret sauce magical formula which the guy who figured it out refused to share with anyone else or somehow never transmitted that info to the organization. That is precisely what doesn't happen in such organizations.

These are scientists and engineers. The WHOLE point of any activity they do is to make something reproducible. If its not reproducible, then they haven't done jack s**t.

While that's largely true, experience is a real thing. There are a lot of little things that never manage to be passed from teacher to student, and while we prize reproducibility, the reality is that it often takes years of practical experience to reproduce something based on reports.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2016, 03:27
by sferrin
count_to_10 wrote:While that's largely true, experience is a real thing. There are a lot of little things that never manage to be passed from teacher to student, and we prize reproducibility, the reality is that it often takes years of practical experience to reproduce something based on reports.


Not "largely". More like "ideally". Pretty easy to see who's worked in the real world and who hasn't. As you allude to, it's not some magical construct where everything is documented, everything is tied up in a bow, and people just rolling out of college can make sense of it. This is especially true when you're only planning on keeping the system in service for 5-10 years tops (like the MMIII and B-52). Take the F-22 for example. They did everything they could possibly do to preserve the know how, tooling, etc. just in case they needed to restart production. First time they need to go back to make a part they hadn't planned on, they go to container "X" where the relevant tooling is suppose to be and whoops, it's empty. I've heard many horror stories from those personally involved in keeping the Minuteman fleet from falling to pieces. Same with the B-52.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2016, 13:47
by count_to_10
sferrin wrote:Not "largely". More like "ideally". Pretty easy to see who's worked in the real world and who hasn't. As you allude to, it's not some magical construct where everything is documented, everything is tied up in a bow, and people just rolling out of college can make sense of it. This is especially true when you're only planning on keeping the system in service for 5-10 years tops (like the MMIII and B-52). Take the F-22 for example. They did everything the could possibly do to preserve the know how, tooling, etc. just in case they needed to restart production. First time they need to go back to make a part they hadn't planned on, they go to container "X" where the relevant tooling is suppose to be and whoops, it's empty. I've heard many horror stories from those personally involved in keeping the Minuteman fleet from falling to pieces. Same with the B-52.

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.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2016, 16:06
by sferrin
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.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2016, 14:41
by gtg947h
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.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2016, 01:54
by count_to_10
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.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2016, 02:37
by arian
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!

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2016, 02:53
by arian
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.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2016, 01:39
by arian
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.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2017, 02:50
by zerion
F-35 could get B-61 sooner than planned

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

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2017, 04:58
by smsgtmac
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 589 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.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2017, 04:27
by smsgtmac
So Block 4 it is (for now) :D

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2017, 09:44
by spazsinbad
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/

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 16 Apr 2017, 19:31
by zerion
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

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 16 Apr 2017, 20:03
by neptune
,,,,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?
:?

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 16 Apr 2017, 23:13
by steve2267
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).

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 16 Apr 2017, 23:18
by popcorn
I don't think wing kits impede penetration, SDB-1 doesn't seem to have a problem.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2017, 01:16
by zerion
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.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2017, 00:38
by arian
popcorn wrote:I don't think wing kits impede penetration, SDB-1 doesn't seem to have a problem.


I'm guessing we're not talking about the same penetration capability in the B-61 vs the SDB. And I'd guess the flight profile needed for an SDB in the penetrating role is different than a long-range glide profile. Someone can probably figure out the kinetic energy needed to penetrate a HAS (as shown in those SDB photos) given the weight and falling speed of the weapon, and from what altitude it would need to start a nose-dive...and what that would imply for glide distance. But there's probably a trade-off in the two.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2017, 04:50
by spazsinbad
Hyten Outlines STRATCOM Overhaul; Nukes Sooner For F-35?
26 Jul 2017 Colin Clark

"...In related news, Hyten told me that the he met two weeks ago with the head of European Command, Gen. Curtis Scaparotti, and discussed whether F-35A Joint Strike Fighters needed to be upgraded to carry nuclear weapons with all possible speed. He said they did not come to a decision, but reading his body language and careful wording, I’m betting they concluded this was a necessary step to take in the face of Vladimir Putin’s continuing aggression across Russia’s border with central Europe. Any move to make the F-35A nuclear capable will require, he said, close consultation with our NATO allies.

