F-35 and a nuclear attack

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II

Can the F-35 carry AGM-69 or ASMP

yes (but only externally )
0
No votes
yes ( and it can even carry the AGM-69 internally )
1
9%
NO
10
91%
 
Total votes : 11

  • Author
  • Message
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post31 May 2012, 05:36

tacf-x wrote:With all that's been said, Brahmos is indeed a piece of junk IMO. Speed is nice, but you don't see us trying to make mach 6 superfighters and superbombers. Low observability is far more important for survivability of a missile or manned vehicle and considering the JASSM can carry a bigger warhead, I'd imagine that bigger warhead, when said bigger warhead is nuclear, would translate to far greater damage to a strategic target than whatever additional damage the sheer speed and kinetic energy of the Brahmos could supply as "compensation for a smaller warhead."


As a conventionally-armed anti-ship missile, the Brahmos is far from a piece of junk, certainly more effective than any Western missiles dedicated to that role; but that's all it's really good for.
Last edited by 1st503rdsgt on 31 May 2012, 06:32, edited 1 time in total.
The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.
Offline

sferrin

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1943
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post31 May 2012, 05:37

1st503rdsgt wrote:As a conventionally-armed anti-ship missile, the Brahmos is far from a piece of junk, certainly more effective than any Western missiles dedicated to that role; but that's all it's really good for.


Never said it was a piece of junk in and of itself. Just not all that practical in the air-launched role.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post31 May 2012, 06:52

sferrin wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote:As a conventionally-armed anti-ship missile, the Brahmos is far from a piece of junk, certainly more effective than any Western missiles dedicated to that role; but that's all it's really good for.


Never said it was a piece of junk in and of itself. Just not all that practical in the air-launched role.


I know you didn't. I was referring to someone else's comment (fixed my original post as the page-over might have led to some confusion).

Of course, I'm not sure I would call it entirely impractical as an air-launched anti-ship missile either; it's just that I wouldn't consider it as a candidate for outfitting in the tactical nuke role, where a big, super-fast weapon holds no advantage over an LO standoff missile that's lighter to boot.

As far as anti-shipping goes, the goal is to give as little reaction time as possible. This can be accomplished either with LO or sheer speed; and given the limitations in Russian/Indian technology, it's not hard to guess which they will always go for. LM is also going with this approach in the LRASM B for ship-launched applications; the air-launched LRASM A will be based on the JASSM.
The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.
Offline

southernphantom

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 825
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Somewhere in Dixie

Unread post31 May 2012, 12:46

Another question would be what is the maximum speed achievable by a Flanker-H with a BrahMos canister. If the Flanker can reach a high enough speed, then it can not only shorten response times by allowing a launch earlier, but impart its own energy to the BrahMos. This would be the inherent advantage of air launch.
Offline

sewerrat

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 287
  • Joined: 23 Mar 2009, 18:03

Unread post31 May 2012, 13:36

This discussion is a moot point.... If Zero gets elected again, he wants to unilaterally gut our stockpile of nukes. We'll probably just be left with the minuteman, and the sticks on our SSBNs, and a handfull of warheads of cruise missiles. There most likely won't be any gravity "propelled" nuke bombs.
Offline

haavarla

Banned

  • Posts: 873
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 19:36

Unread post31 May 2012, 19:03

tacf-x wrote:With all that's been said, Brahmos is indeed a piece of junk IMO. Speed is nice, but you don't see us trying to make mach 6 superfighters and superbombers. Low observability is far more important for survivability of a missile or manned vehicle and considering the JASSM can carry a bigger warhead, I'd imagine that bigger warhead, when said bigger warhead is nuclear, would translate to far greater damage to a strategic target than whatever additional damage the sheer speed and kinetic energy of the Brahmos could supply as "compensation for a smaller warhead."


This is one big LOL.
-Speed is nice.. How so?
-LO is far more imortant for surviviability.. How so?

Just how would you go about stopping an incoming brahmos missile?
Do some research. The trajectory profile and speed of the Brahmos, makes it very hard to negate.
Offline

sferrin

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1943
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post31 May 2012, 19:38

1st503rdsgt wrote:
sferrin wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote:As a conventionally-armed anti-ship missile, the Brahmos is far from a piece of junk, certainly more effective than any Western missiles dedicated to that role; but that's all it's really good for.


Never said it was a piece of junk in and of itself. Just not all that practical in the air-launched role.


I know you didn't. I was referring to someone else's comment (fixed my original post as the page-over might have led to some confusion).

Of course, I'm not sure I would call it entirely impractical as an air-launched anti-ship missile either; it's just that I wouldn't consider it as a candidate for outfitting in the tactical nuke role, where a big, super-fast weapon holds no advantage over an LO standoff missile that's lighter to boot.

As far as anti-shipping goes, the goal is to give as little reaction time as possible. This can be accomplished either with LO or sheer speed; and given the limitations in Russian/Indian technology, it's not hard to guess which they will always go for. LM is also going with this approach in the LRASM B for ship-launched applications; the air-launched LRASM A will be based on the JASSM.


