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

On May 7, 4:32*pm, frank wrote:
On May 7, 3:09*pm, "Keith Willshaw"



wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in ...

On May 7, 12:32 am, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
...

On May 6, 6:54 pm, J wrote:
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

Ed's comment was directed to me on May 4th.
I *think* he's suggesting a fighter attack on a CVN.
Currently, cruise missiles and/or MRBM's, because
of the wide spread availability of precision electronic
guidance, basically has a CVN as equivalent to a
heavily armored *blimp* in a fluid.

As a back-drop, 27 years ago,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet#Falklands_Conflict
(Seems like yesterday).

Delivered by aircraft as a standoff weapon, the target identification
was down on board the aircraft.

Neither MRBM's nor most cruise missiles are well suited to
attacks on moving targets. The guidance systems on ballistic
missiles are designed to hit a given set of co-ordinates and
the flight dynamics make terminal manoeuvering very difficult
even if you had sensors capable of penetrating the plasma
around the vehicle.

Things could have changed. I have a good idea
of what's *technically* possible, I hope you're
right.

Cruise missiles have the problem of being targets in their own
right and so typically fly low which makes searching for the
target very difficult and makes for a high likelihood of
attacks on the wrong vessel (see Atlantic Conveyor and Falklands)

ditto.

There are a few systems like the Russian Granit designed to
operate in swarms where one missile will pop up to medium altitude
to provide course correction information for the others but that
of course leaves them open to spoofing and meaconing.

It's a bit difficult to hide a CVN from a satellite.

Sure but getting real time location from a satellite is difficult and
VERY expensive

1) Any given low earth recon birds will only revisit any given spot
at infrequent periods typically *measured in daysor at best *hours
rather than minutes

2) Standard recon satellites use optical or infrared methods which
limits their effectiveness in case of clud cover

3) Even if your satellite happens to fly over *a CVN you have to
have people analysing the data in real time.

To get round the problems the Soviets launched a whole series
of Radar satellites (RORSAT). These were BIG and typically
powered by type BES-5 nuclear reactors. They weighed in at
around 4 tons and to get decent coverage of even a fairly small
part of the planet they had to launch a whole constellation of
them at vast expense.

AFAIK there have been no such satelllites in service for more
than a decade.

IIRC, the last war where severe attacks were waged
on CV's with a large defensive screen was off Okinawa,
with kamikazes operating as missiles.
Ken

Okinawa was rather unusual. The CV's were tied to small area by
the requirement to provide air cover for the invasion fleet.
Worse still they were within range of the enemies (large) air force.
That said such refinements as AEW radar rose directly from that
experience.

I deviated the topic to F-35 (nuke able) for the navy
is to be absolutely unnecessary and of nil usefulness.
(The A-5 Vigilante again).
I'll go further, all nuke weapons should be banned by
treaty from international waters and air space.
Ken

There goes the US nuclear deterrent

Keith

Back when 'those were the days' the Soviets though nothing of putting
up stuff weekly, even if it had to be replaced in a few months due to
low orbits. Would even launch recon sats just for an exercise. Overfly
this battle group or whatnot.

Way different than how the US did it. But, our stuff was like the
Energizer bunny, kept going and going and going....
cost real money too. No wonder the had a black budget.

Difference between communications from orbit and the Soviet
requirement to land the bird to get the film out.

"frank" wrote in message
...

I was always amazed nobody ever tried to hit one of the charter
aircraft we seemed to use a lot of to move troops. Or the civilian
shipping. Either inability to do it or some sort of unspoken rule.

---------------------------------------

It's difficult to tell the difference between one of those and a civilian
passenger jet.

Shoot one of those down and you discover that nobody loves you...

--
William Black

Razors pain you;
Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you;
And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful;
Nooses give;
Gas smells awful;
You might as well live.

"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message
...

Back when 'those were the days' the Soviets though nothing of putting
up stuff weekly, even if it had to be replaced in a few months due to
low orbits. Would even launch recon sats just for an exercise. Overfly
this battle group or whatnot.

Way different than how the US did it. But, our stuff was like the
Energizer bunny, kept going and going and going....
cost real money too. No wonder the had a black budget.

Difference between communications from orbit and the Soviet
requirement to land the bird to get the film out.

Incorrect, the RORSAT's were not optical but radar devices and
the data was sent back to base via telemetery. The problem for the
RORSAT was that because the strength of the return signal from
radar is inversely proportional to the fourth power of the distance.
This meant they had to be in a very low orbit that decayed rapidly.
To avoid radioactive contamination the reactor core was supposed
to be ejected and boosted into a high orbit at the end of a service life
that was typically around 3 months.

This is a very different mission profile to an optical reconnaissance
satellite.

Keith

On May 7, 6:29*pm, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:
"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message

...

