F-35 with B61-12

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

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5444
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post05 Oct 2018, 11:55

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.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1314
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post05 Oct 2018, 12:54

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,.
Offline

hythelday

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 553
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43
  • Location: Estonia

Unread post05 Oct 2018, 13:57

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.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3311
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post06 Oct 2018, 18:08

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.
Offline

landis

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 03 Oct 2018, 18:57

Unread post08 Oct 2018, 02:10

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...
Offline

hythelday

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 553
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43
  • Location: Estonia

Unread post08 Oct 2018, 09:33

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.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7707
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post08 Oct 2018, 12:21

Deterrance/detarrance will not be lost because apparently if you Google it there are no such words.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 859
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post08 Oct 2018, 14:07

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:
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline

landis

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 03 Oct 2018, 18:57

Unread post09 Oct 2018, 06:18

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.
Offline

hythelday

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 553
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43
  • Location: Estonia

Unread post09 Oct 2018, 09:58

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?
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1314
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post09 Oct 2018, 10:09

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.
Offline

landis

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 03 Oct 2018, 18:57

Unread post09 Oct 2018, 16:14

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.
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1314
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post09 Oct 2018, 16:27

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.
Offline
User avatar

jetblast16

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 654
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2004, 00:12
  • Location: USA

Unread post09 Oct 2018, 16:43

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.
Have F110, Block 70, will travel
Offline

hythelday

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 553
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43
  • Location: Estonia

Unread post09 Oct 2018, 18:47

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?
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests