SOmeone Tell the Air Force this is same as doing nothing

[Daryl Hunt]

According to Defense News, Air Force units will now head to the hills at the first sign of war, dispersing from their massive bases to local airports, isolated airstrips, any place that can support airplanes. The idea is to use those large bases not to concentrate air power but as a hub to feed dispersed air power, maintaining a steady flow of fuel, ammunition, and food to small detachments of fighters and other warplanes hiding at airfields adversaries may not even know about. U.S. Air Force Air Bases | Why Big Air Bases Are a Big Liability
The first sign of war will be these giant Airbases all burning at once. Speed of missiles these days fired from subs this must have Chinese laughing their ass off

So they are smart enough to know that in a real war our enemy will bomb the shit out of main bases, so they have contingency plans to use other air fields so they can still stay operational.

Sounds like a smart move to me.

Only prob is their first warning a war is starting is their airbase and planes burning

Both sides have at lest 48 hours before any nuclear attack can happen. Both sides had done this to prevent accidental Nuclear War and give the Civilians time to negotiate a way out of it. The second the actions start, the other side will know it and start it's own actions. The Movie Fail Safe changed a lot of thinking.

Once more dumbass we aren't talking a nuke attack...….

Oh, No? Tell me again how the Russians, Chinese and Americans can bomb the active bases to deprive replacement aircraft again? Tell me again how any of those 3 can stop the heavy bombers being launched well inside their borders. There is only one way and it ain't conventional. So you are talking about Nukes since your idea of conventional weapons will be one huge bust against Russia and the US. But it can have limited affect on China. All your conventional attack is going to do is piss off the other side.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Yeah that's it....old timer......airbases can only be destroyed by nukes...….

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Yeah that's it....old timer......airbases can only be destroyed by nukes...….

This old timer has a pretty good idea that Ellsworth is still in the same place and conventional weapons aren't going to be used to destroy it. But I forget, you fighters and bombers from Russia attacks through the center of the earth or beams within 1500 miles of Ellsworth. Cue the Music.

 

[Silver Cat]

This leftist served for almost 8 years with SAC. And anyone not fearful of Nukes is a fool and shouldn't be anywhere near the control or support of those weapons. I remember in the 70s when there was a panel of Military and Civilians from both sides in a televise conference. Both sides of the Civilians kept doing what you are doing and constantly waving those sabers. Meanwhile, both sides from the Military were trying to keep the Politicos from getting too worked up. There is a reason the Military has last say in Nuclear War. There are many reasons we were trained like we were. But, if push comes to shove, we would do our Duty regardless of our personal feelings. And I suspect the Russians would do the same. Sleep well, we are on Guard.

It must always be remembered that nuclear weapons are not "Military Weapons", they are political weapons. Not one commander of any military organization goes "Well, before we attack let's drop a nuke right there, then go around the crater".

No, they are the tools of leaders and politicians. Now granted, that is the philosophy from the 1970's, but we are talking about the current world, not the era of "Bomb A Day LeMay". By the 1980's, the military was pretty much disgusted with them, but had no choice but to be the operators and maintainers because that was a job assigned to us.

I worked with nukes in the 1980s, and I know others that did as well in other areas. And we all absolutely hated the damned things. And other than for a period in the 1980's when some floated the idea of a "limited nuclear exchange", we all knew that once these things started dropping, we could all just forget everything and look forward to living the rest of our lives in an R.E.M. song.

First of all, world is changing. It is not 1980s anymore, you know.
Second - Russians always thought about nukes as about any other weapon, just more powerful.
Russians are preparing to the war, and they clearly will use nukes (as well as chemicals and biological agents (including RNA-viruses)). It is even written in their doctrine.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

This leftist served for almost 8 years with SAC. And anyone not fearful of Nukes is a fool and shouldn't be anywhere near the control or support of those weapons. I remember in the 70s when there was a panel of Military and Civilians from both sides in a televise conference. Both sides of the Civilians kept doing what you are doing and constantly waving those sabers. Meanwhile, both sides from the Military were trying to keep the Politicos from getting too worked up. There is a reason the Military has last say in Nuclear War. There are many reasons we were trained like we were. But, if push comes to shove, we would do our Duty regardless of our personal feelings. And I suspect the Russians would do the same. Sleep well, we are on Guard.

It must always be remembered that nuclear weapons are not "Military Weapons", they are political weapons. Not one commander of any military organization goes "Well, before we attack let's drop a nuke right there, then go around the crater".

No, they are the tools of leaders and politicians. Now granted, that is the philosophy from the 1970's, but we are talking about the current world, not the era of "Bomb A Day LeMay". By the 1980's, the military was pretty much disgusted with them, but had no choice but to be the operators and maintainers because that was a job assigned to us.