The difference between LRASM-B (if it were to enter service - which we both know it never will) and Brahmos of course is versatility. It's sized to be able to be used on virtually any strike aircraft. Also, there's nothing that says a fast antiship missile needs to be huge. LRASM-B is, effectively, ASALM albeit 35 years after the fact. Is that pathetic or what? Our state of the art is such that after numerous attempts we still can't figure it out and had to blow the dust off a 35 year old design.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

sferrin

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1943
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post31 May 2012, 19:40

haavarla wrote:Just how would you go about stopping an incoming brahmos missile?
Do some research. The trajectory profile and speed of the Brahmos, makes it very hard to negate.


You might consider doing some research of your own. The US has been shooting down Brahmos analogs since the 70s. Go look up info on the Vandal target. SM-2, RAM, and ESSM have all taken them out.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

haavarla

Banned

  • Posts: 873
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 19:36

Unread post31 May 2012, 20:28

ah, yes ofcourse. You know exactly where the trajactory will be long before the missile shows up.. not exactly the real deal is it?
The data you are refering to is absolete and has nothing with reality.
One more thing, the Brahmos got 20-32(depending on variant) times more kenetic energy advantage over any subsonic missiles. Smaller warhead yes, but on a naval target, the damage will be extensive eighter way.

I am very surprised that you folks try to piss on a weapon system like Brahmos.
It is widely acknowledged that this system will shift the gameplay in Asia.
Last edited by haavarla on 31 May 2012, 20:35, edited 2 times in total.
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post31 May 2012, 20:29

:ontopic: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/05/31/the-b ... r-complex/

Something to keep an eye on. It's basically what I was afraid would happen if New START were approved; Obama has apparently reneged on his end of the bargain, which was to modernized/replace the remaining stockpile and delivery systems. Poorly maintained weapons are dangerous.
The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.
Online

tacf-x

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 461
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2011, 02:25
  • Location: Champaign, Illinois

Unread post31 May 2012, 21:19

haavarla wrote:
tacf-x wrote:With all that's been said, Brahmos is indeed a piece of junk IMO. Speed is nice, but you don't see us trying to make mach 6 superfighters and superbombers. Low observability is far more important for survivability of a missile or manned vehicle and considering the JASSM can carry a bigger warhead, I'd imagine that bigger warhead, when said bigger warhead is nuclear, would translate to far greater damage to a strategic target than whatever additional damage the sheer speed and kinetic energy of the Brahmos could supply as "compensation for a smaller warhead."


This is one big LOL.
-Speed is nice.. How so?
-LO is far more imortant for surviviability.. How so?

Just how would you go about stopping an incoming brahmos missile?
Do some research. The trajectory profile and speed of the Brahmos, makes it very hard to negate.


Speed lets you reach a target for rapid-response purposes as noted earlier. However like I said the age of making things like the XB-70 and SR-71 are essentially over.

Just look at the B-2, the F-35, the F-22, LRASM A, JASSM. They are all Low Observable because simply possessing overwhelming speed doesn't mean jack when SAMs and point defenses can still have their radars detect you, track you, and shoot you down with the right weapon. LO lets you diminish the SA of enemy SAM and point defense sites. This has been proven time and time again considering the successes of LO aircraft. A LO cruise missile will be much harder to detect and track and intercept than a supersonic cruise missile since the supersonic cruise missile in question will

a)not attempt to reduce the effectiveness of the defense site's radar detection capabilities. We don't use 1950s era blip scan search radars any more dude. Speed was considered as the main method of confusing those old heaps of junk but radar modes have become more sophisticated since then. Get with the times.

b)skin friction at high mach numbers will RAISE the observability of the missile as heat is generated from the air losing energy within the boundary layer. You just turned your missile into an even easier target for point defense weapons with IR sensors.

As for the trajectory altering itself in an attempt to neutralize a gun lead solution of a CIWS...That's what SeaRAM and ESSM are for. ESSM uses a skid-to-turn flight profile to provide quick maneuvering to intercept the threat. With the oh so tried and true Proportional Navigation intercept profile coupled with the ability to perform 50G maneuvers, the survivability of Brahmos should drop considerably.
Offline

hb_pencil

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 761
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011, 21:50

Unread post31 May 2012, 22:11

1st503rdsgt wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:Seriously? Are you defending the troll?


Troll or grossly misinformed? I haven't looked at the guy's other posts (he did ask a pretty dumb question). In any case, the topic needs more attention than it gets. Unless the USAF and USN have been up to something we don't know about, tactical nuclear capability has been badly neglected for the past few decades, even as new, 2nd-tier nuclear threats have emerged. This being the 21st century, it seems absurd to me that the F-35's most powerful weapon should be a dumb-as-a-brick gravity bomb.