The presumptive undersecretary of defense for policy, David Trachtenberg, endorsed making the F-35A nuclear capable ASAP in his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee."

Source: http://breakingdefense.com/2017/07/hyte ... -for-f-35/

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2017, 18:18
by Prinz_Eugn
popcorn wrote:I don't think wing kits impede penetration, SDB-1 doesn't seem to have a problem.


The SDB has a shaped-charge warhead, it's not relying on kinetic energy like other bunker-busters.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2017, 18:42
by SpudmanWP
While SDB2 has a shaped charge, SDB1 is a kinetic penetrator type of case.

Here is the SDB2

Image

Here is the SDB1

Image

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2017, 19:20
by sferrin
And in fact you can see the wings,tail, etc. get stripped off the penetrating warhead before it detonates right here:



One can't help but wonder if they're losing ability with SDB II with it's smaller, shaped charge warhead. Or will they keep both in production for different target types?

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2017, 19:59
by SpudmanWP
They are both staying in production. In fact, they have started to buy the LSDB1 version as well in order to give it pinpoint, popup, and moving target capability. LSDB1 is where a LJDAM seeker is added to the SDB1 body.

Image

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2017, 20:07
by Prinz_Eugn
SpudmanWP wrote:While SDB2 has a shaped charge, SDB1 is a kinetic penetrator type of case.

Here is the SDB2

Image

Here is the SDB1

Image



Neat, I could've sworn it also had a shaped-charge warhead, but I guess not!

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2017, 22:31
by archeman
SpudmanWP wrote:While SDB2 has a shaped charge, SDB1 is a kinetic penetrator type of case.


Here is the SDB1

Image


The Explosive Charge of the Penetrator must be relatively light material when you compare the Area that it fills compared to the Control components and then compare their relative weight.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2017, 18:10
by zerion
USAF B61-12 nuclear bomb progressing towards qualification flight tests

The US Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration (DOE/NNSA) and U.S. Air Force completed two qualification flight tests of B61-12 gravity bombs August 8 at Tonopah Test Range in Nevada, the NNSA said on Aug. 28.

The non-nuclear test assemblies, which were dropped from an F-15E based at Nellis Air Force Base, evaluated the weapon’s non-nuclear functions and the aircraft’s capability to deliver the weapon.
These tests are part of a series over the next three years to qualify the B61-12 for service. The first qualification flight test occurred in March.

“The B61-12 life extension program is progressing on schedule to meet national security requirements,” said Phil Calbos, acting NNSA deputy administrator for Defense Programs. “These realistic flight qualification tests validate the design of the B61-12 when it comes to system performance.”

The flight test included hardware designed by Sandia and Los Alamos National Laboratories, manufactured by the Nuclear Security Enterprise plants, and mated to the tail-kit assembly section, designed by the Boeing Company under contract with the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center.

The B61-12 consolidates and replaces four B61 bomb variants in the nation’s nuclear arsenal. The first production unit is scheduled to be completed by March 2020.

https://www.airrecognition.com/index.ph ... tests.html

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2018, 23:45
by spazsinbad
New Nuclear Gravity Bomb: General
01 May 2018 Oriana Pawlyk

"The U.S. Air Force has conducted dozens of developmental flight tests of the B61-12 guided nuclear gravity bomb, intended to be three times more accurate than its predecessors, a top general said Tuesday. "We've already conducted 26 engineering, development and guided flight tests," said Lt. Gen. Jack Weinstein, deputy chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration. "The program's doing extremely well."...

...Weinstein did not say which platforms have done the latest testing, but the F-35 Lightning II joint program office has been working on integrating the latest modification into its weapons arsenal. It is slated to be fielded sometime in the 2020s....

...The F-35 was designed with a requirement to carry a nuclear payload. In 2015, an F-35 flew with the B61-12 to measure its vibration in the aircraft's weapons bay...."

Source: https://www.military.com/dodbuzz/2018/0 ... neral.html

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2018, 00:42
by zerion
Pentagon Is Usually Mum About Nukes In Europe — But Touts F-35's Role

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — U.S. Strategic Command's chief touted the Lockheed Martin (LMT) F-35 as a deterrent in Europe, where the stealth fighter could slip into defended airspace with nuclear weapons.

The Pentagon's latest Nuclear Posture Review said the U.S. is committed to upgrading aircraft in Europe with F-35s capable of carrying nuclear weapons for a "continued regional deterrence stability and the assurance of allies."

At the Air Force Association's annual conference on Wednesday, Gen. John Hyten was asked about nuclear weapons and deterrence in Europe.

"We really don't talk a lot about nuclear capabilities inside the European theater, and I'm not going to talk a lot about it today," he said. "But just think about the difference the F-35 will make in our overall deterrent capability when that comes into Europe."

So-called fourth-generation fighters like the F-15 and F-16 can also carry nuclear weapons, but they aren't stealth planes and would be detected by air defenses. The more advanced fifth-generation F-35, however, can evade radar detection.

The Air Force has said its version of the F-35 is fully compatible with the new B61-12 nuclear bomb. It's planning for initial integration on the F-35A this year, Maj. Emily Grabowski, an Air Force spokesperson told Warrior Maven in March. The B61-12 could also be air launched by F-15 and F-16 fighters and is planned for use in Northrop Grumman's (NOC) forthcoming B-21 stealth bomber.

But the upgraded nuclear weapons, which include GPS, are still in testing and won't be produced until fiscal year 2020...

https://www.investors.com/news/nuclear- ... c-command/

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2018, 16:53
by zerion
America’s newest nuclear gravity bomb completes design review

WASHINGTON — The B61-12 nuclear gravity bomb has completed its final design review, setting up production for March of 2020, the National Nuclear Security Administration has announced.

The B61-12 life-extension program consolidates and replaces the older B61-3, -4, -7 and -10 variants, in a move that proponents say will both update aging parts of the weapons and drive down upkeep costs. The review, which involved a team of 12 independent experts studying three years of data, certified that the B61-12 design meets Defense Department standards.

The weapon is certified for both the B-52 and B-2 bombers, America’s F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 fighter aircraft, and British and German Tornado aircraft under a NATO agreement. The F-35 is also planned to go through certification on the weapon at some point in the next decade...

https://www.defensenews.com/space/2018/ ... gn-review/

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2018, 20:39
by landis
spazsinbad wrote:
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/


Now the open source non classified internet says that the 'standoff' range of this weapon is around that of the other JDAM conventional bombs, so how is this going to attack a S-400+? How far can you lob a B-61? The Russians seem to be confident this is no threat. Deterrence is at stake here.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2018, 22:23
by marsavian
In 2010 An F-22 hit a target 24 miles away at Mach 1.5 at 50kft using a JDAM. An S-400 radar is not going to spot a F-35 head on over 20 miles and probably more like 10-15.
Maybe there will be a glimpse when the door is open but then the bomb is on its way. Taking out the bomb itself in flight is their only real option.

http://www.f-16.net/f-22-news-article1840.html
https://www.upi.com/Business_News/Secur ... 164210418/

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2018, 23:07
by SpudmanWP
Have an MALD-J or two escort the JDAMS in :)

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2018, 11:55
by sferrin
marsavian wrote:In 2010 An F-22 hit a target 24 miles away at Mach 1.5 at 50kft using a JDAM. An S-400 radar is not going to spot a F-35 head on over 20 miles and probably more like 10-15.
Maybe there will be a glimpse when the door is open but then the bomb is on its way. Taking out the bomb itself in flight is their only real option.

http://www.f-16.net/f-22-news-article1840.html
https://www.upi.com/Business_News/Secur ... 164210418/


An SDB has a 60 mile range (it's got a wing) at those conditions, and they carry eight of them. Apparently they've trained tossing them from Mach 1.9 and 60,000 feet.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2018, 12:54
by marsavian
The SDB will be the F-35I's main weapon of choice in Syria I suspect for attacking targets and SAMs. We are going to find out now how F-35 really performs against S-300 backed up by S-400 radar,.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2018, 13:57
by hythelday
landis wrote:
Now the open source non classified internet says that the 'standoff' range of this weapon is around that of the other JDAM conventional bombs, so how is this going to attack a S-400+? How far can you lob a B-61? The Russians seem to be confident this is no threat. Deterrence is at stake here.


