A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #16  
Old May 7th 09, 09:48 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
Jack Linthicum
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 301
Default "PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"

On May 7, 4:32*pm, frank wrote:
On May 7, 3:09*pm, "Keith Willshaw"



wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in ...


On May 7, 12:32 am, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
...


On May 6, 6:54 pm, J wrote:
On May 4, 4:05 pm, Ed Rasimus 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


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.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Pentagon Wants Kill Switch for Planes" Jim Logajan Piloting 24 June 16th 08 03:27 PM
Spinner strobing as a "Bird Strike Countermeasure" Jim Logajan Piloting 259 December 13th 07 05:43 AM
Spinner strobing as a "Bird Strike Countermeasure" Jim Logajan Home Built 212 December 13th 07 01:35 AM
"British trace missile in copter strike to Iran" Mike[_7_] Naval Aviation 8 March 10th 07 08:20 PM
"Pentagon Command Shuffle Rekindles Equity Debate" Mike Naval Aviation 1 January 26th 07 03:04 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.