Back when 'those were the days' the Soviets though nothing of putting
up stuff weekly, even if it had to be replaced in a few months due to
low orbits. Would even launch recon sats just for an exercise. Overfly
this battle group or whatnot.

Way different than how the US did it. But, our stuff was like the
Energizer bunny, kept going and going and going....
cost real money too. No wonder the had a black budget.
Difference between communications from orbit and the Soviet
requirement to land the bird to get the film out.

Incorrect, the RORSAT's were not optical but radar devices and
the data was sent back to base via telemetery. The problem for the
RORSAT was that because the strength of the return signal from
radar is inversely proportional to the fourth power of the distance.
This meant they had to be in a very low orbit that decayed rapidly.
To avoid radioactive contamination the reactor core was supposed
to be ejected and boosted into a high orbit at the end of a service life
that was typically around 3 months.

This is a very different mission profile to an optical reconnaissance
satellite.

Keith

This is what I was responding to.

"Back when 'those were the days' the Soviets though nothing of putting
up stuff weekly, even if it had to be replaced in a few months due to
low orbits. Would even launch recon sats just for an exercise. Overfly
this battle group or whatnot.

Way different than how the US did it. But, our stuff was like the
Energizer bunny, kept going and going and going....
cost real money too. No wonder the had a black budget."

no RORSATs, the sats I was talking about were optical camera sats.
Please pay attention.

On May 7, 3:48*pm, Jack Linthicum wrote:
On May 7, 4:32*pm, frank wrote:



On May 7, 3:09*pm, "Keith Willshaw"

wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in ...

On May 7, 12:32 am, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
...

On May 6, 6:54 pm, J wrote:
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

Ed's comment was directed to me on May 4th.
I *think* he's suggesting a fighter attack on a CVN.
Currently, cruise missiles and/or MRBM's, because
of the wide spread availability of precision electronic
guidance, basically has a CVN as equivalent to a
heavily armored *blimp* in a fluid.

As a back-drop, 27 years ago,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet#Falklands_Conflict
(Seems like yesterday).

Delivered by aircraft as a standoff weapon, the target identification
was down on board the aircraft.

Neither MRBM's nor most cruise missiles are well suited to
attacks on moving targets. The guidance systems on ballistic
missiles are designed to hit a given set of co-ordinates and
the flight dynamics make terminal manoeuvering very difficult
even if you had sensors capable of penetrating the plasma
around the vehicle.

Things could have changed. I have a good idea
of what's *technically* possible, I hope you're
right.

Cruise missiles have the problem of being targets in their own
right and so typically fly low which makes searching for the
target very difficult and makes for a high likelihood of
attacks on the wrong vessel (see Atlantic Conveyor and Falklands)

ditto.

There are a few systems like the Russian Granit designed to
operate in swarms where one missile will pop up to medium altitude
to provide course correction information for the others but that
of course leaves them open to spoofing and meaconing.

It's a bit difficult to hide a CVN from a satellite.

Sure but getting real time location from a satellite is difficult and
VERY expensive

1) Any given low earth recon birds will only revisit any given spot
at infrequent periods typically *measured in daysor at best *hours
rather than minutes

2) Standard recon satellites use optical or infrared methods which
limits their effectiveness in case of clud cover

3) Even if your satellite happens to fly over *a CVN you have to
have people analysing the data in real time.

To get round the problems the Soviets launched a whole series
of Radar satellites (RORSAT). These were BIG and typically
powered by type BES-5 nuclear reactors. They weighed in at
around 4 tons and to get decent coverage of even a fairly small
part of the planet they had to launch a whole constellation of
them at vast expense.

AFAIK there have been no such satelllites in service for more
than a decade.

IIRC, the last war where severe attacks were waged
on CV's with a large defensive screen was off Okinawa,
with kamikazes operating as missiles.
Ken

Okinawa was rather unusual. The CV's were tied to small area by
the requirement to provide air cover for the invasion fleet.
Worse still they were within range of the enemies (large) air force.
That said such refinements as AEW radar rose directly from that
experience.

I deviated the topic to F-35 (nuke able) for the navy
is to be absolutely unnecessary and of nil usefulness.
(The A-5 Vigilante again).
I'll go further, all nuke weapons should be banned by
treaty from international waters and air space.
Ken

There goes the US nuclear deterrent

Keith

Back when 'those were the days' the Soviets though nothing of putting
up stuff weekly, even if it had to be replaced in a few months due to
low orbits. Would even launch recon sats just for an exercise. Overfly
this battle group or whatnot.

Way different than how the US did it. But, our stuff was like the
Energizer bunny, kept going and going and going....
cost real money too. No wonder the had a black budget.

Difference between communications from orbit and the Soviet
requirement to land the bird to get the film out.

Jettison film packs were de rigeur for a while. Soviets obviously had
large enough land mass to make it work.