I worked with nukes in the 1980s, and I know others that did as well in other areas. And we all absolutely hated the damned things. And other than for a period in the 1980's when some floated the idea of a "limited nuclear exchange", we all knew that once these things started dropping, we could all just forget everything and look forward to living the rest of our lives in an R.E.M. song.

First of all, world is changing. It is not 1980s anymore, you know.
Second - Russians always thought about nukes as about any other weapon, just more powerful.
Russians are preparing to the war, and they clearly will use nukes (as well as chemicals and biological agents (including RNA-viruses)). It is even written in their doctrine.

You know nothing about MAD. Even using a tactical nuke could very well trigger things. Neither side wishes for this to happen. And before it comes to that, there is going to be a lot of conventional weapons thrown about if it comes to it. But no Nukes.

The only reason Russia and the US would face off would be over THEM expanding militarily into NATO protected countries. The US has no reason to attack otherwise no matter what Putin is feeding the political fear and hate machine. Yes, Putin has designs to make the old Soviet Block but that's just a pipe dream these days. The three areas that Russia has already taken or influenced is about as far as they can get.

Your idea about Nukes being used for normal battlefield is that of a Civilian. The Joint Chiefs would find fault in your analasys. And I suspect that if Putin were to order the use of Tactical Nukes, he could measure his time in power in a matter of minutes. Same goes for a President. There really IS something Rump can try that will get him removed from office. The only difference between the two countries would be, in the US, it would be Congress that would remove the President but in Russia, it would be the Military.

You want to change the face of the Earth, move to some patch of land where you have a 95% chance of not making it through a long slow death.

 

[Mushroom]

Your idea about Nukes being used for normal battlefield is that of a Civilian. The Joint Chiefs would find fault in your analasys. And I suspect that if Putin were to order the use of Tactical Nukes, he could measure his time in power in a matter of minutes. Same goes for a President. There really IS something Rump can try that will get him removed from office. The only difference between the two countries would be, in the US, it would be Congress that would remove the President but in Russia, it would be the Military.

Hell, we do not even really have "Tactical Battlefield Nukes" anymore. We have not had them for decades.

President Reagan eliminated them in the 1988 INF treaty.

And yes, I am well aware that the Russians have not been following it for over a decade, and the President pulled out himself 2 years ago. But as of this time I am not aware of any programs to try and bring such weapons back into our inventory. So if Russia or anybody else decided to attack us with a Tactical Nuke, our response would be to hit them back with a Strategic Nuke.

And thankfully, I do not think that any of the real Nuclear Powers are that stupid.

 

[Silver Cat]

Your idea about Nukes being used for normal battlefield is that of a Civilian. The Joint Chiefs would find fault in your analasys. And I suspect that if Putin were to order the use of Tactical Nukes, he could measure his time in power in a matter of minutes. Same goes for a President. There really IS something Rump can try that will get him removed from office. The only difference between the two countries would be, in the US, it would be Congress that would remove the President but in Russia, it would be the Military.

Hell, we do not even really have "Tactical Battlefield Nukes" anymore. We have not had them for decades.

President Reagan eliminated them in the 1988 INF treaty.

And yes, I am well aware that the Russians have not been following it for over a decade, and the President pulled out himself 2 years ago. But as of this time I am not aware of any programs to try and bring such weapons back into our inventory. So if Russia or anybody else decided to attack us with a Tactical Nuke, our response would be to hit them back with a Strategic Nuke.

And thankfully, I do not think that any of the real Nuclear Powers are that stupid.

Oh, really?
What about B-61? It is obviously tactical and it is obviously deployed in Europe and Asia

B61 nuclear bomb - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What if Russians think that they are ready to full scale nuclear exchange?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Your idea about Nukes being used for normal battlefield is that of a Civilian. The Joint Chiefs would find fault in your analasys. And I suspect that if Putin were to order the use of Tactical Nukes, he could measure his time in power in a matter of minutes. Same goes for a President. There really IS something Rump can try that will get him removed from office. The only difference between the two countries would be, in the US, it would be Congress that would remove the President but in Russia, it would be the Military.

Hell, we do not even really have "Tactical Battlefield Nukes" anymore. We have not had them for decades.

President Reagan eliminated them in the 1988 INF treaty.

And yes, I am well aware that the Russians have not been following it for over a decade, and the President pulled out himself 2 years ago. But as of this time I am not aware of any programs to try and bring such weapons back into our inventory. So if Russia or anybody else decided to attack us with a Tactical Nuke, our response would be to hit them back with a Strategic Nuke.

And thankfully, I do not think that any of the real Nuclear Powers are that stupid.

