"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
Mike
GENERAL: PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY
The Defense Department and a handful of allies have launched an effort
to ensure the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is capable of
conducting the most devastating mission in modern warfare --
delivering a nuclear bomb.
A senior Pentagon official announced the initiative, which aims to
fulfill a long-standing requirement for the stealthy fighter, two days
after The Wall Street Journal reported that cyber spies had
successfully penetrated the $300 billion JSF program -- the most
expensive weapons program in history.
“We have a cooperative effort under way to move the F-35 into nuclear
capability,” Maj. Gen. Donald Alston, assistant Air Force chief of
staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration, said during an
April 22 speech to a group of military and civilian officials in
Arlington, VA. “All the right deliberate steps are under way.
“This involves the nations together who are involved in that program
to come together, but we’ve been working in the Pentagon -- let alone
inside the Air Force -- and with the allies,” the two-star continued.
“The right next deliberate steps are being made with that, and we’ll
hope to see that come to conclusion here in the near term.”
F-35 partners include a number of nuclear-capable NATO alliance
members and Israel, an undeclared nuclear power. Four non-nuclear NATO
countries -- Belgium, Germany, The Netherlands, Italy -- have a
nuclear strike mission.
Air Force B-2 and B-52 bombers and F-15E and F-16 fighters are the
only Air Force aircraft that can currently deploy nuclear weapons.
Aircraft that carry nuclear weapons require special circuity that is
different from the technology used in conventional weapons.
Pentagon officials declined to provide additional details about plans
to add nuclear-strike capability to the F-35, such as whether all
variants will be configured for the strategic mission.
"Nuclear capability has been an F-35 requirement since the program's
beginnings, but it is not a component of the current system
development and demonstration phase," a program official said in an
April 23 e-mail.
In December 2008, a task force led by former Defense and Energy
Secretary James Schlesinger reported that some allies “are already
pursuing an option for replacing their [dual-capable aircraft] fighter
forces by investing in the development of the F-35, which has an
operational requirement for delivery of nuclear weapons.”
The highly publicized report concluded that the Pentagon “must ensure
that the dual-capable F-35 remains on schedule” and that “further
delays would result in increasing levels of political and strategic
risk and reduced strategic options for both the United States and the
Alliance.”
The F-35 is designed to carry two large 2,000-pound Joint Direct
Attack Munitions. Some nuclear weapons weigh around 500 pounds and are
roughly the same size as a 500-pound JDAM.
The F-35 is still several years away from entering full-rate
production and only a handful of test jets currently exist. The Marine
Corps jets are not expected to reach their initial operational
capability until the beginning of next decade.
“Usually way before this stage of the program you’re beginning to hear
about that sort of thing,” Richard Aboulafia, a senior aviation
analyst at the Teal Group said in an April 22 interview.
Part of the certification would include the development of a mission
attack profile, according to Aboulafia.
“What is your plane expecting to do when it drops the bomb; there’s
all kinds of performance parameters,” he said.
Early-generation fighters were designed to launch and then pull
straight up in order to propel the bomb away from the plane, the
analyst noted.
“You’ve got to make the plane technically able to get away fast after
launching, so . . . there’s all sorts of calculations there,” he
said.
Placing nuclear weapons on the JSF would also have treaty
restrictions, which limit the number of nuclear capable aircraft the
United States can operate.
Air Force and Lockheed Martin officials referred all questions about
the JSF’s nuclear strike capabilities to the F-35 joint program office.
Ian B MacLure
674e96...@w31g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
> Inside the Air Force - 4/24/2009
>
> GENERAL: PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY
As long as the PAL (or whatever it is these days) H/W can interface
with the JSFs avionics it shouldn't be that difficult to manage.
IBM
dott.Piergiorgio
> Inside the Air Force - 4/24/2009
>
> GENERAL: PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY
>
> The Defense Department and a handful of allies have launched an effort
> to ensure the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is capable of
> conducting the most devastating mission in modern warfare --
> delivering a nuclear bomb.
Ugh.....
let's cross well the fingers, there's already a mess, and a -D version,
available to select few, has all the potential to sink the entire
program......
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
Ian B MacLure
news:BgYJl.37554$VA5...@tornado.fastwebnet.it:
Why another version? It would simply be a Block X update to
whatever was fielded. What after all is the difference between
nuclear and non-nuclear capable aircraft? Basically some form
of safety gear related to weapon fusing.
IBM
dott.Piergiorgio
Indeed, but the "select few" in the end actually is a "select one" (the
other reliable US ally is well-known for their penchant for indigenous
solutions), and other partecipating countries have a public opinion more
or less against nuke weapons, and at least a pair of said countries has
serious issues with their Defence budget.... it's easy to draw the
(inauspicious) conclusions, IMVHO.
Ed Rasimus
And, yet, in the past the list of NATO allies that sat alert with
tactical nuclear weapons on small jets was pretty long:
Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Turkey, Greece, Italy, W. Germany,
France, UK...
Somehow decisions on strategic defense were not made in the court of
public opinion, which is a good thing.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
www.thunderchief.org
daniel.c...@gmail.com
> tactical nuclear weapons on small jets was pretty long:
>
> Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Turkey, Greece, Italy, W. Germany,
> France, UK...
Not to mention the Luftwaffe lot of Pershing MRBMs...
> Somehow decisions on strategic defense were not made in the court of
> public opinion, which is a good thing.
It was granted, no need for a debate back then. Yet as the notion of
proliferation creeps in, I bet a few European governments from the
list are getting nervous about the perspective of having to open a
public case, some day.
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)www.thundertales.blogspot.comwww.thunderchief.org
Dan
>> And, yet, in the past the list of NATO allies that sat alert with
>> tactical nuclear weapons on small jets was pretty long:
>>
>> Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Turkey, Greece, Italy, W. Germany,
>> France, UK...
>
> Not to mention the Luftwaffe lot of Pershing MRBMs...
>
>> Somehow decisions on strategic defense were not made in the court of
>> public opinion, which is a good thing.
>
> It was granted, no need for a debate back then. Yet as the notion of
> proliferation creeps in, I bet a few European governments from the
> list are getting nervous about the perspective of having to open a
> public case, some day.
Why? In the Cold War several NATO allies who didn't have their own
nuclear weapons were loaned them so they could sit alert. The weapons
were always under positive control and have long since been returned to
the lending nations as far as I know. Proliferation from that point of
view is a non starter.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
daniel.c...@gmail.com
> nuclear weapons were loaned them so they could sit alert. The weapons
> were always under positive control and have long since been returned to
> the lending nations as far as I know. Proliferation from that point of
> view is a non starter.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Wasn't referring to that "proliferation". The whole intra-European
debate about basing some limited ABM kit to negate some wacko's
potential threat has revealed some stress lines within Alliance
members. Then there's NATO enlargement indecisiveness (divisions)
probably a contributing factor to the Georgian episode. Turkey being
politely booted out of the club's buffet, etc.
That's toolbox NATO is turning into NATO Redux.
dott.Piergiorgio
>> And, yet, in the past the list of NATO allies that sat alert with
>> tactical nuclear weapons on small jets was pretty long:
>>
>> Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Turkey, Greece, Italy, W. Germany,
>> France, UK...
>
> Not to mention the Luftwaffe lot of Pershing MRBMs...
>
>> Somehow decisions on strategic defense were not made in the court of
>> public opinion, which is a good thing.
>
> It was granted, no need for a debate back then. Yet as the notion of
> proliferation creeps in, I bet a few European governments from the
> list are getting nervous about the perspective of having to open a
> public case, some day.
eh.... how to not forget about the bizarre nuke race between three
improbable countries named Italy, Yugoslavia and... *Switzerland* prior
of their ratification of the NPT ?
dott.Piergiorgio
>>> Somehow decisions on strategic defense were not made in the court of
>>> public opinion, which is a good thing.
>>
>> It was granted, no need for a debate back then. Yet as the notion of
>> proliferation creeps in, I bet a few European governments from the
>> list are getting nervous about the perspective of having to open a
>> public case, some day.
>
>
> Why? In the Cold War several NATO allies who didn't have their own
> nuclear weapons were loaned them so they could sit alert. The weapons
> were always under positive control and have long since been returned to
> the lending nations as far as I know. Proliferation from that point of
> view is a non starter.
This is what I want to point in first place, but I was unsure about the
exact version of the F-104 involved (aleks, please ?) and I fear of
comparing apples with oranges, variant-wise, and I ended writing in a
broader terms.
Anyway, the basic fact remain that AFAICT only UK has the needs & means
to have single or double-key nukes with US support.
daniel.c...@gmail.com
> improbable countries named Italy, Yugoslavia and... *Switzerland* prior
> of their ratification of the NPT ?
Can't say for the first two, but can certify each ass was safe in
Switzerland, you know, they called it "shelters" :-) If you believe
that, then you're happy while singing "paper tiger!" in Appenzell,
which should at least piss off those who've invested in MAD.
Then most certainly, there wasn't any nuclear vacuum in Europe. You
could read that even Sweden had some secret underground nuclear plant
of some sort. NATO prevented actual proliferation and local electorate
over stress.
Ian B MacLure
news:0kjjv4t11unndabbr...@4ax.com:
Kanuckistan. Their 104s had a nuclear strike role before
"Turdeau" took over.
IBM
Ken S. Tucker
> Ed Rasimus <rasimusSPAML...@verizon.net> wrote innews:0kjjv4t11unndabbr...@4ax.com:
...
> > And, yet, in the past the list of NATO allies that sat alert with
> > tactical nuclear weapons on small jets was pretty long:
>
> > Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Turkey, Greece, Italy, W. Germany,
> > France, UK...
>
> Kanuckistan. Their 104s had a nuclear strike role before
> "Turdeau" took over.
> IBM
It's a bad idea to give F-35's nuke capability, it's expensive,
unnecessary and useless, in fact worse than useless,
because we are openly working to go non-nuclear weapons.
Ken
Ed Rasimus
It is certainly not "expensive"--it is simply adding the spec to the
construction for wiring to some of the weapon stations to provide for
monitor and control of special weapons. It is not new technology and
it isn't major modification stuff.
It isn't unnecessary, since we quite clearly live in a world with
nuclear threats increasing rather than decreasing. Our unilateral
disarmament or downgrading will neither lessen the threat nor reduce
the spread. With special weapons in our arsenal, the abandonment of
delivery means would be foolish.
It isn't useless. Nuclear capability is the first element of credible
deterrence. Survivability, meaning multiple delivery modes is arguably
the second step. The usefulness of deterrence has been amply
demonstrated in the last sixty years. (I suggest a quick reference to
the advice of Santayana at this juncture.)
Ken S. Tucker
> On Fri, 1 May 2009 07:08:36 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
>
>
>
> <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> >On Apr 30, 11:07 pm, Ian B MacLure <i...@svpal.org> wrote:
> >> Ed Rasimus <rasimusSPAML...@verizon.net> wrote innews:0kjjv4t11unndabbr...@4ax.com:
> >...
> >> > And, yet, in the past the list of NATO allies that sat alert with
> >> > tactical nuclear weapons on small jets was pretty long:
>
> >> > Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Turkey, Greece, Italy, W. Germany,
> >> > France, UK...
>
> >> Kanuckistan. Their 104s had a nuclear strike role before
> >> "Turdeau" took over.
> >> IBM
>
> >It's a bad idea to give F-35's nuke capability, it's expensive,
> >unnecessary and useless, in fact worse than useless,
> >because we are openly working to go non-nuclear weapons.
> >Ken
>
> It is certainly not "expensive"--it is simply adding the spec to the
> construction for wiring to some of the weapon stations to provide for
> monitor and control of special weapons. It is not new technology and
> it isn't major modification stuff.
Cradle to grave cost of nukes is expensive, let's
keep an eye on the big picture, it's much more
than wiring if we set off an arms race.
> It isn't unnecessary, since we quite clearly live in a world with
> nuclear threats increasing rather than decreasing. Our unilateral
> disarmament or downgrading will neither lessen the threat nor reduce
> the spread. With special weapons in our arsenal, the abandonment of
> delivery means would be foolish.
Ed, you (and I) are victims of the cold war mentality
that spun off from WW2, guys like Reagan and now
Obama, are planning for a New World Order, wherein
future generations will live in an increasingly integrated
world in which nukes are lunacy.
Just this AM, because of a sniffle in Mexico a school
in our neighbourhood (Vernon BC) was clsoed for a
week.
> It isn't useless. Nuclear capability is the first element of credible
> deterrence. Survivability, meaning multiple delivery modes is arguably
> the second step. The usefulness of deterrence has been amply
> demonstrated in the last sixty years. (I suggest a quick reference to
> the advice of Santayana at this juncture.)
Ed, how many nukes will deter you?
How many nukes will deter a crazy man?
I've done some of these psychotic calculations, as
I'm sure you've tried, they are emotionally difficult.
However the stakes are so great we cannot permit
mental laziness or archaic presumptions to taint
our calculations going forward to generations unborn
to inherit.
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)www.thundertales.blogspot.com
www.thunderchief.org
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
zzbu...@netscape.net
It's pointless to work with anybody in the pentagon on weapons
issues,
since the only thing any of them even know about weapons is the
The Lockheed Times. So that's why the educable people with actual
post-1942
brains in weapons, science, engineering, and medicine all work on
GPS,
AUVs, Drones, Digital-Terrain Mapping, Laser-Guided Phasors,
Optical Computing,
Microcomputers, C++, Distributed Processing, HDTV debuggers, MP3,
MPEG,
CD+rw, DVD-rom, Holograms, Fiber Optics, Cell Phones, On-Line
Banking,
On-Line Publishing, Self-Assembling Robots, Microwave Cooling,
Biodiesel, Pv Cell Energy, Fiber Optics, Light Sticks, Compact
Flourescent Lighting,
Cruise Missiles, Phalanx, Self-Replicating Machines, and Post GM
wheel bearings.
> Ken
Derek Lyons
>whatever was fielded. What after all is the difference between
>nuclear and non-nuclear capable aircraft? Basically some form
>of safety gear related to weapon fusing.
- Installation of the PAL hardware, which (probably) means changing
out the connectors at the bomb rack, installation of cabling, and
installation of the cockpit panel.
- Possible modifications to the mechanical systems of the bomb racks.
- Probable modifications to the aircraft flight control and weapons
delivery software.
- Development, testing, and implementation of delivery techniques.
- Updating the maintenance, operations, and familiarization manuals.
- Training the pilots and ground crews on all of the above.
Etc... Etc...
No showstoppers certainly, but not trivial or simple - and a lot more
than just 'some safety gear and wiring'.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
hcobb
On Apr 28, 7:06 pm, Mike <yard22...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The Defense Department and a handful of allies
So this is not for an American nuclear capability.
It's for Israel.
-HJC
Hey gang, let's all sing "Bomb Iran" with McCain!
Ian B MacLure
@news.supernews.com:
[snip]
> No showstoppers certainly, but not trivial or simple - and a lot more
> than just 'some safety gear and wiring'.
Here in Cobb World ya gotta keep it simple.
Mentioning things like comuters and software just confuses
old Corny even further.
IBM
Ed Rasimus
Are you Cobb in disguise? We were talking about adding nuke capability
to F-35, now you are into life-cycle cost of nuclear weapons. We have
the tactical sized nukes. We are buying a new airplane. To enable that
aircraft for those existing weapons is a miniscule expense.
We aren't "setting off an arms race", we are preserving an existing
capability. I don't think the al-Qaeda or Hamas budgets will be taxed
by them seeking to equal of tactical aircraft capabilities with or
without nukes.
>
>> It isn't unnecessary, since we quite clearly live in a world with
>> nuclear threats increasing rather than decreasing. Our unilateral
>> disarmament or downgrading will neither lessen the threat nor reduce
>> the spread. With special weapons in our arsenal, the abandonment of
>> delivery means would be foolish.
>
>Ed, you (and I) are victims of the cold war mentality
>that spun off from WW2, guys like Reagan and now
>Obama, are planning for a New World Order, wherein
>future generations will live in an increasingly integrated
>world in which nukes are lunacy.
I am not a victim of "cold war mentality" but rather an individual who
fought in a very hot war that was kept from nuclear escalation by the
capabilities we possessed and who spent a lot of time on the European
frontier with the weapon at my hand.
Reagan certainly knew and understood the value of a strong military
with a wide range of conventional and nuclear capabilities. His
reversal of the unilateral disarmament of the Carter administration
was instrumental in the collapse of the Soviet Union. For you to link
him to Obama demonstrates a very critical lack of understanding of our
political history.
>Just this AM, because of a sniffle in Mexico a school
>in our neighbourhood (Vernon BC) was clsoed for a
>week.
Apparently Canada is as subject to Biden-induced anxiety as the
sheeple of the US.
>
>> It isn't useless. Nuclear capability is the first element of credible
>> deterrence. Survivability, meaning multiple delivery modes is arguably
>> the second step. The usefulness of deterrence has been amply
>> demonstrated in the last sixty years. (I suggest a quick reference to
>> the advice of Santayana at this juncture.)
>
>Ed, how many nukes will deter you?
>How many nukes will deter a crazy man?
There are three fundamental requirements for nuclear deterrence:
1.) Survivable second-strike capability
2.) Political will to use it
3.) Rational leadership
We have #1 without question. We've seriously eroded #2 as you amply
demonstrate. With China and the Soviet Union we had #3, but with Iran
and N. Korea we don't.
But, regardless, our unilateral disarmament won't make us any safer.
>
>I've done some of these psychotic calculations, as
>I'm sure you've tried, they are emotionally difficult.
>However the stakes are so great we cannot permit
>mental laziness or archaic presumptions to taint
>our calculations going forward to generations unborn
>to inherit.
Can I say that paragraph is a load of emotional drivel without
offending you? It is.
Ed Rasimus
wrote:
>Ian B MacLure <i...@svpal.org> wrote:
>>Why another version? It would simply be a Block X update to
>>whatever was fielded. What after all is the difference between
>>nuclear and non-nuclear capable aircraft? Basically some form
>>of safety gear related to weapon fusing.
>
>- Installation of the PAL hardware, which (probably) means changing
>out the connectors at the bomb rack, installation of cabling, and
>installation of the cockpit panel.
That's trivial.
>
>- Possible modifications to the mechanical systems of the bomb racks.
That's doubtful since the suspension gear and mechanics are mature
technology. We aren't going into internal bomb-bay or A-5 embedded
ejector systems. Again tivial.
>
>- Probable modifications to the aircraft flight control and weapons
>delivery software.
Probably the most significant is the delivery mode incorporation.
Since the weapons are generally in the size/weight class of
conventional munitions aircraft flight control software shouldn't
require action.
>
>- Development, testing, and implementation of delivery techniques.
A couple of release parameter simulations followed by operational
flight test and you've got it done.
>
>- Updating the maintenance, operations, and familiarization manuals.
Hardly major effort. The weapons have mature manuals, the aircraft
manuals will need an extra chapter.
>
>- Training the pilots and ground crews on all of the above.
Three more missions in the syllabus, ten hours of classroom...
>
>Etc... Etc...
>
>No showstoppers certainly, but not trivial or simple - and a lot more
>than just 'some safety gear and wiring'.
Not much more and imminently doable.
Ken S. Tucker
Now let's not go around insulting Mr. Cobb.
> We were talking about adding nuke capability
> to F-35, now you are into life-cycle cost of nuclear weapons. We have
> the tactical sized nukes. We are buying a new airplane. To enable that
> aircraft for those existing weapons is a miniscule expense.
> We aren't "setting off an arms race", we are preserving an existing
> capability. I don't think the al-Qaeda or Hamas budgets will be taxed
> by them seeking to equal of tactical aircraft capabilities with or
> without nukes.
And there's the problem Ed, a mini-atomic bomber without
any concievable target, that would only be redundant.
> >> It isn't unnecessary, since we quite clearly live in a world with
> >> nuclear threats increasing rather than decreasing. Our unilateral
> >> disarmament or downgrading will neither lessen the threat nor reduce
> >> the spread. With special weapons in our arsenal, the abandonment of
> >> delivery means would be foolish.
>
> >Ed, you (and I) are victims of the cold war mentality
> >that spun off from WW2, guys like Reagan and now
> >Obama, are planning for a New World Order, wherein
> >future generations will live in an increasingly integrated
> >world in which nukes are lunacy.
>
> I am not a victim of "cold war mentality" but rather an individual who
> fought in a very hot war that was kept from nuclear escalation by the
> capabilities we possessed and who spent a lot of time on the European
> frontier with the weapon at my hand.
Ed, somehow, your using the limitation of the Vietnam
conflict, and the NATO cold-war tactical nuke deployment
as being relevent to the F-35+nuke debate. Let's plan for
the future, good planning will provide the future we want.
> Reagan certainly knew and understood the value of a strong military
> with a wide range of conventional and nuclear capabilities. His
> reversal of the unilateral disarmament of the Carter administration
> was instrumental in the collapse of the Soviet Union. For you to link
> him to Obama demonstrates a very critical lack of understanding of our
> political history.