Amazing what sort of job security there were in various types of
specialties. One was counting film packs and matching them to bird in
orbit. Out of film, expect a new launch.

Both sides did this. Paid for lots of brewskis and chiles.

Newer technology is downlinking all that data. Interestingly, a lot
were doing stuff like take film, process in orbit, read it then scan
it and send data down. Engineers got smart and did away with film as
intermediate step. some engineers are smart. Do good stuff.

As opposed to the one who sit as GIB and when told not to touch
anything, not to pull tape off of knobs and dials, do it anyway. Why
they were not ejected is a mystery. Wonder what happens if I pull this
up....

On May 7, 5:29*pm, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:
"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message

...

Back when 'those were the days' the Soviets though nothing of putting
up stuff weekly, even if it had to be replaced in a few months due to
low orbits. Would even launch recon sats just for an exercise. Overfly
this battle group or whatnot.

Way different than how the US did it. But, our stuff was like the
Energizer bunny, kept going and going and going....
cost real money too. No wonder the had a black budget.
Difference between communications from orbit and the Soviet
requirement to land the bird to get the film out.

Incorrect, the RORSAT's were not optical but radar devices and
the data was sent back to base via telemetery. The problem for the
RORSAT was that because the strength of the return signal from
radar is inversely proportional to the fourth power of the distance.
This meant they had to be in a very low orbit that decayed rapidly.
To avoid radioactive contamination the reactor core was supposed
to be ejected and boosted into a high orbit at the end of a service life
that was typically around 3 months.

This is a very different mission profile to an optical reconnaissance
satellite.

Keith

Yeah but what we had was never told. What they had was replaceable.
Often. Obviously lots of Workers of the Soviet Union making boosters
that worked. Sometimes they didn't get core or other stuff either in
ocean or into higher orbit. Got Canadians mad at least once. Late 70s,
I seem to remember, 78? Something like that. Some bits and pieces were
picked up.

God knows what they were doing for safety issues. Don't know if they
had tree huggers demonstrating like we did once.

Soviets had some really bizarre stuff up there. Optical, RADAR.

Lots more launches that we ever did.

On May 7, 1:09 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in ...
....
As a back-drop, 27 years ago,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet#Falklands_Conflict
(Seems like yesterday).

Delivered by aircraft as a standoff weapon, the target identification
was down on board the aircraft.

Keith, I was rather hoping the "27 years ago" might
be a hint.
....
It's a bit difficult to hide a CVN from a satellite.

Sure but getting real time location from a satellite is difficult and
VERY expensive

This works, it's civilian,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RADARSAT-1

1) Any given low earth recon birds will only revisit any given spot
at infrequent periods typically measured in daysor at best hours
rather than minutes

2) Standard recon satellites use optical or infrared methods which
limits their effectiveness in case of clud cover

3) Even if your satellite happens to fly over a CVN you have to
have people analysing the data in real time.

To get round the problems the Soviets launched a whole series
of Radar satellites (RORSAT). These were BIG and typically
powered by type BES-5 nuclear reactors. They weighed in at
around 4 tons and to get decent coverage of even a fairly small
part of the planet they had to launch a whole constellation of
them at vast expense.

AFAIK there have been no such satelllites in service for more
than a decade.

Today, using conventional ordinance, an MRBM
put in the ballpark of a CVN will terminal guide to a
probable direct hit, even choosing where to hit.

If the CVN+fleet is converted into a floating nuke
strike base, it becomes #1 target to MIRV, as in
10 100kt bombs detonated over a fleet.
....
I deviated the topic to F-35 (nuke able) for the navy
is to be absolutely unnecessary and of nil usefulness.
(The A-5 Vigilante again).
I'll go further, all nuke weapons should be banned by
treaty from international waters and air space.
Ken

There goes the US nuclear deterrent
Keith

Maybe the nuke subs lurkin' off the US coasts on hair
trigger can go home, if it's ok with American citizens.
Ken

On May 8, 1:38*am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On May 7, 1:09 pm, "Keith Willshaw"

wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in ...
...
As a back-drop, 27 years ago,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet#Falklands_Conflict
(Seems like yesterday).

Delivered by aircraft as a standoff weapon, the target identification
was down on board the aircraft.

Keith, I was rather hoping the "27 years ago" might
be a hint.
...

It's a bit difficult to hide a CVN from a satellite.

Sure but getting real time location from a satellite is difficult and
VERY expensive

This works, it's civilian,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RADARSAT-1



1) Any given low earth recon birds will only revisit any given spot
at infrequent periods typically *measured in daysor at best *hours
rather than minutes

2) Standard recon satellites use optical or infrared methods which
limits their effectiveness in case of clud cover

3) Even if your satellite happens to fly over *a CVN you have to
have people analysing the data in real time.