Oh, really?
What about B-61? It is obviously tactical and it is obviously deployed in Europe and Asia

B61 nuclear bomb - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What if Russians think that they are ready to full scale nuclear exchange?

Although the B-61 is listed as both Tactical and Strategic, it's use today is Strategic. It's primary use is on the F-15E stationed at various locations. The F-15E took over the mission the F-111 once did. Yes, it can be fitted under a F-16 or a F-18, it's not normally loaded. And there aren't that many in storage or loaded. This is a strategic weapon and to be used to hit inside of Russia in case of Nuclear War.

A Tactical Field Nuclear Weapon has a much smaller yield. While the B-61 can be set to a low yield, it's normally set at a strategic level. It's a very versatile weapon in that regard. And yes, it scares the living hell out of both the Russians and the Chinese. But at one time, there were tactical nuclear tipped Artillery and short and medium missiles (Rockets) that have all been removed from service. At one time, the USAF stored these and in case of war, the Army would have to sign them out. The Paperwork must have been a bigger danger than the weapons. For the US, these were all withdrawn from service in 1991 and the Soviets (Russia) in 1993. By 2000, all Russian Tactical Nuke Artillery were destroyed. By 1989, all Nato countries discontinued these little nasties. For the US, only one has been detonated and that was in a test in 1957.

There are only about 40 B-61s in service at this time. And the US is the only one with it. But it's use is that of Strategic, not Tactical.

 

[Silver Cat]

Your idea about Nukes being used for normal battlefield is that of a Civilian. The Joint Chiefs would find fault in your analasys. And I suspect that if Putin were to order the use of Tactical Nukes, he could measure his time in power in a matter of minutes. Same goes for a President. There really IS something Rump can try that will get him removed from office. The only difference between the two countries would be, in the US, it would be Congress that would remove the President but in Russia, it would be the Military.

Hell, we do not even really have "Tactical Battlefield Nukes" anymore. We have not had them for decades.

President Reagan eliminated them in the 1988 INF treaty.

And yes, I am well aware that the Russians have not been following it for over a decade, and the President pulled out himself 2 years ago. But as of this time I am not aware of any programs to try and bring such weapons back into our inventory. So if Russia or anybody else decided to attack us with a Tactical Nuke, our response would be to hit them back with a Strategic Nuke.

And thankfully, I do not think that any of the real Nuclear Powers are that stupid.

Oh, really?
What about B-61? It is obviously tactical and it is obviously deployed in Europe and Asia

B61 nuclear bomb - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What if Russians think that they are ready to full scale nuclear exchange?

Although the B-61 is listed as both Tactical and Strategic, it's use today is Strategic. It's primary use is on the F-15E stationed at various locations. The F-15E took over the mission the F-111 once did. Yes, it can be fitted under a F-16 or a F-18, it's not normally loaded. And there aren't that many in storage or loaded. This is a strategic weapon and to be used to hit inside of Russia in case of Nuclear War.

You see, Russia is rather big country with good IADS. F-15E can't be used as a strategic bomber, because it have no chances to cross a front line.

A Tactical Field Nuclear Weapon has a much smaller yield. While the B-61 can be set to a low yield, it's normally set at a strategic level.

It depends on it typical target, not only yield. For example, 21 kt "Fat Man" was a strategic bomb, because its target was a city, and 500 kt SS-N-19 "Shipwreck" is a tactical missile, because its typical targets are ships.

It's a very versatile weapon in that regard. And yes, it scares the living hell out of both the Russians and the Chinese. But at one time, there were tactical nuclear tipped Artillery and short and medium missiles (Rockets) that have all been removed from service. At one time, the USAF stored these and in case of war, the Army would have to sign them out. The Paperwork must have been a bigger danger than the weapons. For the US, these were all withdrawn from service in 1991 and the Soviets (Russia) in 1993. By 2000, all Russian Tactical Nuke Artillery were destroyed. By 1989, all Nato countries discontinued these little nasties. For the US, only one has been detonated and that was in a test in 1957.

Sure, not. Russia have pretty much tactical nuclear warheads for Iskanders, artillery, anti-air and anti-ship missiles.

 

[Mushroom]

Hell, we do not even really have "Tactical Battlefield Nukes" anymore. We have not had them for decades.

President Reagan eliminated them in the 1988 INF treaty.

And yes, I am well aware that the Russians have not been following it for over a decade, and the President pulled out himself 2 years ago. But as of this time I am not aware of any programs to try and bring such weapons back into our inventory. So if Russia or anybody else decided to attack us with a Tactical Nuke, our response would be to hit them back with a Strategic Nuke.

And thankfully, I do not think that any of the real Nuclear Powers are that stupid.

Oh, really?
What about B-61? It is obviously tactical and it is obviously deployed in Europe and Asia

What if Russians think that they are ready to full scale nuclear exchange?

A Strategic warhead that can be "dialed down" is not a real tactical weapon. And bombs had not been the way we would have deployed weapons like that after the 1950s.

Let me make a small but significant rewording. "I am not aware of any programs to try and bring such weapon systems back into our inventory".

During the Cold War, the main delivery system intended for the delivery of tactical warheads was the MGM-31 Pershing and then the Pershing II missiles. And yes, I am more than aware of the GLCM and MGM-52 Lance systems. But those were never really a system that was majorly deployed, and neither of them was in major use when they were cancelled.

So yea, I still stand by my statement. When the US starts cranking back out something akin to the W85 warhead and a delivery system akin to the Pershing II, come talk to me. Neither has been done yet, and I do not expect either one to be rebuilt either.

And yes, I am also aware of the limited tests of the "new" GLCM system. Which is a huge "big deal", we could have rebuilt those at any time. And in reality, even the INF treaty did not actually prohibit us from building and selling those systems, we just could not deploy them ourselves. That is the loophole that the Russians exploited for years, even though they had no customers for the things and continued to test and stockpile them.

And as I said, I do not believe ant real nuclear power is stupid enough to start any kind of nuclear exchange. And that includes Russia. They are not stupid, and know what our response would be.

As I said, outside of some politicians and "civilian strategists", nobody ever really believed in the concept of a "limited nuclear exchange". The military despised it because they knew it would not last past 2 volleys and would escalate quickly after that.

I have talked to Pershing operators years later, and they told me their general plan if they were ever told to launch was to fire off the damned thing, then drive West as far and fast as they could. And hopefully they would be far enough away that the nuclear response would find them outside of the kill zone.

So until the types of delivery systems we saw in the past are returned to service, do not expect to see the US returning tactical nuclear weapons to the inventory. Now, if a Pershing III, Davy Crocket or Atomic Annie pop up again, let me know and we will return to this subject.

Air dropped bombs do not count. Because the only reason you would consider using one of these damned things in a tactical situation is that you are about to get overrun. And that very fact also implies that you do not have air dominance over the battlefield. And absolutely nobody in their right mind (outside of techno-thriller novelists) places a nuclear armed aircraft into a situation where they do not have clear air dominance.

And if you have clear air dominance, you are likely winning the war conventionally so have no need for a tactical nuke.

You see, this is the difference in how a military professional - analyst - tactician looks at these things, and an "armchair general" looks at them. I actually try to put such a thing into the actual situation where they might be used. Out primary deployment of such weapons was always in places it was expected that the Soviets would try to storm into Western Europe. Where their use would be either 1 of 2 situations. First, where a surprise attack found us getting our asses royally kicked, and we needed to use something like this to try and pull out our surviving and badly mauled forces so they could regroup, or in retaliation to the use of a Soviet tactical nuke where they dropped one on us first and we are responding in kind and trying to eliminate as many of their forces before they attack us.

But this is no longer 1977. Nobody is expecting the Red Hordes to try and plunge out of Poland and sweep across the Fulda Gap into the soft heartland of Europe anymore. So there is really no place for weapons like this anymore.

 

[Mushroom]

You see, Russia is rather big country with good IADS. F-15E can't be used as a strategic bomber, because it have no chances to cross a front line.

No, not really.

Russia is not really a "big country with a good IADS". And for those unfamiliar with the term, that means an "Integrated Air Defense System". What they have is a strong wall built around Moscow, and that is about it actually. Because of the ABM limitations in SALT I, each country was allowed to maintain a limited number of those things. The Soviets kept their ring around Moscow, the US just decided to scrap their entire NIKE system.

However, we do still maintain at least one site as a museum however. If you are ever in the San Francisco area, check out SF-88. It is probably my favorite military related museum in the area, and is a fascinating place to visit. And there is a similar site in New Jersey that is still run as a museum.

And yes, the F-15 or any other aircraft can be used strategically or tactically. However, why you would use an air superiority fighter that was never designed to carry a nuke I have absolutely no idea. Even in the Cold War, we never developed such a weapon for that platform.

No, the main considered delivery system for tactical battlefield nukes by aircraft was the F-111, followed by the F-4, and then our various A class attack fighters. Yea, in theory a warhead like the B-61 could be attached to an F-15 or F-16, but why? The idea for that was simply the thought that by the time we needed one our attack aircraft might be depleted while we were fighting for air dominance, and the air superiority fighters might be all we had left.

However, aircraft like the F-111 and A series were great choices when you do not have air dominance because of their penetration abilities. Especially the F-111 "Aardvark", which had variable swept wings (like the B-1), and the theory at that time was that would allow it to fly lower and slower, allowing it to slip in past Warsaw Pact air defenses. Something a faster and hotter jet could not do.