I could just as easily say it's you Ed, who lacks the
critical understanding, especially in grand strategy,
quite apart from politics. I respect Reagan's desire
to reduce dependancy on nukes to a minimum, and
I think Obama will follow that.
> >Just this AM, because of a sniffle in Mexico a school
> >in our neighbourhood (Vernon BC) was closed for a
> >week.
>
> Apparently Canada is as subject to Biden-induced anxiety as the
> sheeple of the US.
To be on the safe side, we bought a gallon of Vicks
Vapo-rub.
> >> It isn't useless. Nuclear capability is the first element of credible
> >> deterrence. Survivability, meaning multiple delivery modes is arguably
> >> the second step. The usefulness of deterrence has been amply
> >> demonstrated in the last sixty years. (I suggest a quick reference to
> >> the advice of Santayana at this juncture.)
>
> >Ed, how many nukes will deter you?
> >How many nukes will deter a crazy man?
>
> There are three fundamental requirements for nuclear deterrence:
> 1.) Survivable second-strike capability
> 2.) Political will to use it
> 3.) Rational leadership
>
> We have #1 without question. We've seriously eroded #2 as you amply
> demonstrate. With China and the Soviet Union we had #3, but with Iran
> and N. Korea we don't.
> But, regardless, our unilateral disarmament won't make us any safer.
Very nice Ed.
We won't need #1 and #2 if we have #3, so now that
returns to the problem of geopolitically defining and
encouraging "Rational leadership".
> >I've done some of these psychotic calculations, as
> >I'm sure you've tried, they are emotionally difficult.
> >However the stakes are so great we cannot permit
> >mental laziness or archaic presumptions to taint
> >our calculations going forward to generations unborn
> >to inherit.
>
> Can I say that paragraph is a load of emotional drivel without
> offending you? It is.
Why, did you respect Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace"
plan? Ever read his "Military Industrial Complex" speech?
How about the 1963 CIA evaluation of Vietnam involvement?
Is caring for the casualties in Vietnam "emotional drivel"?
Of course you have, I connect the dots.
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
www.thunderchief.org
Cheers
Ken
wjka...@gmail.com
<rasimus...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>It's a bad idea to give F-35's nuke capability, it's expensive,
>>unnecessary and useless, in fact worse than useless,
>>because we are openly working to go non-nuclear weapons.
>>Ken
>
>It is certainly not "expensive"--it is simply adding the spec to the
>construction for wiring to some of the weapon stations to provide for
>monitor and control of special weapons. It is not new technology and
>it isn't major modification stuff.
Concur. Even the old S-2E/G had the capability (nuclear depth
charges; useful in a limited way against subs but also useful for
other things).
Still, the Big Question is not whether we add some wires and boxes but
whethe we have leadership with the fortitude to address serious
problems. Sadly, that's been lacking for a while.
Bill Kambic
Gracefully Aging RAFS Member
Ian B MacLure
news:34317b3a-8b26-49ed...@b6g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
[snip]
> Now let's not go around insulting Mr. Cobb.
Then why have a Loon Mallet, #9, 1ea if you aren't going to use it?
Cobb is a loon and therefore material for the mallet.
[snip]
> And there's the problem Ed, a mini-atomic bomber without
> any concievable target, that would only be redundant.
Your inability to conceive of a possible adversary doesn't
preclude the possibility that one exists.
[snip]
> Ed, somehow, your using the limitation of the Vietnam
> conflict, and the NATO cold-war tactical nuke deployment
> as being relevent to the F-35+nuke debate. Let's plan for
> the future, good planning will provide the future we want.
The only limitation of the Veitnam conflict that matters
is the determination of the Dhimmicraps to lose it and the
subsequent determination by wiser heads that would never
happen again.
The only people stuck with a Vietnam mindeset were Dhimmicraps
notably Ivan Felchgoat Trotsqerry and his ilk. Hell they even
tried out Winter Soldier again. Got their asses handed to them
because they didn't realise times and technology had changed.
[snip]
> I could just as easily say it's you Ed, who lacks the
> critical understanding, especially in grand strategy,
> quite apart from politics. I respect Reagan's desire
> to reduce dependancy on nukes to a minimum, and
> I think Obama will follow that.
No, Soetaro's going to try and bilaterally disarm ( us and
the Russians ). He'll attempt to ignore China and the
looney-toon regimes ( Iran and North Korea )
[snip]
> To be on the safe side, we bought a gallon of Vicks
> Vapo-rub.
What? Soetaro hasn't nationalised it already?
[snip]
> Very nice Ed.
> We won't need #1 and #2 if we have #3, so now that
> returns to the problem of geopolitically defining and
> encouraging "Rational leadership".
Sez you. Evidently bunches of folks who know far more about
the topic disagree.
[snip]
> Why, did you respect Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace"
And you think this was a peacenik panaceaea?
> plan? Ever read his "Military Industrial Complex" speech?
Did you understand it? Sounds like you didn't.
> How about the 1963 CIA evaluation of Vietnam involvement?
And the Dhimmicraps went ahead anyway. Vietnam was doable
just not the way Kennedy and Johnson went about it.
> Is caring for the casualties in Vietnam "emotional drivel"?
> Of course you have, I connect the dots.
Casualty care in Vietname was actually pretty good. You
had a better chance of surviving than in previous con-
flicts. By the time Iraq I & II popped up your odds
were even better.
IBM
Ken S. Tucker
On May 2, 9:07 am, Ian B MacLure <i...@svpal.org> wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote innews:34317b3a-8b26-49ed...@b6g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
...
> > And there's the problem Ed, a mini-atomic bomber without
> > any concievable target, that would only be redundant.
>
> Your inability to conceive of a possible adversary doesn't
> preclude the possibility that one exists.
There may be alligators under my bed, so I sleep
with a shot-gun?
> > Ed, somehow, your using the limitation of the Vietnam
> > conflict, and the NATO cold-war tactical nuke deployment
> > as being relevent to the F-35+nuke debate. Let's plan for
> > the future, good planning will provide the future we want.
Below \, I'm seeing politics, that is thread drift.
Ken
Ken S. Tucker
> >>It's a bad idea to give F-35's nuke capability, it's expensive,
> >>unnecessary and useless, in fact worse than useless,
> >>because we are openly working to go non-nuclear weapons.
> >>Ken
>
> >It is certainly not "expensive"--it is simply adding the spec to the
> >construction for wiring to some of the weapon stations to provide for
> >monitor and control of special weapons. It is not new technology and
> >it isn't major modification stuff.
>
> Concur. Even the old S-2E/G had the capability (nuclear depth
> charges; useful in a limited way against subs but also useful for
> other things).
AFAIK, CVN's (and USN surface fleet) is not nuclear
offensive, so the navalized F-35 doesn't need nukes,
and no "allie" wants or needs them.
> Still, the Big Question is not whether we add some wires and boxes but
> whethe we have leadership with the fortitude to address serious
> problems. Sadly, that's been lacking for a while.
There was fortitude, it's been shaken by faulty intel
Collin Powell delivered on WMD's in Iraq. Personally
I trusted him, but we now have no evidence to support
that rationale to invade Iraq then. Cost is approaching
30,000 casualties + $Trillion, so I rather resent the
suggestion America lacks fortitude.
> Bill Kambic
> Gracefully Aging RAFS Member
Regards
Ken
PS:What's RAFS?
Ian B MacLure
> It's Saturday, Ian is enjoying his schnops :-).
That's "schnaps" and I don't drink as a rule.
> On May 2, 9:07 am, Ian B MacLure <i...@svpal.org> wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote
>> innews:34317b3a-8b26-49ed...@b6g2000pre.googlegroups.co
>> m:
> ...
>> > And there's the problem Ed, a mini-atomic bomber without
>> > any concievable target, that would only be redundant.
>>
>> Your inability to conceive of a possible adversary doesn't
>> preclude the possibility that one exists.
>
> There may be alligators under my bed, so I sleep
> with a shot-gun?
I'll bet you duck to avoid low flying turtles as well.
>> > Ed, somehow, your using the limitation of the Vietnam
>> > conflict, and the NATO cold-war tactical nuke deployment
>> > as being relevent to the F-35+nuke debate. Let's plan for
>> > the future, good planning will provide the future we want.
>
> Below \, I'm seeing politics, that is thread drift.
> Ken
Your point being what exactly?
And I'm pretty sure the drift started elsewhere.
IBM
wjka...@gmail.com
<dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>> Concur. Even the old S-2E/G had the capability (nuclear depth
>> charges; useful in a limited way against subs but also useful for
>> other things).
>
>AFAIK, CVN's (and USN surface fleet) is not nuclear
>offensive, so the navalized F-35 doesn't need nukes,
>and no "allie" wants or needs them.
You don't know anything of the sort because it's policy not to discuss
whether it is or is not.
>> Still, the Big Question is not whether we add some wires and boxes but
>> whethe we have leadership with the fortitude to address serious
>> problems. Sadly, that's been lacking for a while.
>
>There was fortitude, it's been shaken by faulty intel
>Collin Powell delivered on WMD's in Iraq. Personally
>I trusted him, but we now have no evidence to support
>that rationale to invade Iraq then. Cost is approaching
>30,000 casualties + $Trillion, so I rather resent the
>suggestion America lacks fortitude.
Resent away. Doesn't change the facts.
>> Bill Kambic
>> Gracefully Aging RAFS Member
>
>Regards
>Ken
>PS:What's RAFS?
Real Aviators Flew Stoofs.
Jack Linthicum
Did you see this?
Alberta pigs likely infected with flu from worker: CFIA official
Number of confirmed Canadian cases now 85, all believed mild
Last Updated: Saturday, May 2, 2009 | 7:56 PM ET
Comments242Recommend108
CBC News
In what would be the first reported case of its kind, a farm worker
with the swine flu virus is believed to have infected about 200 pigs
in Alberta, a top official with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
said Saturday.
Senior research scientist Dr. Karuna Karunakaran works in the vaccine
research lab at the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control during
a demonstration for media in Vancouver on Thursday. Twenty-two cases
of swine flu are now confirmed in B.C.Senior research scientist Dr.
Karuna Karunakaran works in the vaccine research lab at the British
Columbia Centre for Disease Control during a demonstration for media
in Vancouver on Thursday. Twenty-two cases of swine flu are now
confirmed in B.C. (Darryl Dyck/Canadian Press)Dr. Brian Evans,
executive vice-president of the CFIA, said at a news conference in
Ottawa that the pigs were apparently infected by a farm worker who had
recently been in Mexico and fell ill upon his return.
