A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 29th 09, 03:06 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
mike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43
Default "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  
Old April 29th 09, 05:16 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
Ian B MacLure
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 100
Default "PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"

Mike wrote in news:6f05e99e-7caa-4a68-b6c8-
:

Inside the Air Force - 4/24/2009

GENERAL: PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY


As long as the PAL (or whatever it is these days) H/W can interface
with the JSFs avionics it shouldn't be that difficult to manage.

IBM
  #3  
Old April 29th 09, 02:05 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
dott.Piergiorgio
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 56
Default "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  
Old April 30th 09, 05:20 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
Ian B MacLure
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 100
Default "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  
Old April 30th 09, 02:26 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
dott.Piergiorgio
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 56
Default "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.
  #7  
Old April 30th 09, 06:28 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default "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.
  #9  
Old April 30th 09, 07:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
dott.Piergiorgio
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 56
Default "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  
Old April 30th 09, 08:38 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default "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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 06:43 AM
Spinner strobing as a "Bird Strike Countermeasure" Jim Logajan Home Built 212 December 13th 07 02:35 AM
"British trace missile in copter strike to Iran" Mike[_7_] Naval Aviation 8 March 10th 07 09:20 PM
"Pentagon Command Shuffle Rekindles Equity Debate" Mike Naval Aviation 1 January 26th 07 04:04 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.