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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
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. 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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
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...... Best regards from Italy, Dott. Piergiorgio. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
"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. IBM |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
* *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 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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
Dan ha scritto:
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. Best regards from Italy, Dott. Piergiorgio. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
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 ? 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 **** 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. |
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 |