To get round the problems the Soviets launched a whole series
of Radar satellites (RORSAT). These were BIG and typically
powered by type BES-5 nuclear reactors. They weighed in at
around 4 tons and to get decent coverage of even a fairly small
part of the planet they had to launch a whole constellation of
them at vast expense.

AFAIK there have been no such satelllites in service for more
than a decade.

Today, using conventional ordinance, an MRBM
put in the ballpark of a CVN will terminal guide to a
probable direct hit, even choosing where to hit.

If the CVN+fleet is converted into a floating nuke
strike base, it becomes #1 target to MIRV, as in
10 100kt bombs detonated over a fleet.
...

I deviated the topic to F-35 (nuke able) for the navy
is to be absolutely unnecessary and of nil usefulness.
(The A-5 Vigilante again).
I'll go further, all nuke weapons should be banned by
treaty from international waters and air space.
Ken

There goes the US nuclear deterrent
Keith

Maybe the nuke subs lurkin' off the US coasts on hair
trigger can go home, if it's ok with American citizens.
Ken

You must have missed Cheney's memo. Its all peace love and
tranquility. Ed has long hair, throws rose petals. They all luv us. no
more hair triggers.

Now, it takes what minutes to get back to a hair trigger alert, but
most people don't understand that.

Guess the politicians are happy. Slip them another beer.

"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 6:29 pm, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:
"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message

...

Back when 'those were the days' the Soviets though nothing of putting
up stuff weekly, even if it had to be replaced in a few months due to
low orbits. Would even launch recon sats just for an exercise. Overfly
this battle group or whatnot.

Way different than how the US did it. But, our stuff was like the
Energizer bunny, kept going and going and going....
cost real money too. No wonder the had a black budget.
Difference between communications from orbit and the Soviet
requirement to land the bird to get the film out.

Incorrect, the RORSAT's were not optical but radar devices and
the data was sent back to base via telemetery. The problem for the
RORSAT was that because the strength of the return signal from
radar is inversely proportional to the fourth power of the distance.
This meant they had to be in a very low orbit that decayed rapidly.
To avoid radioactive contamination the reactor core was supposed
to be ejected and boosted into a high orbit at the end of a service life
that was typically around 3 months.

This is a very different mission profile to an optical reconnaissance
satellite.

Keith

This is what I was responding to.

"Back when 'those were the days' the Soviets though nothing of putting
up stuff weekly, even if it had to be replaced in a few months due to
low orbits. Would even launch recon sats just for an exercise. Overfly
this battle group or whatnot.

Way different than how the US did it. But, our stuff was like the
Energizer bunny, kept going and going and going....
cost real money too. No wonder the had a black budget."

The US used film recovery systems during the Corona Program from 1959
to 1972, between June 1959 and Sept 1960 the US launched 10 systems
but only recovered 1 film capsule

no RORSATs, the sats I was talking about were optical camera sats.
Please pay attention.

Trouble is we were discussing systems usable for tracking CVBG's

This is not possible using optical sats using film recovery

Keith

"frank" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 5:29 pm, "Keith Willshaw"


Incorrect, the RORSAT's were not optical but radar devices and
the data was sent back to base via telemetery. The problem for the
RORSAT was that because the strength of the return signal from
radar is inversely proportional to the fourth power of the distance.
This meant they had to be in a very low orbit that decayed rapidly.
To avoid radioactive contamination the reactor core was supposed
to be ejected and boosted into a high orbit at the end of a service life
that was typically around 3 months.

This is a very different mission profile to an optical reconnaissance
satellite.

Keith

Yeah but what we had was never told.

Google for Corona Satellite

What they had was replaceable.
Often. Obviously lots of Workers of the Soviet Union making boosters
that worked.

Between Feb 1962 and Dec 1963 the US launched 26 Corona-M birds

Sometimes they didn't get core or other stuff either in
ocean or into higher orbit. Got Canadians mad at least once. Late 70s,
I seem to remember, 78? Something like that. Some bits and pieces were
picked up.

That was a RORSAT that didnt have its reactor core boosted into
high orbit, lots of radioactive debrid

God knows what they were doing for safety issues. Don't know if they
had tree huggers demonstrating like we did once.

Take it from someone who worked for a British Chemical firm in
the USSR in the 70's , tree huggers were not tolerated.


Soviets had some really bizarre stuff up there. Optical, RADAR.

Lots more launches that we ever did.

The RADAR satellites were necessary to allow the Soviets to
track US Carrier battle groups in real time, the US didnt have
the same problem, such soviet surface groups as existed could
be tracked using a combination of surface vessels, submarines
and SOSUS.

As to numbers there's less in that than you think. Soviet birds did tend to
the large though. The Zenit first gen optical satellites were
essentially modified Vostok capsules and returned not
just the film but the cameras as well which could be reused.

Keith