The worker returned from Mexico on April 12 and worked at the Alberta
farm two days later. He "may have exposed pigs there to the illness,"
Evans told reporters.
The man has since recovered. The pigs are also recovering and the herd
in question has been quarantined, he said. Samples from the infected
pigs are being analyzed.
"We have found the virus is the one being tracked in the human
population," Evans said. About 10 per cent of the 2,200 pigs at the
farm exhibited flu-like symptoms such as loss of appetite or fever, he
said.
"I want to be clear — there is no food safety concern related to this
finding," said Evans.
It is common for pigs to contract influenza, he said. But this is the
first known case of the H1N1 virus being transmitted from humans to
pigs.
Normally, detecting influenza in pigs wouldn't generate a response
from food safety officials, but with an international flu outbreak the
current circumstances are different, Evans said.
"The chance that these pigs could transfer virus to a person is
remote," said Evans.
The outbreak among pigs, he said, was confined to the herd in question
as none of the pigs have been moved outside the farm or sold
elsewhere.
Province Confirmed cases of swine flu in Canadians
Alberta 15
British Columbia 22
Nova Scotia 31
New Brunswick 1
Ontario 14
Quebec 2
Total 85
Spate of new confirmed cases
Earlier in the day, health officials in Nova Scotia, Alberta, British
Columbia, Ontario and Quebec confirmed a spate of new swine flu cases
in humans, boosting the national count to 85.
The Nova Scotia Department of Health said lab testing had confirmed 17
new cases in the province.
Eleven of the cases are related to the King's-Edgehill school
community in Windsor, but the breakdown between students and staff is
not known, according to the Nova Scotia Department of Health. Six
other cases are outside the school population and were confirmed by
testing in a Halifax hospital.
The virus, identified as a new strain of the H1N1 subtype of type A
influenza, is believed to have originated in Mexico and has since
appeared in Canada, the U.S., Europe and elsewhere.
Canada's chief public health officer David Butler-Jones said Friday
the more public health authorities look, the more cases they are
likely to find. This assertion was echoed by Dr. Robert Strang, chief
public health officer for Nova Scotia.
"We have been expecting this and are prepared," Strang said Saturday.
"Right now we are working to gather more information about the
individual confirmed cases outside of King's-Edgehill."
The cases are all mild, says the health department.
Nova Scotia's first cases of the H1N1 virus were confirmed at the
private school last weekend. Officials believe students who went on a
school trip to Mexico carried the infection back home.
None of the Canadian cases have been as severe as those in the Mexican
outbreak.
Cases considered mild
The Alberta Department of Health confirmed seven new cases Saturday,
four of them in the Edmonton area, two in the north and one in the
Calgary area.
Five of those infected are female, including one child. Another male
child has also been infected.
None of the cases require hospitalization, Alberta's Department of
Health said in a release posted on its website. There was no further
information.
West Vernon Children's Centre employee Sharyn Stokes cleans plastic
toys in the preschool classrooms in Vernon, B.C. The centre runs the
after-school children's programs for Beairsto Elementary School, which
was recently closed because of a case of swine flu.West Vernon
Children's Centre employee Sharyn Stokes cleans plastic toys in the
preschool classrooms in Vernon, B.C. The centre runs the after-school
children's programs for Beairsto Elementary School, which was recently
closed because of a case of swine flu. (Jeff Bassett/Canadian Press)
Health officials in Quebec confirmed another case of swine flu in the
province Saturday. There are now two confirmed cases in the province.
Dr. Alain Poirier, Quebec's director of public health, said the virus
had been found in a child who had travelled to Mexico with his
parents.
He said he would not name the child or the school he attended until
all teachers and parents associated with the school had been
contacted.
Dr. David Williams, Ontario's acting chief medical officer of health,
confirmed two new cases of the virus Saturday. One of the two newly
confirmed cases is in the York region, while the other is in the
Toronto area.
In a release, Williams said one of the cases resulted from person-to-
person transmission, as the infected individual picked up the illness
from a roommate who travelled to Mexico. All the Ontario cases are
believed to be mild.
The B.C. Centre for Disease Control confirmed three more cases
Saturday, raising its total to 22. Details of the new cases were not
immediately clear, but a release on the department's website said all
of the cases are "relatively mild."
So far, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, P.E.I. and
the territories have not confirmed any cases of this particular flu
strain.
With files from The Canadian Press
wjka...@gmail.com
<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Did you see this?
>
>Alberta pigs likely infected with flu from worker: CFIA official
>Number of confirmed Canadian cases now 85, all believed mild
>Last Updated: Saturday, May 2, 2009 | 7:56 PM ET
>Comments242Recommend108
>CBC News
>
>In what would be the first reported case of its kind, a farm worker
>with the swine flu virus is believed to have infected about 200 pigs
>in Alberta, a top official with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
>said Saturday.
<balance snipped for brevity>
Kind of a "man bites dog" story, eh??? :-)
Dan
<snip>
> In what would be the first reported case of its kind, a farm worker
> with the swine flu virus is believed to have infected about 200 pigs
> in Alberta, a top official with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
> said Saturday.
I don't think I will ask what the man was doing with the pigs. What
a man does in his private life is no one's business but his.
Ed Rasimus
<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Did you see this?
>
>
>Alberta pigs likely infected with flu from worker: CFIA official
>Number of confirmed Canadian cases now 85, all believed mild
>Last Updated: Saturday, May 2, 2009 | 7:56 PM ET
>Comments242Recommend108
>CBC News
>
>In what would be the first reported case of its kind, a farm worker
>with the swine flu virus is believed to have infected about 200 pigs
>in Alberta, a top official with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
>said Saturday.
And I thought fighter pilots were the only ones who kissed pigs during
a hard night out.
Ed Rasimus
Wasn't that the Bill Clinton story?
Dan
When Clinton left office he was seen carrying a pig. When a
reported asked he said "this is a genuine Arkansas razorback. I got it
for Hillary." The reporter replied "you got the better end of the trade."
BlackBeard
> On Sat, 2 May 2009 22:29:25 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker
>
> >offensive, so the navalized F-35 doesn't need nukes,
> >and no "allie" wants or needs them.
>
> You don't know anything of the sort because it's policy not to discuss
> whether it is or is not.
>
By presidential order (Bush the 1st) all tactical nuclear weapons were
removed from USN surface ships and Submarines. Ordered in 1991
finished by 1992.
BB
Jack Linthicum
They were engaged
Ken S. Tucker
> On May 1, 2:35 pm, Ed Rasimus <rasimusSPAML...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 1 May 2009 08:56:50 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
> > >Just this AM, because of a sniffle in Mexico a school
> > >week.
>
> > Apparently Canada is as subject to Biden-induced anxiety as the
> > sheeple of the US.
> Did you see this?
>
> Alberta pigs likely infected with flu from worker: CFIA official
> Number of confirmed Canadian cases now 85, all believed mild
> Last Updated: Saturday, May 2, 2009 | 7:56 PM ET
> Comments242Recommend108
> CBC News
Canada, especially Toronto lost 50-100 people over that
SARs thing, so I guess they're siding on caution.
Ken
Ken S. Tucker
>
> >> Concur. Even the old S-2E/G had the capability (nuclear depth
> >> charges; useful in a limited way against subs but also useful for
> >> other things).
>
> >AFAIK, CVN's (and USN surface fleet) is not nuclear
> >offensive, so the navalized F-35 doesn't need nukes,
> >and no "allie" wants or needs them.
>
> You don't know anything of the sort because it's policy not to discuss
> whether it is or is not.
>
> >> Still, the Big Question is not whether we add some wires and boxes but
> >> whethe we have leadership with the fortitude to address serious
> >> problems. Sadly, that's been lacking for a while.
>
> >There was fortitude, it's been shaken by faulty intel
> >Collin Powell delivered on WMD's in Iraq. Personally
> >I trusted him, but we now have no evidence to support
> >that rationale to invade Iraq then. Cost is approaching
> >30,000 casualties + $Trillion, so I rather resent the
> >suggestion America lacks fortitude.
>
> Resent away. Doesn't change the facts.
The US, Brits + more have had an armed presence in
Iraq (or around), since 1991, 18 years, in Afgh since
2001, 8 years. A lack of fortitude might be argued in
the way those conflicts were resolved.
> >PS:What's RAFS?
>
> Real Aviators Flew Stoofs.
> http://www.r-a-f-s.org/
Ken
Dan
All 200 of them? Polygamy gone wild.
wjka...@gmail.com
wrote:
Would this not mean that by presidential order they could be put back?
BlackBeard
> On Sun, 3 May 2009 11:48:59 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard <spk_...@msn.com>
Sure, and by Presidential order he could require the military to wear
pink tutu's. But AFAIK from recent visits to operational units they
haven't changed anything in regard to the aforementioned topic.
BB
wjka...@gmail.com
wrote:
>On May 3, 6:08�pm, wjkam...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 May 2009 11:48:59 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard <spk_...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On May 3, 6:15�am, wjkam...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 2 May 2009 22:29:25 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker
>>
>> >> >AFAIK, CVN's (and USN surface fleet) is not nuclear
>> >> >offensive, so the navalized F-35 doesn't need nukes,
>> >> >and no "allie" wants or needs them.
>>
>> >> You don't know anything of the sort because it's policy not to discuss
>> >> whether it is or is not.
>>
>> >By presidential order (Bush the 1st) all tactical nuclear weapons were
>> >removed from USN surface ships and Submarines. �Ordered in 1991
>> >finished by 1992.
>>
>> Would this not mean that by presidential order they could be put back?
>
>Sure, and by Presidential order he could require the military to wear
>pink tutu's. But AFAIK from recent visits to operational units they
>haven't changed anything in regard to the aforementioned topic.
The point is that they were taken off by executive order and can be
returned by executive order (a/k/a The Stroke of a Pen). Such orders
need not be made public. Under such conditions claims that we KNOW
the weapons status of any given vessel are incorrect. All we KNOW is
that there is an unrescinded, public executive order removing the
weapons.
frank
> "dott.Piergiorgio" <dott.PiergiorgioNI...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote innews:BgYJl.37554$VA5...@tornado.fastwebnet.it:
>
> > Mike ha scritto:
> >> Inside the Air Force - 4/24/2009
>
> >> GENERAL: PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY
>
> >> The Defense Department and a handful of allies have launched an effort
> >> to ensure the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is capable of
> >> conducting the most devastating mission in modern warfare --
> >> delivering a nuclear bomb.
>
> > Ugh.....
>
> > let's cross well the fingers, there's already a mess, and a -D version,
> > available to select few, has all the potential to sink the entire
> > program......
>
> Why another version? It would simply be a Block X update to
> whatever was fielded. What after all is the difference between
> nuclear and non-nuclear capable aircraft? Basically some form
> of safety gear related to weapon fusing.
>
Its a bit more than that. Takes a lot of work to be nuclear certified.
frank
> On Sun, 3 May 2009 06:47:16 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
>
ED, you're getting senile, Naval Aviators are not fighter pilots,
though they think they are. Give them a movie and they just go hog
wild.......(pssst. you know she was outed...)
frank
> On Sun, 3 May 2009 11:48:59 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard <spk_...@msn.com>
We'd have to break some arms control treaties to do it.
Ken S. Tucker
My understanding of the current calculus is CVN's
are only for conventional warfare, and IF the lunatic
switch starts WW3, they are ignoreable.
However, making CVN's F-35 nuke able, that big
fat floating target is quick to sizzle.
Ken
BlackBeard
> On Sun, 3 May 2009 19:52:13 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard <spk_...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On May 3, 6:08 pm, wjkam...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Sun, 3 May 2009 11:48:59 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard <spk_...@msn.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On May 3, 6:15 am, wjkam...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 2 May 2009 22:29:25 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker
>
> >> >> >AFAIK, CVN's (and USN surface fleet) is not nuclear
> >> >> >offensive, so the navalized F-35 doesn't need nukes,
> >> >> >and no "allie" wants or needs them.
>
> >> >> You don't know anything of the sort because it's policy not to discuss
> >> >> whether it is or is not.
>
> >> >By presidential order (Bush the 1st) all tactical nuclear weapons were
> >> >removed from USN surface ships and Submarines. Ordered in 1991
> >> >finished by 1992.
>
> >> Would this not mean that by presidential order they could be put back?
>
> >Sure, and by Presidential order he could require the military to wear
> >pink tutu's. But AFAIK from recent visits to operational units they
> >haven't changed anything in regard to the aforementioned topic.
>
> The point is that they were taken off by executive order and can be
> returned by executive order (a/k/a The Stroke of a Pen). Such orders
> need not be made public. Under such conditions claims that we KNOW
> the weapons status of any given vessel are incorrect. All we KNOW is
> that there is an unrescinded, public executive order removing the
> weapons.
No, the point was you said "You don't know anything of the sort
because it's policy not to discuss whether it is or is not."
Yet the information was discussed, and published by the US Government
in open sources. I spent years spewing the "... neither confirm nor
deny..." line in official capacity. But the CiC can do what he wants
regardless of standing policy.
BB
Ed Rasimus
<dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
>My understanding of the current calculus is CVN's
>are only for conventional warfare, and IF the lunatic
>switch starts WW3, they are ignoreable.
>However, making CVN's F-35 nuke able, that big
>fat floating target is quick to sizzle.
>Ken
Two points:
1.) Making an aircraft nuclear capable is totally separate from
deploying the weapons on the CVN.
2.) Disabuse yourself from the notion that a CV is any sort of easy
target. I spent a lot of years trying to successfully do just that in
exercises. It is damn close to impossible. Whoever attempts it will
suffer severe losses in the process and even then may not succeed.
BlackBeard
>
> 2.) Disabuse yourself from the notion that a CV is any sort of easy
> target. I spent a lot of years trying to successfully do just that in
> exercises. It is damn close to impossible. Whoever attempts it will
> suffer severe losses in the process and even then may not succeed.
Well, from the air or surface maybe... ;)
BB
Ed Rasimus
wrote:
>On May 4, 1:05�pm, Ed Rasimus <rasimusSPAML...@verizon.net> wrote:
Even subsurface when in a CVBG. The whole package is a tough nut.
Been there, tried to do that. Roll-back was my best option and that
only works if you've got a lot of resources and the CV obligingly
comes close to land.
It is fun though!
wjka...@gmail.com
wrote:
>On May 4, 1:05�pm, Ed Rasimus <rasimusSPAML...@verizon.net> wrote:
Well, no.
I've sat on many an SSN over the years. They are tough to catch but
I've yet to meat the submariner that's 7 feet tall, bullet proof, and
immortal. :-)
wjka...@gmail.com
<dhssres...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> Would this not mean that by presidential order they could be put back?
>
>We'd have to break some arms control treaties to do it.
Which ones?
wjka...@gmail.com
wrote:
>No, the point was you said "You don't know anything of the sort
>because it's policy not to discuss whether it is or is not."
>Yet the information was discussed, and published by the US Government
>in open sources. I spent years spewing the "... neither confirm nor
>deny..." line in official capacity. But the CiC can do what he wants
>regardless of standing policy.
Indeed. And you don't KNOW what's in a magazine until you eyeball it.
Dan
Erm, "meat?"
hcobb
Well that's (along with President BHO's tight military budgets) what's
grounded the 2018 bomber.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/NGB042209.xml&headline=USAF%20Bomber%20Grounded%20by%20More%20than%20Budget&channel=defense
In fact, there were two key, inter-related issues that created the
bomber reassessment: adding a nuclear weapons carrying capability and
renewed Start arms control treaty negotiations with the Russians.
The fix is to make it nuclear capable, but not operationally nuclear
armed. In the sense that it's tested to be survivable on the nuclear
battleground, but not tested with carrying any actual nuclear weapons.
By taking the non-nuclear mission away from the Spirits it would
improve the nation's overall nuclear posture and we could go into the
next round of treaties and bargain away the nuclear capabilities of
the BONE and BUFF.
-HJC
Dan
Egad, even in cobb world none of that makes sense.
BlackBeard
> On Mon, 4 May 2009 13:27:39 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard <spk_...@msn.com>
And I served in SSN's and we expended more green flares than I could
count. Confined to a small box, wearing a noisemaker, and still
scoring the big tonnage.
BB
BlackBeard
> >> Would this not mean that by presidential order they could be put back?
>
> >We'd have to break some arms control treaties to do it.
>
> Which ones?
None. The decision to remove the tactical nukes from our Navy was a
unilateral one made by Bush the 1st and carried out by Cheney in
1992. It was NOT covered by the INF treaty which would be the closest
in relative weapon "size."
BB
wjka...@gmail.com
wrote:
>On May 4, 3:17�pm, wjkam...@gmail.com wrote:
Didn't think so. Thanks for the confirmation.
Andrew Swallow
[snip]
>
> The US, Brits + more have had an armed presence in
> Iraq (or around), since 1991, 18 years, in Afgh since
> 2001, 8 years. A lack of fortitude might be argued in
> the way those conflicts were resolved.
The Arabs etc. remember the USA left Vietnam that choose
not to remember the Americans stayed longer than the
Iran-Iraq War.
Andrew Swallow
hcobb
> The Arabs etc. remember the USA left Vietnam that choose
> not to remember the Americans stayed longer than the
> Iran-Iraq War.
>
> Andrew Swallow
They have a much closer example (in time and space) in Somalia.
-HJC
J
> 2.) Disabuse yourself from the notion that a CV is any sort of easy
> target. I spent a lot of years trying to successfully do just that in
> exercises. It is damn close to impossible.
Ed,
Were you ever successful? (To the extent you can say.)
Thanks . . . J
Ian B MacLure
news:cac92545-50e6-4c60...@g20g2000vba.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 29, 11:20�pm, Ian B MacLure <i...@svpal.org> wrote:
>> "dott.Piergiorgio" <dott.PiergiorgioNI...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote
>> inn
> ews:BgYJl.37554$VA5...@tornado.fastwebnet.it:
>>
>> > Mike ha scritto:
>> >> Inside the Air Force - 4/24/2009
>>
>> >> GENERAL: PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE
>> >> CAPABILITY
>>
>> >> The Defense Department and a handful of allies have launched an
>> >> effort to ensure the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is capable
>> >> of conducting the most devastating mission in modern warfare --
>> >> delivering a nuclear bomb.
>>
>> > Ugh.....
>>
>> > let's cross well the fingers, there's already a mess, and a -D
>> > version, available to select few, has all the potential to sink the
>> > entire program......
>>
>> � � � � Why another version? It would simply be a Block X update
> to
>> � � � � whatever was fielded. What after all is the difference be
> tween
>> � � � � nuclear and non-nuclear capable aircraft? Basically some
> form
>> � � � � of safety gear related to weapon fusing.
>>
>> � � � � IBM
>
> Its a bit more than that. Takes a lot of work to be nuclear certified.
It is however doable and the process is well understood.
IBM
Ken S. Tucker
Ed's comment was directed to me on May 4th.
I *think* he's suggesting a fighter attack on a CVN.
Currently, cruise missiles and/or MRBM's, because
of the wide spread availability of precision electronic
guidance, basically has a CVN as equivalent to a
heavily armored *blimp* in a fluid.
IIRC, the last war where severe attacks were waged
on CV's with a large defensive screen was off Okinawa,
with kamikazes operating as missiles.
Ken
Keith Willshaw
"Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:75c109fe-ad7b-418a...@k9g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> On May 6, 6:54 pm, J <emer...@excite.com> wrote:
>> On May 4, 4:05 pm, Ed Rasimus <rasimusSPAML...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> > 2.) Disabuse yourself from the notion that a CV is any sort of easy
>> > target. I spent a lot of years trying to successfully do just that in
>> > exercises. It is damn close to impossible.
>> Ed,
>>
>> Were you ever successful? (To the extent you can say.)
>> Thanks . . . J
>
> Ed's comment was directed to me on May 4th.
> I *think* he's suggesting a fighter attack on a CVN.
> Currently, cruise missiles and/or MRBM's, because
> of the wide spread availability of precision electronic
> guidance, basically has a CVN as equivalent to a
> heavily armored *blimp* in a fluid.
Neither MRBM's nor most cruise missiles are well suited to
attacks on moving targets. The guidance systems on ballistic
missiles are designed to hit a given set of co-ordinates and
the flight dynamics make terminal manoeuvering very difficult
even if you had sensors capable of penetrating the plasma
around the vehicle.
Cruise missiles have the problem of being targets in their own
right and so typically fly low which makes searching for the
target very difficult and makes for a high likelihood of
attacks on the wrong vessel (see Atlantic Conveyor and Falklands)
There are a few systems like the Russian Granit designed to
operate in swarms where one missile will pop up to medium altitude
to provide course correction information for the others but that
of course leaves them open to spoofing and meaconing.
> IIRC, the last war where severe attacks were waged
> on CV's with a large defensive screen was off Okinawa,
> with kamikazes operating as missiles.
> Ken
>
Okinawa was rather unusual. The CV's were tied to small area by
the requirement to provide air cover for the invasion fleet.
Worse still they were within range of the enemies (large) air force.
That said such refinements as AEW radar rose directly from that
experience.
Keith
Ed Rasimus
Success is difficult to evaluate. Since you aren't really shooting all
of the vast array of weapons that a CVBG has available you can't
really tell.
Penetrating the cruiser shield, which in those days had Terrier,
Tartar and Talos, avoiding E2-C detection and intercept by the F-14s,
finding the damn boat in the first place, all make it a difficult
task.
With the F-4 radar we could paint ships quite nicely on the water, but
a CV head-on presents a smaller return than a cruiser broadside. When
they are in EMCON (Emissions CONtrol) they don't make much noise
electronically so you don't get any help there. Integrate some data
from subs and satellites or AWACS and you might have better tracking
capability now.
Once there the CV is a very hard target. A tactical jet conventional
load, particularly at that time when it was GP bombs rather than PGMs
was not likely to get a seaworthiness kill. It could hamper operations
and reduce effectiveness but sinking would be difficult.
That being said, I had a flight of four kill Indianapolis (thinking it
was America until we were in the pop-up) in one exercise and we got
to Nimitz once--but we were probably long dead if it had been for
real.
Jack Linthicum
The subs used to take pictures, of the screws.
Ed Rasimus
That must be since women came aboard. Nasty stuff goes on the
fan-tail.
dott.Piergiorgio
>>>
>>> That being said, I had a flight of four kill Indianapolis (thinking it
>>> was America until we were in the pop-up) in one exercise
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
I can justapoxe (sp?) these two lines ? ;)
(wondering how happens to mix CVN and SSN blips...)
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
Ken S. Tucker
<ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in messagenews:75c109fe-ad7b-418a...@k9g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On May 6, 6:54 pm, J <emer...@excite.com> wrote:
> >> On May 4, 4:05 pm, Ed Rasimus <rasimusSPAML...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> > 2.) Disabuse yourself from the notion that a CV is any sort of easy
> >> > target. I spent a lot of years trying to successfully do just that in
> >> > exercises. It is damn close to impossible.
> >> Ed,
>
> >> Were you ever successful? (To the extent you can say.)
> >> Thanks . . . J
>
> > Ed's comment was directed to me on May 4th.
> > I *think* he's suggesting a fighter attack on a CVN.
> > Currently, cruise missiles and/or MRBM's, because
> > of the wide spread availability of precision electronic
> > guidance, basically has a CVN as equivalent to a
> > heavily armored *blimp* in a fluid.
As a back-drop, 27 years ago,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet#Falklands_Conflict
(Seems like yesterday).
> Neither MRBM's nor most cruise missiles are well suited to
> attacks on moving targets. The guidance systems on ballistic
> missiles are designed to hit a given set of co-ordinates and
> the flight dynamics make terminal manoeuvering very difficult
> even if you had sensors capable of penetrating the plasma
> around the vehicle.
Things could have changed. I have a good idea
of what's *technically* possible, I hope you're
right.
> Cruise missiles have the problem of being targets in their own
> right and so typically fly low which makes searching for the
> target very difficult and makes for a high likelihood of
> attacks on the wrong vessel (see Atlantic Conveyor and Falklands)
ditto.
> There are a few systems like the Russian Granit designed to
> operate in swarms where one missile will pop up to medium altitude
> to provide course correction information for the others but that
> of course leaves them open to spoofing and meaconing.
It's a bit difficult to hide a CVN from a satellite.
> > IIRC, the last war where severe attacks were waged
> > on CV's with a large defensive screen was off Okinawa,
> > with kamikazes operating as missiles.
> > Ken
>
> Okinawa was rather unusual. The CV's were tied to small area by
> the requirement to provide air cover for the invasion fleet.
> Worse still they were within range of the enemies (large) air force.
> That said such refinements as AEW radar rose directly from that
> experience.
I deviated the topic to F-35 (nuke able) for the navy
is to be absolutely unnecessary and of nil usefulness.
(The A-5 Vigilante again).
I'll go further, all nuke weapons should be banned by
treaty from international waters and air space.
Ken
BlackBeard
Hehehe... ;)
BB
Ed Rasimus
<dott.Pierg...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote:
>Ed Rasimus ha scritto:
>
>>>>
>>>> That being said, I had a flight of four kill Indianapolis (thinking it
>>>> was America until we were in the pop-up) in one exercise
>> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>
>I can justapoxe (sp?) these two lines ? ;)
>
>(wondering how happens to mix CVN and SSN blips...)
Sorry. My mis-remembering. It was California--a guided missile
cruiser, not a SSN. It was thirty years ago!
Even on a good day, the F-4 radar wouldn't pick up many subs!
Jack Linthicum
> On Thu, 07 May 2009 18:59:39 +0200, "dott.Piergiorgio"
>
"many" or "any"?
Peter Skelton
<rasimus...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 07 May 2009 18:59:39 +0200, "dott.Piergiorgio"
><dott.Pierg...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote:
>
>>Ed Rasimus ha scritto:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That being said, I had a flight of four kill Indianapolis (thinking it
>>>>> was America until we were in the pop-up) in one exercise
>>> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>>
>>I can justapoxe (sp?) these two lines ? ;)
>>
>>(wondering how happens to mix CVN and SSN blips...)
>
>Sorry. My mis-remembering. It was California--a guided missile
>cruiser, not a SSN. It was thirty years ago!
>
>Even on a good day, the F-4 radar wouldn't pick up many subs!
You need Harrier radar for that.
Peter Skelton
daniel.c...@gmail.com
>
> You need Harrier radar for that.
After the engine failed.
Keith Willshaw
> On May 7, 12:32 am, "Keith Willshaw"
> <ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in
>> messagenews:75c109fe-ad7b-418a...@k9g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 6, 6:54 pm, J <emer...@excite.com> wrote:
>> >> On May 4, 4:05 pm, Ed Rasimus <rasimusSPAML...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > 2.) Disabuse yourself from the notion that a CV is any sort of easy
>> >> > target. I spent a lot of years trying to successfully do just that
>> >> > in
>> >> > exercises. It is damn close to impossible.
>> >> Ed,
>>
>> >> Were you ever successful? (To the extent you can say.)
>> >> Thanks . . . J
>>
>> > Ed's comment was directed to me on May 4th.
>> > I *think* he's suggesting a fighter attack on a CVN.
>> > Currently, cruise missiles and/or MRBM's, because
>> > of the wide spread availability of precision electronic
>> > guidance, basically has a CVN as equivalent to a
>> > heavily armored *blimp* in a fluid.
>
> As a back-drop, 27 years ago,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet#Falklands_Conflict
> (Seems like yesterday).
>
Delivered by aircraft as a standoff weapon, the target identification
was down on board the aircraft.
>> Neither MRBM's nor most cruise missiles are well suited to
>> attacks on moving targets. The guidance systems on ballistic
>> missiles are designed to hit a given set of co-ordinates and
>> the flight dynamics make terminal manoeuvering very difficult
>> even if you had sensors capable of penetrating the plasma
>> around the vehicle.
>
> Things could have changed. I have a good idea
> of what's *technically* possible, I hope you're
> right.
>
>> Cruise missiles have the problem of being targets in their own
>> right and so typically fly low which makes searching for the
>> target very difficult and makes for a high likelihood of
>> attacks on the wrong vessel (see Atlantic Conveyor and Falklands)
>
> ditto.
>
>> There are a few systems like the Russian Granit designed to
>> operate in swarms where one missile will pop up to medium altitude
>> to provide course correction information for the others but that
>> of course leaves them open to spoofing and meaconing.
>
> It's a bit difficult to hide a CVN from a satellite.
>
Sure but getting real time location from a satellite is difficult and
VERY expensive
1) Any given low earth recon birds will only revisit any given spot
at infrequent periods typically measured in daysor at best hours
rather than minutes
2) Standard recon satellites use optical or infrared methods which
limits their effectiveness in case of clud cover
3) Even if your satellite happens to fly over a CVN you have to
have people analysing the data in real time.
To get round the problems the Soviets launched a whole series
of Radar satellites (RORSAT). These were BIG and typically
powered by type BES-5 nuclear reactors. They weighed in at
around 4 tons and to get decent coverage of even a fairly small
part of the planet they had to launch a whole constellation of
them at vast expense.
AFAIK there have been no such satelllites in service for more
than a decade.
>> > IIRC, the last war where severe attacks were waged
>> > on CV's with a large defensive screen was off Okinawa,
>> > with kamikazes operating as missiles.
>> > Ken
>>
>> Okinawa was rather unusual. The CV's were tied to small area by
>> the requirement to provide air cover for the invasion fleet.
>> Worse still they were within range of the enemies (large) air force.
>> That said such refinements as AEW radar rose directly from that
>> experience.
>
> I deviated the topic to F-35 (nuke able) for the navy
> is to be absolutely unnecessary and of nil usefulness.
> (The A-5 Vigilante again).
> I'll go further, all nuke weapons should be banned by
> treaty from international waters and air space.
> Ken
>
There goes the US nuclear deterrent
Keith
Ed Rasimus
On the surface with the sail broadside at short range...
On some attacks we were almost running in their environment! On that
cruiser attack we had laid a chaff corridor with ALE-38 dispensers at
200 feet above the water and ran in the descending chaff the last 100
miles to the boat.
Jeb in Richmond
> On the surface with the sail broadside at short range...
>
> On some attacks we were almost running in their environment! On that
> cruiser attack we had laid a chaff corridor with ALE-38 dispensers at
> 200 feet above the water and ran in the descending chaff the last 100
> miles to the boat.
Holy shit. I'd ask how terrifying that must have been but you were
probably too busy to notice. Would that sort of approach present a FOD
danger, BTW? I always assumed chaff went behind/between the attackers.
Jack Linthicum
I'm reading "one"
frank
<ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in messagenews:ae41cfec-eb73-4691...@y34g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
Back when 'those were the days' the Soviets though nothing of putting
up stuff weekly, even if it had to be replaced in a few months due to
low orbits. Would even launch recon sats just for an exercise. Overfly
this battle group or whatnot.
Way different than how the US did it. But, our stuff was like the
Energizer bunny, kept going and going and going....
cost real money too. No wonder the had a black budget.
frank
> On Mon, 4 May 2009 13:27:39 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard <spk_...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >> 2.) Disabuse yourself from the notion that a CV is any sort of easy
> >> target. I spent a lot of years trying to successfully do just that in
> >> suffer severe losses in the process and even then may not succeed.
>
> >Well, from the air or surface maybe... ;)
>
> Well, no.