Are you under the impression B61 will be used to attack S-400?

No, deterrance is not at stake.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2018, 18:08
by wrightwing
sferrin wrote:
marsavian wrote:In 2010 An F-22 hit a target 24 miles away at Mach 1.5 at 50kft using a JDAM. An S-400 radar is not going to spot a F-35 head on over 20 miles and probably more like 10-15.
Maybe there will be a glimpse when the door is open but then the bomb is on its way. Taking out the bomb itself in flight is their only real option.

http://www.f-16.net/f-22-news-article1840.html
https://www.upi.com/Business_News/Secur ... 164210418/


An SDB has a 60 mile range (it's got a wing) at those conditions, and they carry eight of them. Apparently they've trained tossing them from Mach 1.9 and 60,000 feet.

F-22s have demonstrated >80nm ranges with supersonic launches from high altitudes. That's why they're such an important SEAD platform, as that's well out of the MEZ.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2018, 02:10
by landis
hythelday wrote:
landis wrote:
Now the open source non classified internet says that the 'standoff' range of this weapon is around that of the other JDAM conventional bombs, so how is this going to attack a S-400+? How far can you lob a B-61? The Russians seem to be confident this is no threat. Deterrence is at stake here.


Are you under the impression B61 will be used to attack S-400?

No, deterrance is not at stake.


I am not sure I understand. The S-400 will likely be protecting any target worth a B-61, so how could it not have deterrence at stake?

Now if a JDAM could be launched 80 NM away, even high altitude, that might make it work. I don't have the knowledge of the ballistics though. Earlier nuclear bombs could be 'tossed' from low altitude, (I think this was the A-4's specialty) which would eliminate much of the range a SAM would have, but again, how far? Youtube videos of 'bomb toss' calculation dating to the 1960s only claim about a 5 mile range from low altitude. And the Russians and Soviets before seemed to prefer the nuclear standoff missile like the MACH 5 AS-16 Kickback, ,,,, and that was over 25 years ago... and they still may be in use unlike the US version SRAM which was retired long ago...

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2018, 09:33
by hythelday
landis wrote:
hythelday wrote:
landis wrote:
Now the open source non classified internet says that the 'standoff' range of this weapon is around that of the other JDAM conventional bombs, so how is this going to attack a S-400+? How far can you lob a B-61? The Russians seem to be confident this is no threat. Deterrence is at stake here.


Are you under the impression B61 will be used to attack S-400?

No, deterrance is not at stake.


I am not sure I understand. The S-400 will likely be protecting any target worth a B-61, so how could it not have deterrence at stake?

Now if a JDAM could be launched 80 NM away, even high altitude, that might make it work. I don't have the knowledge of the ballistics though. Earlier nuclear bombs could be 'tossed' from low altitude, (I think this was the A-4's specialty) which would eliminate much of the range a SAM would have, but again, how far? Youtube videos of 'bomb toss' calculation dating to the 1960s only claim about a 5 mile range from low altitude. And the Russians and Soviets before seemed to prefer the nuclear standoff missile like the MACH 5 AS-16 Kickback, ,,,, and that was over 25 years ago... and they still may be in use unlike the US version SRAM which was retired long ago...


1) Detarrance is not at stake because B-35 armed with B61 is not the cardinal deterrant. US, France and UK have other weapon systems for that.

2) S-400 is far more lethal to F-16s and Tornados, which currently carry dual key B61s. According to your logic deterrance was lost entirely long time ago.

3) Low level penetration will get you killed fast.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2018, 12:21
by popcorn
Deterrance/detarrance will not be lost because apparently if you Google it there are no such words.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2018, 14:07
by botsing
popcorn wrote:Deterrance/detarrance will not be lost because apparently if you Google it there are no such words.

So Google lost its deterrance? :mrgreen:

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2018, 06:18
by landis
Ok, here is the dictionary.

\\
deterrence noun
de·ter·rence | \ di-ˈtər-ən(t)s , -ˈter- ; -ˈtə-rən(t)s , -ˈte- ; dē- \
Definition of deterrence
: the act or process of deterring: such as
a : the inhibition of criminal behavior by fear especially of punishment
b : the maintenance of military power for the purpose of discouraging attack
nuclear deterrence
//

And in practical use for our purposes with the Russians it is about what the Russians THINK our abilities are, not what WE think they are.

As far as strategic deterrence we are treaty limited to equal numbers and those weapons are tasked strategically. So 'strategic' deterrence is a wash; EQUAL. (which is the point of the NEW START treaty)

As far as the whole reason half of the B-61s even exists today, it is to deter the Russians against any move in Europe against NATO. (NO treaty limits,,,, The Russians had too much of an advantage to negotiate away) The Russians have a totally modern tactical nuclear arsenal, 2 to 5 times size of our tactical nuclear arsenal... While half our B-61s arm B-2 strategic bombers, the other half are arming fighter bombers, stealth or not, and "Deterring" a "tactical" or regional threat. Not Strategic, and if you kept up, the Russians now believe in a tactical "escalate to de-escalate" policy regionally.
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedi ... e-escalate

If it is not required to be credible to be a deterrent, then why bother spending the money to having anything more than an old B-29 with a MK-4 Fatman?
-IT IS REQUIRED.

There is no point in having any major weapon at all that makes up a major aspect of deterrence that is in your enemy's mind defeat-able. And if we don't want to put in the effort to make it obvious in our enemy's eyes that we WILL and CAN retaliate, then lets just save the money, surrender from NATO, and in the tactical regional situation cut our allies off so they can start learning Russian...

The Russians have never accepted weakness; They exploit it.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2018, 09:58
by hythelday
I don't see where are you trying to steer this.

Scrap B61 mission from F-35 in lieu of nuclear-tipped supersonic tactical ALCMs, all because the Russians said S-400 is good?

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2018, 10:09
by marsavian
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.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2018, 16:14
by landis
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.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2018, 16:27
by marsavian
B-61 is an existing legacy deterrence weapon which is being updated to be more accurate and deliverable by F-35. The ICBMs/Cruise Missiles are also being updated. S-400s also can't cover and protect the whole of Russia from F-35/B-2 armed with B-61s.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2018, 16:43
by jetblast16
Implication of Earth-Penetration Capability

The evidence that the B61-12 can penetrate below the surface has significant implications for the types of targets that can be held at risk with the bomb. A nuclear weapon that detonates after penetrating the earth more efficiently transmits its explosive energy to the ground, thus is more effective at destroying deeply buried targets for a given nuclear yield. A detonation above ground, in contrast, results in a larger fraction of the explosive energy bouncing off the surface.


The yield required of a nuclear weapon to destroy a hard and deeply buried target is reduced by a factor of 15 to 25 by enhanced ground-shock coupling if the weapon is detonated a few meters below the surface


We know that the B61-12 is designed to have four selectable explosive yields: 0.3 kilotons (kt), 1.5 kt, 10 kt and 50 kt. Therefore, given the National Academies’ finding, the maximum destructive potential of the B61-12 against underground targets is equivalent to the capability of a surface-burst weapon with a yield of 750 kt to 1,250 kt.


Source: https://fas.org/blogs/security/2016/01/ ... netration/


1750 F-35A with B-61 is an awesome surprise first strike package too


Evidently, according to Wikipedia, only 400-500 are planned.

Re: F-35 with B61-12

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2018, 18:47
by hythelday
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?

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.