It depends on it typical target, not only yield. For example, 21 kt "Fat Man" was a strategic bomb, because its target was a city, and 500 kt SS-N-19 "Shipwreck" is a tactical missile, because its typical targets are ships.

Not really, but in many cases yes.

Strategic is generally for use against "soft" targets. In other words, non-military civilian or industrial ones. Tactical are strikes against hard military targets. Troops, air bases, shipyards, and even ships at sea. You can use large or small weapons against any of those targets, but since the military likes to separate things like that, and the two really do not work well together. Nobody wants to consider throwing a 5MT warhead against a location they might have to then pass through during an assault, and the use of something of say 50kt against Moscow or New York would be almost insignificant so not worth the effort.

Now it could be argued that the two can cross, but it would depend on a great many things. And weapons like the Shipwreck and NIKe were always considered tactical was because of their intended targets. They were always intended as "area" targets, not used to take out a single target but a group of them. For Shipwreck it was an enemy fleet, for NIKE it was an enemy bomber group. Neither one was ever designed as any kind of ground attack weapon.

Sure, not. Russia have pretty much tactical nuclear warheads for Iskanders, artillery, anti-air and anti-ship missiles.

Which is the system that brought this entire form of madness back out of the bottle.

President Reagan fought so damned hard to get rid of things like that because they were freaking insane. One of the worst things that both sides did during the Cold War was to make platforms that could launch either a conventional or a nuclear payload. Because until the damned thing goes off, you never know which was launched at you. And that just increases the odds that one side will launch something conventional, and the other side in panic responds with one that is nuclear in response.

Hence, the decision to dump all of the land launched tactical missiles. In fact, the US went way beyond the scope of the INF treaty, primarily in the hopes of easing tensions with the Soviets. And now for some insane reason Russia wants to return to the "good old days".

But nuclear air defense systems and anti-ship weapons have no place in the modern military. Those were done at the time because none of them were accurate enough to actually guarantee a "contact hit" on the enemy. Soviet doctrine at the time of NIKE was to fly in groups of bombers against a target, and there were no air-defense missiles capable of even hitting bombers at that time. So our solution? Simple, just set off our own nuclear bomb as close as we could to the center of that bomber group. Hopefully eliminating them before they get within range.

The same with anti-ship missiles. Today they are much more accurate, can be fired out of visual sight of the target, and can be programmed to seek out specific classes of ships when located and target only them. No more need to launch a nuke in the hopes of sinking 1 or 2.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Your idea about Nukes being used for normal battlefield is that of a Civilian. The Joint Chiefs would find fault in your analasys. And I suspect that if Putin were to order the use of Tactical Nukes, he could measure his time in power in a matter of minutes. Same goes for a President. There really IS something Rump can try that will get him removed from office. The only difference between the two countries would be, in the US, it would be Congress that would remove the President but in Russia, it would be the Military.

Hell, we do not even really have "Tactical Battlefield Nukes" anymore. We have not had them for decades.

President Reagan eliminated them in the 1988 INF treaty.

And yes, I am well aware that the Russians have not been following it for over a decade, and the President pulled out himself 2 years ago. But as of this time I am not aware of any programs to try and bring such weapons back into our inventory. So if Russia or anybody else decided to attack us with a Tactical Nuke, our response would be to hit them back with a Strategic Nuke.

And thankfully, I do not think that any of the real Nuclear Powers are that stupid.

Oh, really?
What about B-61? It is obviously tactical and it is obviously deployed in Europe and Asia

B61 nuclear bomb - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What if Russians think that they are ready to full scale nuclear exchange?

Although the B-61 is listed as both Tactical and Strategic, it's use today is Strategic. It's primary use is on the F-15E stationed at various locations. The F-15E took over the mission the F-111 once did. Yes, it can be fitted under a F-16 or a F-18, it's not normally loaded. And there aren't that many in storage or loaded. This is a strategic weapon and to be used to hit inside of Russia in case of Nuclear War.

You see, Russia is rather big country with good IADS. F-15E can't be used as a strategic bomber, because it have no chances to cross a front line.

A Tactical Field Nuclear Weapon has a much smaller yield. While the B-61 can be set to a low yield, it's normally set at a strategic level.

It depends on it typical target, not only yield. For example, 21 kt "Fat Man" was a strategic bomb, because its target was a city, and 500 kt SS-N-19 "Shipwreck" is a tactical missile, because its typical targets are ships.

