F-35 with B61-12

F-35 Armament, fuel tanks, internal and external hardpoints, loadouts, and other stores.
Newbie
Newbie
 
Posts: 8
Joined: 03 Oct 2018, 18:57

by landis » 09 Oct 2018, 20:12

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.


Active Member
Active Member
 
Posts: 233
Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 19:10

by castlebravo » 09 Oct 2018, 20:31

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.


User avatar
Elite 1K
Elite 1K
 
Posts: 1395
Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

by Dragon029 » 10 Oct 2018, 05:57

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.


User avatar
Elite 1K
Elite 1K
 
Posts: 1870
Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
Location: Australia

by element1loop » 10 Oct 2018, 06:39

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.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth


Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 9782
Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

by Corsair1963 » 10 Oct 2018, 06:42

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:


User avatar
Elite 1K
Elite 1K
 
Posts: 1884
Joined: 23 Aug 2004, 00:12
Location: USA

by jetblast16 » 10 Oct 2018, 20:19

B61-12: strategic-like effects using tactical aviation
Have F110, Block 70, will travel


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

by landis » 11 Oct 2018, 02:29

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.


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

by landis » 21 Oct 2018, 21:32

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?


User avatar
Elite 1K
Elite 1K
 
Posts: 1870
Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
Location: Australia

by element1loop » 22 Oct 2018, 07:43

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.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth


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

by landis » 22 Oct 2018, 17:55

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.


User avatar
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
 
Posts: 723
Joined: 25 Jan 2014, 01:47
Location: Everywhere like such as...

by zerion » 24 Nov 2020, 19:40

Watch An F-35 Drop A B61 Nuclear Bomb In This First-Ever Declassified Video

Sandia National Laboratories, in cooperation with the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the U.S. Air Force, recently completed a round of flight tests as part of the integration of the new B61-12 nuclear gravity bomb onto the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter. Sandia has also released first-of-its-kind video footage of one of these test sorties, which involved the first-ever release of an inert version of this weapon from an internal bomb bay on a plane flying faster than the speed of sound and that also provides an unprecedented look at the bomb's rocket spin stabilization system...

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... fied-video




Elite 1K
Elite 1K
 
Posts: 1451
Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

by jessmo112 » 24 Nov 2020, 22:18

Even with gravity bomb range this is still a game changer.
Your talking about a completely stealthy 1st nuclear strike option.


Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 9782
Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

by Corsair1963 » 25 Nov 2020, 04:02

jessmo112 wrote:Even with gravity bomb range this is still a game changer.
Your talking about a completely stealthy 1st nuclear strike option.



Which, is why it's crazy for Germany to acquire Super Hornets over the F-35A's in the Nuclear Strike Role!


User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 28404
Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
Location: Australia

by spazsinbad » 25 Nov 2020, 19:20

F-35 begins nuclear drop trials
25 Nov 2020 Gareth Jennings

"...A US Air Force (USAF) F-35A testbed dropped an inert B61 Mod 12 (B61-12) freefall nuclear bomb from one of its internal weapons bays over Tonopah Test Range in Nevada earlier this year, Sandia National Laboratories which oversaw the trial said.

“The flight test of the B61-12 with the F-35A Lightning II this summer was the first ever at Sandia’s Tonopah Test Range featuring the fighter jet. It was also the first of a testing series that will conclude with full-weapon systems demonstrations designed to increase confidence [that] the bomb will always work when needed and never under any other circumstances,” Sandia said. “During the 25 August flight test, an F-35A flying faster than the speed of sound dropped a B61-12 — containing non-nuclear and mock nuclear components — from about 10,500 ft above Tonopah Test Range. The inert B61-12 struck the desert floor in the designated target area about 42 seconds later.”..."

Photo: "An F-35A Lightning II opens its bomb bay doors and drops a mock B61-12 at Sandia National Laboratories’ Tonopah Test Range earlier this year. (Sandia National Laboratories)" https://www.janes.com/images/default-so ... w-9205.jpg


Source: https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... rop-trials
Attachments
FG_3803048-JDW-9205.jpg
FG_3803048-JDW-9205.jpg (22.45 KiB) Viewed 6945 times


Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 9782
Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

by Corsair1963 » 26 Nov 2020, 07:53

jetblast16 wrote:B61-12: strategic-like effects using tactical aviation



Here's an idea why not cancel the New Royal Navy SSBN's. While, investing the money in more ships and F-35A's for the RAF. The latter could take over the Nuclear Strike Role (i.e. B61-12) currently held by Germany within NATO.


Honestly, hard to see the need for the SSBN's. That are extremely expensive. When the UK is already under a massive Nuclear Umbrella from the US and NATO.

What is needed is stronger conventional forces......


PreviousNext

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests