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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
Ed Rasimus wrote in
: On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:26:10 +0200, "dott.Piergiorgio" wrote: Ian B MacLure ha scritto: "dott.Piergiorgio" wrote in : 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. 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. Best regards from Italy, 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... Kanuckistan. Their 104s had a nuclear strike role before "Turdeau" took over. IBM |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
On Apr 30, 11:07 pm, Ian B MacLure wrote:
Ed Rasimus wrote : .... 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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
On May 1, 10:08*am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Apr 30, 11:07 pm, Ian B MacLure wrote: Ed Rasimus wrote : ... 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. 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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
Ian B MacLure 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. - 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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
I think everybody overlooked the most important word he
On Apr 28, 7:06 pm, Mike 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! |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
On Fri, 01 May 2009 15:25:07 GMT, Ed Rasimus
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
: [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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
It's Saturday, Ian is enjoying his schnops :-).
On May 2, 9:07 am, Ian B MacLure wrote: "Ken S. Tucker" wrote : .... 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 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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
On May 1, 8:18 pm, wrote:
On Fri, 01 May 2009 15:25:07 GMT, Ed Rasimus 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). 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? |
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 |