It's a very versatile weapon in that regard. And yes, it scares the living hell out of both the Russians and the Chinese. But at one time, there were tactical nuclear tipped Artillery and short and medium missiles (Rockets) that have all been removed from service. At one time, the USAF stored these and in case of war, the Army would have to sign them out. The Paperwork must have been a bigger danger than the weapons. For the US, these were all withdrawn from service in 1991 and the Soviets (Russia) in 1993. By 2000, all Russian Tactical Nuke Artillery were destroyed. By 1989, all Nato countries discontinued these little nasties. For the US, only one has been detonated and that was in a test in 1957.

Sure, not. Russia have pretty much tactical nuclear warheads for Iskanders, artillery, anti-air and anti-ship missiles.

What are you smoking over there, Comrade? The F-15E that sits in various English Bases that are armed with the B-61 only has to fly a little over 1700 miles to hit Moscow. That's a round trip without refueling of 3400 miles. But the F-15E has a 3500 mile range when loaded for Strategic Nukes. That means, he will meet a tanker on the way in, hit his target and get home with fuel to spare. And setting the B-61 to 200KTS setting, it's only 50 KTs off a Minuteman Warhead. That's enough to level Moscow or any other western city that is in Russia.

The F-15E Nuke carrier means that the Russians have to have a system much more capable than stopping a B-52. The F-15E Nuke carrier will be flying in at near sonic speed to keep his IR signature down. IF you try and stop him with fighters, he is going to go to Military Power and hit Mach 2.5. There is only one fighter in the world that can run that fast. But it has another setting called V-max. It's already known that if a Mig-25 or 31 runs that fast, it's going to land with only one engine. The F-15E also has the capability to fly NAP The Earth making it difficult for other fighters and radar missiles to take him out. I will admit that the F-15E Nuke Bird is probably a one way trip but that's where Duty comes in. Something you don't have any idea what that is.

Probably the biggest MAD thing is that both sides are going to lose a lot of people attacking the other one or being attacked. And because of the entire aftermath, it makes Nuclear War unthinkable except by insanity. All sides know this, all sides are equally armed. And all sides may allow you insane people to rattle your sabers but No Government wants to cause the end of itself.

 

[Mushroom]

What are you smoking over there, Comrade? The F-15E that sits in various English Bases that are armed with the B-61 only has to fly a little over 1700 miles to hit Moscow. That's a round trip without refueling of 3400 miles. But the F-15E has a 3500 mile range when loaded for Strategic Nukes. That means, he will meet a tanker on the way in, hit his target and get home with fuel to spare. And setting the B-61 to 200KTS setting, it's only 50 KTs off a Minuteman Warhead. That's enough to level Moscow or any other western city that is in Russia.

Probably the biggest MAD thing is that both sides are going to lose a lot of people attacking the other one or being attacked. And because of the entire aftermath, it makes Nuclear War unthinkable except by insanity. All sides know this, all sides are equally armed. And all sides may allow you insane people to rattle your sabers but No Government wants to cause the end of itself.

An amazing amount of our Cold War weapon systems were purely intended to be a display for the purposes of MAD, and never to actually be used. Yes, we could throw a nuke on an F-15, but the Pentagon never really thought it would ever be needed. It was more a "show of force" thing really, increasing in theory the number of "nuclear capable aircraft" we had on paper.

Kinda like the C-5 Air Launched Ballistic Missile program. Yes, it was a real program. And yes, they actually did successfully launch a Minuteman missile from a C-5 in flight.



And it was so silly that we later used it as a bargaining chip to help get concessions from the Soviets in the SALT I talks in agreement to kill the project.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

What are you smoking over there, Comrade? The F-15E that sits in various English Bases that are armed with the B-61 only has to fly a little over 1700 miles to hit Moscow. That's a round trip without refueling of 3400 miles. But the F-15E has a 3500 mile range when loaded for Strategic Nukes. That means, he will meet a tanker on the way in, hit his target and get home with fuel to spare. And setting the B-61 to 200KTS setting, it's only 50 KTs off a Minuteman Warhead. That's enough to level Moscow or any other western city that is in Russia.

Probably the biggest MAD thing is that both sides are going to lose a lot of people attacking the other one or being attacked. And because of the entire aftermath, it makes Nuclear War unthinkable except by insanity. All sides know this, all sides are equally armed. And all sides may allow you insane people to rattle your sabers but No Government wants to cause the end of itself.

An amazing amount of our Cold War weapon systems were purely intended to be a display for the purposes of MAD, and never to actually be used. Yes, we could throw a nuke on an F-15, but the Pentagon never really thought it would ever be needed. It was more a "show of force" thing really, increasing in theory the number of "nuclear capable aircraft" we had on paper.

Kinda like the C-5 Air Launched Ballistic Missile program. Yes, it was a real program. And yes, they actually did successfully launch a Minuteman missile from a C-5 in flight.



And it was so silly that we later used it as a bargaining chip to help get concessions from the Soviets in the SALT I talks in agreement to kill the project.