>
> I've sat on many an SSN over the years. They are tough to catch but
> I've yet to meat the submariner that's 7 feet tall, bullet proof, and
> immortal. :-)
Knew more than a few bubbleheads who thought the Naval Aviators
weren't as invincible as they thought they were.
Then again, you can count on one hand who could get within a carrier
battle group. Us, Soviets at their prime. Maybe. But, like anything
else, get enough of a wolfpack, somebody will cause a world of hurt.
I was always amazed nobody ever tried to hit one of the charter
aircraft we seemed to use a lot of to move troops. Or the civilian
shipping. Either inability to do it or some sort of unspoken rule.
Still.....
Jack Linthicum
Difference between communications from orbit and the Soviet
requirement to land the bird to get the film out.
William Black
"frank" <dhssres...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:ed168290-efcb-4d3f...@q14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
I was always amazed nobody ever tried to hit one of the charter
aircraft we seemed to use a lot of to move troops. Or the civilian
shipping. Either inability to do it or some sort of unspoken rule.
---------------------------------------
It's difficult to tell the difference between one of those and a civilian
passenger jet.
Shoot one of those down and you discover that nobody loves you...
--
William Black
Razors pain you;
Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you;
And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful;
Nooses give;
Gas smells awful;
You might as well live.
Keith Willshaw
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:97568cf1-b95c-43f5...@m24g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>> Back when 'those were the days' the Soviets though nothing of putting
>> up stuff weekly, even if it had to be replaced in a few months due to
>> low orbits. Would even launch recon sats just for an exercise. Overfly
>> this battle group or whatnot.
>>
>> Way different than how the US did it. But, our stuff was like the
>> Energizer bunny, kept going and going and going....
>> cost real money too. No wonder the had a black budget.
> Difference between communications from orbit and the Soviet
> requirement to land the bird to get the film out.
Incorrect, the RORSAT's were not optical but radar devices and
the data was sent back to base via telemetery. The problem for the
RORSAT was that because the strength of the return signal from
radar is inversely proportional to the fourth power of the distance.
This meant they had to be in a very low orbit that decayed rapidly.
To avoid radioactive contamination the reactor core was supposed
to be ejected and boosted into a high orbit at the end of a service life
that was typically around 3 months.
This is a very different mission profile to an optical reconnaissance
satellite.
Keith
Jack Linthicum
<ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
This is what I was responding to.
"Back when 'those were the days' the Soviets though nothing of putting
up stuff weekly, even if it had to be replaced in a few months due to
low orbits. Would even launch recon sats just for an exercise. Overfly
this battle group or whatnot.
Way different than how the US did it. But, our stuff was like the
Energizer bunny, kept going and going and going....
cost real money too. No wonder the had a black budget."
no RORSATs, the sats I was talking about were optical camera sats.
Please pay attention.
frank
Jettison film packs were de rigeur for a while. Soviets obviously had
large enough land mass to make it work.
Amazing what sort of job security there were in various types of
specialties. One was counting film packs and matching them to bird in
orbit. Out of film, expect a new launch.
Both sides did this. Paid for lots of brewskis and chiles.
Newer technology is downlinking all that data. Interestingly, a lot
were doing stuff like take film, process in orbit, read it then scan
it and send data down. Engineers got smart and did away with film as
intermediate step. some engineers are smart. Do good stuff.
As opposed to the one who sit as GIB and when told not to touch
anything, not to pull tape off of knobs and dials, do it anyway. Why
they were not ejected is a mystery. Wonder what happens if I pull this
up....
frank
<ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
Yeah but what we had was never told. What they had was replaceable.
Often. Obviously lots of Workers of the Soviet Union making boosters
that worked. Sometimes they didn't get core or other stuff either in
ocean or into higher orbit. Got Canadians mad at least once. Late 70s,
I seem to remember, 78? Something like that. Some bits and pieces were
picked up.
God knows what they were doing for safety issues. Don't know if they
had tree huggers demonstrating like we did once.
Soviets had some really bizarre stuff up there. Optical, RADAR.
Lots more launches that we ever did.
Ken S. Tucker
<ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in messagenews:ae41cfec-eb73-4691...@y34g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
...
> > As a back-drop, 27 years ago,
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet#Falklands_Conflict
> > (Seems like yesterday).
>
> Delivered by aircraft as a standoff weapon, the target identification
> was down on board the aircraft.
Keith, I was rather hoping the "27 years ago" might
be a hint.
...
> > It's a bit difficult to hide a CVN from a satellite.
>
> Sure but getting real time location from a satellite is difficult and
> VERY expensive
This works, it's civilian,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RADARSAT-1
> 1) Any given low earth recon birds will only revisit any given spot
> at infrequent periods typically measured in daysor at best hours
> rather than minutes
>
> 2) Standard recon satellites use optical or infrared methods which
> limits their effectiveness in case of clud cover
>
> 3) Even if your satellite happens to fly over a CVN you have to
> have people analysing the data in real time.
>
> To get round the problems the Soviets launched a whole series
> of Radar satellites (RORSAT). These were BIG and typically
> powered by type BES-5 nuclear reactors. They weighed in at
> around 4 tons and to get decent coverage of even a fairly small
> part of the planet they had to launch a whole constellation of
> them at vast expense.
>
> AFAIK there have been no such satelllites in service for more
> than a decade.
Today, using conventional ordinance, an MRBM
put in the ballpark of a CVN will terminal guide to a
probable direct hit, even choosing where to hit.
If the CVN+fleet is converted into a floating nuke
strike base, it becomes #1 target to MIRV, as in
10 100kt bombs detonated over a fleet.
...
> > I deviated the topic to F-35 (nuke able) for the navy
> > is to be absolutely unnecessary and of nil usefulness.
> > (The A-5 Vigilante again).
> > I'll go further, all nuke weapons should be banned by
> > treaty from international waters and air space.
> > Ken
>
> There goes the US nuclear deterrent
> Keith
Maybe the nuke subs lurkin' off the US coasts on hair
trigger can go home, if it's ok with American citizens.
Ken
frank
> On May 7, 1:09 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
>
> <ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in messagenews:ae41cfec-eb73-4691...@y34g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> ...
> > > As a back-drop, 27 years ago,
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet#Falklands_Conflict
> > > (Seems like yesterday).
>
> > Delivered by aircraft as a standoff weapon, the target identification
> > was down on board the aircraft.
>
> Keith, I was rather hoping the "27 years ago" might
> be a hint.
> ...
>
> > > It's a bit difficult to hide a CVN from a satellite.
>
> > Sure but getting real time location from a satellite is difficult and
> > VERY expensive
>
You must have missed Cheney's memo. Its all peace love and
tranquility. Ed has long hair, throws rose petals. They all luv us. no
more hair triggers.
Now, it takes what minutes to get back to a hair trigger alert, but
most people don't understand that.
Guess the politicians are happy. Slip them another beer.
Keith Willshaw
The US used film recovery systems during the Corona Program from 1959
to 1972, between June 1959 and Sept 1960 the US launched 10 systems
but only recovered 1 film capsule
> no RORSATs, the sats I was talking about were optical camera sats.
> Please pay attention.
Trouble is we were discussing systems usable for tracking CVBG's
This is not possible using optical sats using film recovery
Keith
Keith Willshaw
On May 7, 5:29 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
>
>> Incorrect, the RORSAT's were not optical but radar devices and
>> the data was sent back to base via telemetery. The problem for the
>> RORSAT was that because the strength of the return signal from
>> radar is inversely proportional to the fourth power of the distance.
>> This meant they had to be in a very low orbit that decayed rapidly.
>> To avoid radioactive contamination the reactor core was supposed
>> to be ejected and boosted into a high orbit at the end of a service life
>> that was typically around 3 months.
>>
>> This is a very different mission profile to an optical reconnaissance
>> satellite.
>>
>> Keith
> Yeah but what we had was never told.
Google for Corona Satellite
> What they had was replaceable.
> Often. Obviously lots of Workers of the Soviet Union making boosters
> that worked.
Between Feb 1962 and Dec 1963 the US launched 26 Corona-M birds
> Sometimes they didn't get core or other stuff either in
> ocean or into higher orbit. Got Canadians mad at least once. Late 70s,
> I seem to remember, 78? Something like that. Some bits and pieces were
> picked up.
That was a RORSAT that didnt have its reactor core boosted into
high orbit, lots of radioactive debrid
> God knows what they were doing for safety issues. Don't know if they
> had tree huggers demonstrating like we did once.
Take it from someone who worked for a British Chemical firm in
the USSR in the 70's , tree huggers were not tolerated.
> Soviets had some really bizarre stuff up there. Optical, RADAR.
> Lots more launches that we ever did.
The RADAR satellites were necessary to allow the Soviets to
track US Carrier battle groups in real time, the US didnt have
the same problem, such soviet surface groups as existed could
be tracked using a combination of surface vessels, submarines
and SOSUS.
As to numbers there's less in that than you think. Soviet birds did tend to
the large though. The Zenit first gen optical satellites were
essentially modified Vostok capsules and returned not
just the film but the cameras as well which could be reused.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
> On May 7, 1:09 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
> <ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in
>> messagenews:ae41cfec-eb73-4691...@y34g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> ...
>> > As a back-drop, 27 years ago,
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet#Falklands_Conflict
>> > (Seems like yesterday).
>>
>> Delivered by aircraft as a standoff weapon, the target identification
>> was down on board the aircraft.
>
> Keith, I was rather hoping the "27 years ago" might
> be a hint.
> ...
>> > It's a bit difficult to hide a CVN from a satellite.
>>
>> Sure but getting real time location from a satellite is difficult and
>> VERY expensive
>
> This works, it's civilian,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RADARSAT-1
>
<Quote>
the satellite is in exactly the same location and can take the same image
(same beam mode and beam position) every 24 days.
</Quote>
Not much good for real time target tracking
>> 1) Any given low earth recon birds will only revisit any given spot
>> at infrequent periods typically measured in daysor at best hours
>> rather than minutes
>>
>> 2) Standard recon satellites use optical or infrared methods which
>> limits their effectiveness in case of clud cover
>>
>> 3) Even if your satellite happens to fly over a CVN you have to
>> have people analysing the data in real time.
>>
>> To get round the problems the Soviets launched a whole series
>> of Radar satellites (RORSAT). These were BIG and typically
>> powered by type BES-5 nuclear reactors. They weighed in at
>> around 4 tons and to get decent coverage of even a fairly small
>> part of the planet they had to launch a whole constellation of
>> them at vast expense.
>>
>> AFAIK there have been no such satelllites in service for more
>> than a decade.
>
> Today, using conventional ordinance, an MRBM
> put in the ballpark of a CVN will terminal guide to a
> probable direct hit, even choosing where to hit.
>
And just what combination of sensors and steering do you think
can do that ?
> If the CVN+fleet is converted into a floating nuke
> strike base, it becomes #1 target to MIRV, as in
> 10 100kt bombs detonated over a fleet.
> ...
First find your fleet then target the missiles and get launch authorisation.
Oops the fleet has now moved miles from that location.
>> > I deviated the topic to F-35 (nuke able) for the navy
>> > is to be absolutely unnecessary and of nil usefulness.
>> > (The A-5 Vigilante again).
>> > I'll go further, all nuke weapons should be banned by
>> > treaty from international waters and air space.
>> > Ken
>>
>> There goes the US nuclear deterrent
>> Keith
>
> Maybe the nuke subs lurkin' off the US coasts on hair
> trigger can go home, if it's ok with American citizens.
> Ken
>
Maybe but the Russian boats wont
Keith
Ken S. Tucker
They/us ??? Recently I'm amazed that the value of a house
in Kansas drops 30%, and so Chinese workers can't afford to
buy Big Macs in Beiging.
> Now, it takes what minutes to get back to a hair trigger alert, but
> most people don't understand that.
Basing SSBN's in national waters provides recallability,
if sent enroute to launch stations, and a moment of sanity
pause.
> Guess the politicians are happy. Slip them another beer.
It's been suggested we gather all interested politicians
to witness an H-bomb detonation every few years, also
we could all do scientific experiments, it would be a
"clean bomb".
Imagine a bunch of them sitting around in their lawn
chairs in the Sahara desert, enjoying a beverage, then
BOOM, fun stuff. It would be a real tourist draw too.
We could build a pipeline from the Mediterrean to make
some beach front property, (some clothing optional for Ed).
Do it every 4 years like the Olympics.
Frank you have a lot of stimulating ideas.
Ken
frank
>
> Frank you have a lot of stimulating ideas.
> Ken
Best one was when Ronnie was president. They decided to dust off the
old how to survive a nuclear war bit. drive 40 minutes to bunkers that
would have food, water for weeks. Single road to get there.
I told them I'd drive home, put the Nikon on a tripod, get a six pack
and wait for a good shot of the flash and cloud. They were not
amused.
I think they wanted volunteers to do a test one weekend. See if
everybody could drive out there. Don't remember if they ever did. Knew
the engineer who was to look at 'fallout shelters' one was one of
those old hangars with glass windows. You know the type. All over the
AF bases. They weren't thrilled when he asked when fallout shelters
would have glass windows. Not to mention what the probability of glass
breaking.
At least White Sands took it seriously enough to practice it every
year. Printed tons of paper manuals. Went out and played war games.
When was done, had annual hunt for 7 - 10 days of deer if you were
base personnel. Can't beat that. Pretty much blew off October as far
as getting real work done. But for a training and doctrine base, took
stuff seriously. Ever if we were an AF unit on it.
Ken S. Tucker
<ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in messagenews:f6ce650f-1458-4a70...@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On May 7, 1:09 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
> > <ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in
> >> messagenews:ae41cfec-eb73-4691...@y34g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> > ...
> >> > As a back-drop, 27 years ago,
> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet#Falklands_Conflict
> >> > (Seems like yesterday).
>
> >> Delivered by aircraft as a standoff weapon, the target identification
> >> was down on board the aircraft.
>
> > Keith, I was rather hoping the "27 years ago" might
> > be a hint.
> > ...
> >> > It's a bit difficult to hide a CVN from a satellite.
>
> >> Sure but getting real time location from a satellite is difficult and
> >> VERY expensive
>
> > This works, it's civilian,
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RADARSAT-1
>
> <Quote>
> the satellite is in exactly the same location and can take the same image
> (same beam mode and beam position) every 24 days.
> </Quote>
>
> Not much good for real time target tracking
We'd sit out after sunset in the dark, having a few brew
around a fire, with the stars above. Every 5 minutes or
so a North - South sat would fly over, visible because
they're still in the sunlight, practically a traffic jam up
there.
> >> 1) Any given low earth recon birds will only revisit any given spot
> >> at infrequent periods typically measured in daysor at best hours
> >> rather than minutes
>
> >> 2) Standard recon satellites use optical or infrared methods which
> >> limits their effectiveness in case of clud cover
>
> >> 3) Even if your satellite happens to fly over a CVN you have to
> >> have people analysing the data in real time.
>
> >> To get round the problems the Soviets launched a whole series
> >> of Radar satellites (RORSAT). These were BIG and typically
> >> powered by type BES-5 nuclear reactors. They weighed in at
> >> around 4 tons and to get decent coverage of even a fairly small
> >> part of the planet they had to launch a whole constellation of
> >> them at vast expense.
>
> >> AFAIK there have been no such satelllites in service for more
> >> than a decade.
>
> > Today, using conventional ordinance, an MRBM
> > put in the ballpark of a CVN will terminal guide to a
> > probable direct hit, even choosing where to hit.
>
> And just what combination of sensors and steering do you think
> can do that ?
Just simple stuff. What would you use?
> > If the CVN+fleet is converted into a floating nuke
> > strike base, it becomes #1 target to MIRV, as in
> > 10 100kt bombs detonated over a fleet.
> > ...
>
> First find your fleet then target the missiles and get launch authorisation.
> Oops the fleet has now moved miles from that location.
Well, it's not going to happen.
> >> > I deviated the topic to F-35 (nuke able) for the navy
> >> > is to be absolutely unnecessary and of nil usefulness.
> >> > (The A-5 Vigilante again).
> >> > I'll go further, all nuke weapons should be banned by
> >> > treaty from international waters and air space.
> >> > Ken
>
> >> There goes the US nuclear deterrent
> >> Keith
>
> > Maybe the nuke subs lurkin' off the US coasts on hair
> > trigger can go home, if it's ok with American citizens.
> > Ken
>
> Maybe but the Russian boats wont
> Keith
It's a good treaty to ratchet things down. Everybody want's
it, so let's get it done.
Ken
Ken S. Tucker
> > Frank you have a lot of stimulating ideas.
> > Ken
>
> Best one was when Ronnie was president. They decided to dust off the
> old how to survive a nuclear war bit. drive 40 minutes to bunkers that
> would have food, water for weeks. Single road to get there.
>
> I told them I'd drive home, put the Nikon on a tripod, get a six pack
> and wait for a good shot of the flash and cloud. They were not
> amused.
>
> I think they wanted volunteers to do a test one weekend. See if
> everybody could drive out there. Don't remember if they ever did. Knew
> the engineer who was to look at 'fallout shelters' one was one of
> those old hangars with glass windows. You know the type. All over the
> AF bases. They weren't thrilled when he asked when fallout shelters
> would have glass windows. Not to mention what the probability of glass
> breaking.
About that same time I considered taking a position designing
buildings to be resistant to "severe overpressures", like 100kt
1 mile away, that I regard as very important research since it can
translate into civil building codes to improve structural
survivability
during hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes, the nuke scenario
being a good excuse to pay for the research.
> At least White Sands took it seriously enough to practice it every
> year. Printed tons of paper manuals. Went out and played war games.
> When was done, had annual hunt for 7 - 10 days of deer if you were
> base personnel. Can't beat that. Pretty much blew off October as far
> as getting real work done. But for a training and doctrine base, took
> stuff seriously. Ever if we were an AF unit on it.
Do you think the Atomic Age has arrived?
Ken
Andrew Chaplin
I was at CFB Chatham as the Ops O of an air defence battery back in Reagan's
second term. My CO sent me on a pleasant waste of time in the form of a recce
to find a hide for the battery off the base in case a nuclear exchange
threatened. The aim was to shield the battery's men and equipment from a
nuclear attack on the airfield -- it had a 12,000' runway and much of what you
might need in a dispersal or diversion field for large aircraft -- so to be
available for deployment post-strike. I did a dead ground trace for a likely
maximum burst height and looked among the "shadows" for some place to hide
upwards of 200 troops and 70 vehicles. I ran the results by the base ops
staff; they were somewhat horrified. In order for the battery to deploy with
its essential kit, it would have taken about four hours to get it on the road:
two hours to recall personnel and then two hours to draw weapons, stores,
consumables and to issue orders. To get to the hide we had to move the battery
north across the Miramichi on a two lane bridge to the Tabusintac River, some
40 Km north as the crow flies, 50 km by road. IIRC, it was Indian land, and I
am not sure how they would have viewed us landing on their doorstep
unannounced, I obviously could not consult them about the plan. Here's the op
area: http://preview.tinyurl.com/ovcyyr. While the plan showed initiative on
the part of my CO, I really think I was on a fool's errand.
Fortunately, the battery changed command and the successor CO concentrated on
getting the battery ready for where it was likely to deploy for operations
(Germany or Norway). We never exercised the plan.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Keith Willshaw
The number of Soviet Optical satellites in orbit at any one time
was rarely more than one. The active life of a satellite was 30 days
<snip>
>>
>> > Today, using conventional ordinance, an MRBM
>> > put in the ballpark of a CVN will terminal guide to a
>> > probable direct hit, even choosing where to hit.
>>
>> And just what combination of sensors and steering do you think
>> can do that ?
>
> Just simple stuff. What would you use?
>
Its not simple stuff, a MRBM is doing anything up to 4,000 m/sec
on rentry. The plasma around the reentry vehicle is going to make
most sensors useless while also making radical manoeveurs next
to impossible.
Note that while Pershing II used a synthetic aperture radar system
for terminal guidance this was an ancillary to the INS and compared
radar maps of the terrain with the on board maps. Its inclusion
was simply to reduce the CEP from the 400m of the Pershing I to
30m. This system did not have the capability to search for, locate and
guide the warhead to a moving target that may be 30 miles from the aim
point.
Keith
frank
No, but at least they had their head in right spot. Could be anything,
nuclear, terrorism, weather related. Major traffic incident. Anything.
Don't train or talk to people, real mess when something happens and
you find out can't communicate, talk to hospitals, find barricades,
whatever.
County I used to live in had bus run into a semi, mass casualty.
Luckily they had planned for that, all agencies worked together. Sort
of woke up the, nothing ever happens here crowd.
Like most places we sort of talk about stuff, when we actually sat
down and looked as all the classified we had to destruct, was a whole
different game rather than saying we'd do it.
Luckily we had a lot of diesel for the generators and would use that
but Pueblo and the recent China Navy aircraft capture shows how some
stuff is just hard to get rid of. Best I guess would be data wipes
then just turn the cooling off so circuits overhead and fry. Or
engineer that in. Add in something corrosive and ability to dump parts
out of an aircraft or ship into the briny deep easily.