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.

Mike <yard22192*yahoo.com> wrote in news:6f05e99e-7caa-4a68-b6c8-
googlegroups.com">674e96728315*w31g2000prd.googlegroups.com:

> 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

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.

"dott.Piergiorgio" <dott.PiergiorgioNIHON*KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote in
news:BgYJl.37554$VA5.524*tornado.fastwebnet.it:

> 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

Ian B MacLure ha scritto:
> "dott.Piergiorgio" <dott.PiergiorgioNIHON*KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote in
> news:BgYJl.37554$VA5.524*tornado.fastwebnet.it:
>
>> 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.

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:26:10 +0200, "dott.Piergiorgio"
<dott.PiergiorgioNIHON*KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote:

>Ian B MacLure ha scritto:
>> "dott.Piergiorgio" <dott.PiergiorgioNIHON*KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote in
>> news:BgYJl.37554$VA5.524*tornado.fastwebnet.it:
>>
>>> 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...

Somehow decisions on strategic defense were not made in the court of
public opinion, which is a good thing.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
www.thunderchief.org

> 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...

Not to mention the Luftwaffe lot of Pershing MRBMs...

> 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.
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)http://www.thundertales.blogspot.com...underchief.org

daniel.c.bertrand*gmail.com 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...
>
> Not to mention the Luftwaffe lot of Pershing MRBMs...
>
>> 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.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

> * *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.

daniel.c.bertrand*gmail.com ha scritto:
>> 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...
>
> Not to mention the Luftwaffe lot of Pershing MRBMs...
>
>> 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.

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 ?

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

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.

> 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 piss 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.

Ed Rasimus <rasimusSPAMLESS*verizon.net> wrote in
news:0kjjv4t11unndabbrceerjprbe6iqh64fp*4ax.com:

> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:26:10 +0200, "dott.Piergiorgio"
> <dott.PiergiorgioNIHON*KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote:
>
>>Ian B MacLure ha scritto:
>>> "dott.Piergiorgio" <dott.PiergiorgioNIHON*KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it>
>>> wrote in news:BgYJl.37554$VA5.524*tornado.fastwebnet.it:
>>>
>>>> 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 <i...*svpal.org> wrote:
> Ed Rasimus <rasimusSPAML...*verizon.net> wrote innews:0kjjv4t11unndabbrceerjprbe6iqh64fp*4ax.com:
....
> > 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 Fri, 1 May 2009 07:08:36 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
<dynamics*vianet.on.ca> wrote:

>On Apr 30, 11:07 pm, Ian B MacLure <i...*svpal.org> wrote:
>> Ed Rasimus <rasimusSPAML...*verizon.net> wrote innews:0kjjv4t11unndabbrceerjprbe6iqh64fp*4ax.com:
>...
>> > 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

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.

It isn't unnecessary, since we quite clearly live in a world with
nuclear threats increasing rather than decreasing. Our unilateral
disarmament or downgrading will neither lessen the threat nor reduce
the spread. With special weapons in our arsenal, the abandonment of
delivery means would be foolish.

It isn't useless. Nuclear capability is the first element of credible
deterrence. Survivability, meaning multiple delivery modes is arguably
the second step. The usefulness of deterrence has been amply
demonstrated in the last sixty years. (I suggest a quick reference to
the advice of Santayana at this juncture.)

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
www.thunderchief.org

On May 1, 8:25 am, Ed Rasimus <rasimusSPAML...*verizon.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 1 May 2009 07:08:36 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
>
>
>
> <dynam...*vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> >On Apr 30, 11:07 pm, Ian B MacLure <i...*svpal.org> wrote:
> >> Ed Rasimus <rasimusSPAML...*verizon.net> wrote innews:0kjjv4t11unndabbrceerjprbe6iqh64fp*4ax.com:
> >...
> >> > 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
>
> 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.

Cradle to grave cost of nukes is expensive, let's
keep an eye on the big picture, it's much more
than wiring if we set off an arms race.

> It isn't unnecessary, since we quite clearly live in a world with
> nuclear threats increasing rather than decreasing. Our unilateral
> disarmament or downgrading will neither lessen the threat nor reduce
> the spread. With special weapons in our arsenal, the abandonment of
> delivery means would be foolish.

Ed, you (and I) are victims of the cold war mentality
that spun off from WW2, guys like Reagan and now
Obama, are planning for a New World Order, wherein
future generations will live in an increasingly integrated
world in which nukes are lunacy.
Just this AM, because of a sniffle in Mexico a school
in our neighbourhood (Vernon BC) was clsoed for a
week.

> It isn't useless. Nuclear capability is the first element of credible
> deterrence. Survivability, meaning multiple delivery modes is arguably
> the second step. The usefulness of deterrence has been amply
> demonstrated in the last sixty years. (I suggest a quick reference to
> the advice of Santayana at this juncture.)

Ed, how many nukes will deter you?
How many nukes will deter a crazy man?

I've done some of these psychotic calculations, as
I'm sure you've tried, they are emotionally difficult.
However the stakes are so great we cannot permit
mental laziness or archaic presumptions to taint
our calculations going forward to generations unborn
to inherit.

> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)www.thundertales.blogspot.com
www.thunderchief.org
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

On May 1, 10:08*am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...*vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> On Apr 30, 11:07 pm, Ian B MacLure <i...*svpal.org> wrote:
>
> > Ed Rasimus <rasimusSPAML...*verizon.net> wrote innews:0kjjv4t11unndabbrceerjprbe6iqh64fp*4ax.com:
> ...
> > > 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 <ibm*svpal.org> 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 here:

On Apr 28, 7:06 pm, Mike <yard22...*yahoo.com> 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!

fairwater*gmail.com (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