Lakenheath in England has a squadron of Nuke carrying F-15Es. They took the place of the F-111 when it was retired. It's a real threat and the only fighter to do that mission in the World is the F-15E carrying drop tanks and a single B-61.

 

[Silver Cat]

What are you smoking over there, Comrade? The F-15E that sits in various English Bases that are armed with the B-61 only has to fly a little over 1700 miles to hit Moscow. That's a round trip without refueling of 3400 miles. But the F-15E has a 3500 mile range when loaded for Strategic Nukes. That means, he will meet a tanker on the way in, hit his target and get home with fuel to spare. And setting the B-61 to 200KTS setting, it's only 50 KTs off a Minuteman Warhead. That's enough to level Moscow or any other western city that is in Russia.

Probably the biggest MAD thing is that both sides are going to lose a lot of people attacking the other one or being attacked. And because of the entire aftermath, it makes Nuclear War unthinkable except by insanity. All sides know this, all sides are equally armed. And all sides may allow you insane people to rattle your sabers but No Government wants to cause the end of itself.

An amazing amount of our Cold War weapon systems were purely intended to be a display for the purposes of MAD, and never to actually be used. Yes, we could throw a nuke on an F-15, but the Pentagon never really thought it would ever be needed. It was more a "show of force" thing really, increasing in theory the number of "nuclear capable aircraft" we had on paper.

Kinda like the C-5 Air Launched Ballistic Missile program. Yes, it was a real program. And yes, they actually did successfully launch a Minuteman missile from a C-5 in flight.



And it was so silly that we later used it as a bargaining chip to help get concessions from the Soviets in the SALT I talks in agreement to kill the project.

Lakenheath in England has a squadron of Nuke carrying F-15Es. They took the place of the F-111 when it was retired. It's a real threat and the only fighter to do that mission in the World is the F-15E carrying drop tanks and a single B-61.

Actually, there are no nukes at the Lakenheath.

NATO stores some 150 nuclear B61 bombs in six bases: Kleine Brogel in Belgium, Büchel in Germany, Aviano and Ghedi-Torre in Italy, Volkel in the Netherlands and İncirlik in Turkey.

And yes, Germany decided to buy F-18 to deliver "their" B-61. Good choice for "strategic bomber" isn't it?

Eurofighter und F-18-Jets sollen offenbar Bundeswehr-Tornados ersetzen

Nach Plänen des Verteidigungsministeriums soll Airbus wohl „Rückgrat der Luftwaffe“ bleiben. Boeing käme mit dem F-18-Jet für zwei zentrale Aufgaben zum Zuge.

app.handelsblatt.com

 

[Silver Cat]

You see, Russia is rather big country with good IADS. F-15E can't be used as a strategic bomber, because it have no chances to cross a front line.

No, not really.

Russia is not really a "big country with a good IADS". And for those unfamiliar with the term, that means an "Integrated Air Defense System". What they have is a strong wall built around Moscow, and that is about it actually. Because of the ABM limitations in SALT I, each country was allowed to maintain a limited number of those things. The Soviets kept their ring around Moscow, the US just decided to scrap their entire NIKE system.

However, we do still maintain at least one site as a museum however. If you are ever in the San Francisco area, check out SF-88. It is probably my favorite military related museum in the area, and is a fascinating place to visit. And there is a similar site in New Jersey that is still run as a museum.

And yes, the F-15 or any other aircraft can be used strategically or tactically. However, why you would use an air superiority fighter that was never designed to carry a nuke I have absolutely no idea. Even in the Cold War, we never developed such a weapon for that platform.

No, the main considered delivery system for tactical battlefield nukes by aircraft was the F-111, followed by the F-4, and then our various A class attack fighters. Yea, in theory a warhead like the B-61 could be attached to an F-15 or F-16, but why? The idea for that was simply the thought that by the time we needed one our attack aircraft might be depleted while we were fighting for air dominance, and the air superiority fighters might be all we had left.

However, aircraft like the F-111 and A series were great choices when you do not have air dominance because of their penetration abilities. Especially the F-111 "Aardvark", which had variable swept wings (like the B-1), and the theory at that time was that would allow it to fly lower and slower, allowing it to slip in past Warsaw Pact air defenses. Something a faster and hotter jet could not do.

It depends on it typical target, not only yield. For example, 21 kt "Fat Man" was a strategic bomb, because its target was a city, and 500 kt SS-N-19 "Shipwreck" is a tactical missile, because its typical targets are ships.

Not really, but in many cases yes.

