"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

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

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

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

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!

(Derek Lyons) wrote in news:49fb25e3.1218094140
@news.supernews.com:

[snip]

No showstoppers certainly, but not trivial or simple - and a lot more
than just 'some safety gear and wiring'.

Here in Cobb World ya gotta keep it simple.
Mentioning things like comuters and software just confuses
old Corny even further.

IBM

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

"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

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

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?