Jump to content


Photo

F-35 Dropped From German Competition


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#41 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,132 posts

Posted 04 October 2019 - 2359 PM

I am not seeing the utility of German military procurement being led by nuclear strike mission capability. Within the context of NATO, three of the world's five official nuclear weapons states are more than enough to cover the alliance's needs in that regard.

 

Outside of the context of NATO, a Luftwaffe nuclear strike mission represents both a violation of NPT and a weakening of it.


  • 0

#42 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,664 posts

Posted 06 October 2019 - 0729 AM

B-61 guidance is INS with an unguided freefall option. The hard part of integration is PALS.
  • 0

#43 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,425 posts

Posted 06 October 2019 - 0813 AM

Nuclear sharing has always been mostly political, giving NATO members a role in deterrence at a time some might have pursued their own nuclear programs otherwise; or in the case of Germany, would have liked to have nuclear weapons under national control, but couldn't go for it politically because they had enough trouble selling American ones on their territory to the public. So this was appeasement and reassurance in more than one way, and being ca. 1960, pre-NPT. It has since been criticized of violating the latter. To which the official reply has been sorta that no actual control would pass to non-nuclear members until WW 3 broke out, at which point international treaties aiming at preventing same would be rather moot.

 

Post Cold War, it became part institutional inertia, part badge of continuing alliance commitment by both the US and host nations. As noted before, critics pointed out that after NATO extension, no targets remained in range for bombs carried by tactical aircraft from Germany (though that obviously disregards air refueling), so the ostentative purpose to balance Russian weapons carried by aircraft and short-range missiles made no real sense. At some point or other since, all German parties have demanded or at least agreed with removing the last B61s from the country, and for some time the supposition was that the issue would quietly resolve itself with the retirement of Tornado. Like so many other things, that has changed since the Ukraine Crisis in 2014.


  • 0

#44 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,144 posts

Posted 06 October 2019 - 0816 AM

Why? 


  • 0

#45 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,654 posts

Posted 06 October 2019 - 1136 AM

Because of the "feel good aspect" of deterrence:

 


  • 0

#46 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,586 posts

Posted 06 October 2019 - 1757 PM

B-61 guidance is INS with an unguided freefall option. The hard part of integration is PALS.

 

The new B61-12 is ging to get a glide kit, GPS nav and all that you find in modern "precision munitons". Also it gets a ground penetration capability and an all new electronity arming system.

 

 

wikipedia gives an overview: https://en.wikipedia...ear_bomb#Mod_12


  • 0

#47 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,234 posts

Posted 07 October 2019 - 0156 AM

They would do better to withdraw B61 entirely, and strap the warheads onto a viable delivery vehicle like AGM158 or even Stormshadow. To use a B61 you either have to have a stealth bomber (which even when F35 is procured, not everyone will have), or a permissive environment that begs the question why a nuclear weapon is needed at all.

 

Do I think its still needed? Yes. Because the Russian General staff seems to have got itself in a rut that Tactical weapons may be viable because they dont hurt quite so much. Thats dangerous thinking that can only be countered by a viable NATO tactical stockpile.  Not that there is much point between tactical an strategic use if they are used on Russian territory, but that is much the point of having them IMHO.

 

All that said, I was listening to a podcast yesterday on the German Typhoons, and I was a bit shocked to hear quite how few weapons it actually has for it even after flying tranche 3. Wouldnt it make more sense to deal with that first rather than go for a tactical nuclear platform that can be dealt with by other countries?


  • 0

#48 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,664 posts

Posted 07 October 2019 - 0658 AM


B-61 guidance is INS with an unguided freefall option. The hard part of integration is PALS.

 
The new B61-12 is ging to get a glide kit, GPS nav and all that you find in modern "precision munitons". Also it gets a ground penetration capability and an all new electronity arming system.
 
 
wikipedia gives an overview: https://en.wikipedia...ear_bomb#Mod_12

I should have specified INS guidance for the mod 12 only- but presumably any aircraft integrated with B-61 will be fit for mod 12 which replaces all other types. Guidance is INS only with an unguided spin stabilized option that remains from previous versions. CEP 30 meters in INS mode.
  • 0

#49 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,846 posts

Posted 07 October 2019 - 0708 AM

I am not seeing the utility of German military procurement being led by nuclear strike mission capability. Within the context of NATO, three of the world's five official nuclear weapons states are more than enough to cover the alliance's needs in that regard.

 

Outside of the context of NATO, a Luftwaffe nuclear strike mission represents both a violation of NPT and a weakening of it.

 

1st sentence agreed, 2nd sentence - not so easy. The Cold War craze is over, the nuclear powers coould indeed think that they will remain unscathed if Russia nukes, say, Warsaw. Retaliation is less probable than in the Cold War era.

 

https://defense-and-...ope-part-i.html

https://defense-and-...pe-part-ii.html

https://defense-and-...e-part-iii.html


  • 0

#50 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,234 posts

Posted 07 October 2019 - 0728 AM

I think you are wrong in questioning our nuclear commitment to NATO. That was there at least a decade an a half before we joined the EEC, I dont see Brexit changes it a jot. Ultimately if someone starts letting off buckets of Sunshine in Eastern Europe, we are going to be getting the fallout anyway, and the logical conclusion, our being a NATO hub for airfields, communications and so many things, is that we will be next. So we would commit. In fact, even a heavy cyber attack, in theory, would be enough to set it off.

 

The Americans would  be unable to remain uninvolved in the event of a UK nuclear use, because they provide the missiles and some of the targeting systems we use. So they would be implicated however it turned out. There also remains the awkward point that, if we wanted to engineer a US nuclear response, we could arrange one fairly easily. We would just launch our missiles from a submarine parked off the US East coast and allow our enemies to come to their own conclusions.....

 

Im not sure about the French nuclear capability being nuclear capable. Till it was replaced by Rafale, it was carried by Mirage 2000N's IIRC, which obviously remained incapable of landing on a carrier. I think the Rafales they replaced them with also are land based variants.

 

Interesting article though, thanks for the link.


  • 0

#51 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,425 posts

Posted 06 November 2019 - 0456 AM

Airbus proposal for an ECR variant of Eurofighter to succeed Tornado in this role. They suggest 40 of these and 45 for nuclear delivery. Not sure whether this includes specific modifications beyond hanging some pods and missiles on it, particularly in the mentioned "long term evolution".

20191105_Airbus_Eurofigher_SEAD_Praes_2-
  • 0