Strategic is generally for use against "soft" targets. In other words, non-military civilian or industrial ones. Tactical are strikes against hard military targets. Troops, air bases, shipyards, and even ships at sea. You can use large or small weapons against any of those targets, but since the military likes to separate things like that, and the two really do not work well together. Nobody wants to consider throwing a 5MT warhead against a location they might have to then pass through during an assault, and the use of something of say 50kt against Moscow or New York would be almost insignificant so not worth the effort.

Now it could be argued that the two can cross, but it would depend on a great many things. And weapons like the Shipwreck and NIKe were always considered tactical was because of their intended targets. They were always intended as "area" targets, not used to take out a single target but a group of them. For Shipwreck it was an enemy fleet, for NIKE it was an enemy bomber group. Neither one was ever designed as any kind of ground attack weapon.

Sure, not. Russia have pretty much tactical nuclear warheads for Iskanders, artillery, anti-air and anti-ship missiles.

Which is the system that brought this entire form of madness back out of the bottle.

President Reagan fought so damned hard to get rid of things like that because they were freaking insane. One of the worst things that both sides did during the Cold War was to make platforms that could launch either a conventional or a nuclear payload. Because until the damned thing goes off, you never know which was launched at you. And that just increases the odds that one side will launch something conventional, and the other side in panic responds with one that is nuclear in response.

Hence, the decision to dump all of the land launched tactical missiles. In fact, the US went way beyond the scope of the INF treaty, primarily in the hopes of easing tensions with the Soviets. And now for some insane reason Russia wants to return to the "good old days".

But nuclear air defense systems and anti-ship weapons have no place in the modern military. Those were done at the time because none of them were accurate enough to actually guarantee a "contact hit" on the enemy. Soviet doctrine at the time of NIKE was to fly in groups of bombers against a target, and there were no air-defense missiles capable of even hitting bombers at that time. So our solution? Simple, just set off our own nuclear bomb as close as we could to the center of that bomber group. Hopefully eliminating them before they get within range.

The same with anti-ship missiles. Today they are much more accurate, can be fired out of visual sight of the target, and can be programmed to seek out specific classes of ships when located and target only them. No more need to launch a nuke in the hopes of sinking 1 or 2.

That's why Russia delivered some nuclear warheads for their S-400 at Khmeimim airbase. Just to be sure, that even a big group of Turkish jets will be defeated. And yes, you need more than one conventional missile to sink a carrier.

The modern military doctrine of Russian Federation (in the difference with the Soviet one) don't have a conception of "full-scale non-nuclear war" at all. The war against the USA or NATO is a nuclear war anyway.

 

[Silver Cat]

There is an opinion that Russians make nuclear rounds for their Armata tanks.

Russia to Develop Nuclear Round for T-14 Main Battle Tank

Russia is purportedly mulling fitting its newest battle tank with a 152 millimeter gun capable of firing nuclear rounds.

thediplomat.com

 

[Silver Cat]

Probably the biggest MAD thing is that both sides are going to lose a lot of people attacking the other one or being attacked. And because of the entire aftermath, it makes Nuclear War unthinkable except by insanity. All sides know this, all sides are equally armed. And all sides may allow you insane people to rattle your sabers but No Government wants to cause the end of itself.

Actually sides are not armed "equally". For example, right now even S-300 (say nothing about S-400 or A-235) can intercept "complicated ballistic targets".

 

[Silver Cat]

Ok. Simple "raise the bet" scenario. China&Russia alliance decided to retake Taiwan. Russia said, that any (nuclear or conventional) attack against China's forces will be equal to attack against Russia, and means immediate nuclear retaliation.
Should the USA try to fight them?

 

[Mushroom]

Ok. Simple "raise the bet" scenario. China&Russia alliance decided to retake Taiwan. Russia said, that any (nuclear or conventional) attack against China's forces will be equal to attack against Russia, and means immediate nuclear retaliation.
Should the USA try to fight them?

This falls under "failed concept".

One of the most important aspects of any "mutual defense treaty" is that if a nation is an aggressor nation, it looses all such protection. The allied nation may choose to join in, or not. But they are in no way obligated to do so.

To see that in action, look no further than WWII. When Germany attacked England and other allied powers, Japan did nothing. When they attacked the Soviets, Japan did nothing. And when Japan attacked the US they could have done nothing, but Hitler thought the US would be easy so declared war also.

An act which many consider the single most stupid decision of WWII.

First of all, there will never again be a "Russian-Chinese Alliance". The good will that the nations had developed during the 1990s and early 2000s has largely vanished. Russia has asked them many times to stop copying and selling their military equipment without licensing them, and China has simply ignored them.

And after purchasing their carrier and promising to not turn it into a warship, then outright stealing the Su-33 they have pretty much stopped all weapons sales with the nation. Russia is still willing to sell them things like engines, but that is pretty much where their military relationship ends now as they have grown tired of China stealing their designs and using them as their own.