Thank god the F-35's most powerful weapon is a dumb as a brick gravity bomb. And you're wrong about our tactical nuclear capability; its completely blown out of proportion to the actual need. Russia and the United States have several thousand tactical nuclear weapons in their arsenals, far more than would ever be required in any war scenario. The US has been pushing for some sort of arms control treaty in this area, but its been rebuffed by the Russians. The big reason behind this: the United States' overwhelming conventional superiority. Our conventional capabilities are so good, particularly surrounding precision weapons, that the need tactical nukes as part of their deterrent. Regardless, anything over 500 is overkill. Its unimaginable anybody would need more than a few dozen weapons against any massive conventional attack.
Offline

haavarla

Banned

  • Posts: 873
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 19:36

Unread post01 Jun 2012, 12:15

I agree.
But an light tactical NC reduction can still happen with both Russia and US.
Due to practical reasons alone. You said they have ridicules amount of them, true. So that means a good nummbers of them are getting very old and outdated. Maintaining or getting rid of the old 1st and 2nd generation tactical nukes is an expensive and difficult business. why not implement it into an future START agreement.

The one issue of a BIG no no i feel is all the different dellivery platforms in Russias arsenal, stuff like Su-24, Su-34, Tu-22M3, all sorts of Flanker versions beeing able to carry those deadly Tactical NC weapons. Russia will not reduce any of these units for deterent reasons alone.

However, US can forget any of this if not the European Missile Defence Shield twist are not worked out firstly. Both NATO and US know this.
If Obama get re-elect, i think this will be sorted out with Russia.
Offline

haavarla

Banned

  • Posts: 873
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 19:36

Unread post01 Jun 2012, 12:50

tacf-x wrote:
haavarla wrote:
tacf-x wrote:With all that's been said, Brahmos is indeed a piece of junk IMO. Speed is nice, but you don't see us trying to make mach 6 superfighters and superbombers. Low observability is far more important for survivability of a missile or manned vehicle and considering the JASSM can carry a bigger warhead, I'd imagine that bigger warhead, when said bigger warhead is nuclear, would translate to far greater damage to a strategic target than whatever additional damage the sheer speed and kinetic energy of the Brahmos could supply as "compensation for a smaller warhead."


This is one big LOL.
-Speed is nice.. How so?
-LO is far more imortant for surviviability.. How so?

Just how would you go about stopping an incoming brahmos missile?
Do some research. The trajectory profile and speed of the Brahmos, makes it very hard to negate.


Speed lets you reach a target for rapid-response purposes as noted earlier. However like I said the age of making things like the XB-70 and SR-71 are essentially over.

Just look at the B-2, the F-35, the F-22, LRASM A, JASSM. They are all Low Observable because simply possessing overwhelming speed doesn't mean jack when SAMs and point defenses can still have their radars detect you, track you, and shoot you down with the right weapon. LO lets you diminish the SA of enemy SAM and point defense sites. This has been proven time and time again considering the successes of LO aircraft. A LO cruise missile will be much harder to detect and track and intercept than a supersonic cruise missile since the supersonic cruise missile in question will

a)not attempt to reduce the effectiveness of the defense site's radar detection capabilities. We don't use 1950s era blip scan search radars any more dude. Speed was considered as the main method of confusing those old heaps of junk but radar modes have become more sophisticated since then. Get with the times.

b)skin friction at high mach numbers will RAISE the observability of the missile as heat is generated from the air losing energy within the boundary layer. You just turned your missile into an even easier target for point defense weapons with IR sensors.

As for the trajectory altering itself in an attempt to neutralize a gun lead solution of a CIWS...That's what SeaRAM and ESSM are for. ESSM uses a skid-to-turn flight profile to provide quick maneuvering to intercept the threat. With the oh so tried and true Proportional Navigation intercept profile coupled with the ability to perform 50G maneuvers, the survivability of Brahmos should drop considerably.


Yeah, i agree with most of what you said.
However, Russia does not use 50's era radars and protection eighter.
So it is only a matter of detection range from the inc missile and target, and the subsonice missile will have a lower susess rate of reaching the target once it shows up on sonsors. .

So to only take the LO beats everything else is nonsens. There are simply several different path to reach the same goal and requirements.
The Brahmos is one of them and it is deffent from any western approach.

It is a very good weapon platform, even if it is heavy, large and has a smaller warhead.
IAF and VVS has the right inventory to deliver the Brahmos.
If US and NATO does not.. well it does not mean the Brahmos is a piece of crap.
Last edited by haavarla on 01 Jun 2012, 20:18, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

sferrin

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1943
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post01 Jun 2012, 19:13

haavarla wrote:ah, yes ofcourse. You know exactly where the trajactory will be long before the missile shows up.. not exactly the real deal is it?


Real enough that the differences can be disregarded.


haavarla wrote:The data you are refering to is absolete and has nothing with reality.


What data is that specifically?


haavarla wrote:One more thing, the Brahmos got 20-32(depending on variant) times more kenetic energy advantage over any subsonic missiles. Smaller warhead yes, but on a naval target, the damage will be extensive eighter way.


Assuming it hits.

haavarla wrote:I am very surprised that you folks try to piss on a weapon system like Brahmos.
It is widely acknowledged that this system will shift the gameplay in Asia.


Widely acknowledged in India perhaps. A few Flankers with Brahmos has nothing on an Oscar II with 24 P-700s or a regiment of Backfires with Kh-22s. You know, the type of threats Aegis was specifically designed to defeat.
"There I was. . ."
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests