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

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. :-)


Erm, "meat?"

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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