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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
On May 3, 10:20 pm, frank wrote:
We'd have to break some arms control treaties to do it. Well that's (along with President BHO's tight military budgets) what's grounded the 2018 bomber. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...hannel=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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
hcobb wrote:
On May 3, 10:20 pm, frank wrote: We'd have to break some arms control treaties to do it. Well that's (along with President BHO's tight military budgets) what's grounded the 2018 bomber. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...hannel=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 Egad, even in cobb world none of that makes sense. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
On May 4, 3:16*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 4 May 2009 13:27:39 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard wrote: On May 4, 1:05*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. Whoever attempts it will 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. *:-) 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 |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
On May 4, 3:17*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 3 May 2009 22:20:20 -0700 (PDT), frank 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? 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 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
On Mon, 4 May 2009 19:12:11 -0700 (PDT), BlackBeard
wrote: On May 4, 3:17*pm, wrote: On Sun, 3 May 2009 22:20:20 -0700 (PDT), frank 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? 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." Didn't think so. Thanks for the confirmation. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
[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 |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
On May 5, 9:23 pm, Andrew Swallow wrote:
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 |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
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 |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
frank wrote in
: On Apr 29, 11:20*pm, Ian B MacLure wrote: "dott.Piergiorgio" wrote inn : 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |