Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nuclear role F-15E

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Nuclear role F-15E

    It seems that the low level delivery method for the F-15E continues to be in the SIOP for nuclear war. Why is this so? I would think nuclear gravity bombs and their delivery methods too vulnerable to the "double didget" SAMs made by Russia, and copied by China. Maybe I am thinking wrong. Is low level delivery something that is realistic and capable against the latest air defenses? The "loft" delivery will buy you five miles or so, and depending on the terrain, you might get within ten or twenty miles of a target before you are painted on radar. Both B-83 and B-61 can be "layed down" as well, from low level at supersonic speeds, but then you are flying right over the target which seems questionable.
    Russia appears to depend on at least some stand off distance in the form of a missle delivery system. France has a nuclear stand off weapon. The US has cruise missiles, but has retired the SRAM, (aero-ballistic) which seems to be the best weapon against a well defended target. The Russians copied it. (AS-16 Kickback) Any thoughts?
    Last edited by Sandman; 13 Dec 05,, 08:32.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Sandman
    It seems that the low level delivery method for the F-15E continues to be in the SIOP for nuclear war. Why is this so? I would think nuclear gravity bombs and their delivery methods too vulnerable to the "double didget" SAMs made by Russia, and copied by China. Maybe I am thinking wrong. Is low level delivery something that is realistic and capable against the latest air defenses? The "loft" delivery will buy you five miles or so, and depending on the terrain, you might get within ten or twenty miles of a target before you are painted on radar. Both B-83 and B-61 can be "layed down" as well, from low level at supersonic speeds, but then you are flying right over the target which seems questionable.
    Russia appears to depend on at least some stand off distance in the form of a missle delivery system. France has a nuclear stand off weapon. The US has cruise missiles, but has retired the SRAM, (aero-ballistic) which seems to be the best weapon against a well defended target. The Russians copied it. (AS-16 Kickback) Any thoughts?
    I don't think the Eagles would be the front line attackers in a major nuclear war, I think its more an issue for a sustained nuclear war after both sides have already hit each other. I think ICBM's and the missile subs are the first tier in a major nuclear war, after that you can use heavy bombers, nuclear tipped cruise missiles, and fighters carrying nuclear weapons to continue the attack.

    Most people subscribe to the MAD theory I think and assume if theres a nuclear war it will all be over in a few minutes and everyone will be completely dead on both sides and it will be over. Realisticly I doubt this would be the case, the casulaties would be unlike anything ever witnessed in the history of the planet but the U.S has enough assets outside of the the U.S that they could sustain a nuclear war for awhile even if North America was turned into a giant black carbon sheet.

    As to the long term affects to the world in general after a nuke exchange of that size, who the hell knows.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by canoe
      I don't think the Eagles would be the front line attackers in a major nuclear war, I think its more an issue for a sustained nuclear war after both sides have already hit each other. I think ICBM's and the missile subs are the first tier in a major nuclear war, after that you can use heavy bombers, nuclear tipped cruise missiles, and fighters carrying nuclear weapons to continue the attack.
      I still believe that there has to be a more survivable method planned for the delivery of all those B-61s and B-83s. Evidently they are useful and survivable in some method of delivery, otherwise why keep something that could get shot down even after the first major waves of Ballistic missile attacks? What I am getting at is something like a long range "loft" perhaps? With a laser guidence, or more likely today a GPS "strap-on" JADAM which would allow a toss with high energy, at even a mid altitude which might get it within a couple dozen yards for a nuclear mission but allow a couple dozen miles or more standoff to get to a SA-10 defended target. The continued production of these defensive systems require some standoff distance from anything like an F-15, or F-18.

      Also, the use of precision guidence might be used for hardened or deeply burried structures that would have to be "dug out" with multiple accurate strikes at precisely the same point. Targets like Yamantau Mountain must be considered likely targets for the B-61-11 and B-2, but the strap on GPS systems, particularly with glider wing options, would allow precision and standoff.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Sandman
        I still believe that there has to be a more survivable method planned for the delivery of all those B-61s and B-83s. Evidently they are useful and survivable in some method of delivery, otherwise why keep something that could get shot down even after the first major waves of Ballistic missile attacks? What I am getting at is something like a long range "loft" perhaps? With a laser guidence, or more likely today a GPS "strap-on" JADAM which would allow a toss with high energy, at even a mid altitude which might get it within a couple dozen yards for a nuclear mission but allow a couple dozen miles or more standoff to get to a SA-10 defended target. The continued production of these defensive systems require some standoff distance from anything like an F-15, or F-18.

        Also, the use of precision guidence might be used for hardened or deeply burried structures that would have to be "dug out" with multiple accurate strikes at precisely the same point. Targets like Yamantau Mountain must be considered likely targets for the B-61-11 and B-2, but the strap on GPS systems, particularly with glider wing options, would allow precision and standoff.
        Well the older gravity dropped bombs I beleive can still be deleivered fairly safely and reliably by the B2's even against modern air defences. And I think theres probably specific senario's where they still would be ideal. The other aspect thats in their favor is yield. I beleive the older U.S bombs still have the largest yield of all the devices in their stockpile.

        And I do agree if the F-15 were to be used to deploy nuclear weapons it would require a standoff delivery system be equipped.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Sandman
          It seems that the low level delivery method for the F-15E continues to be in the SIOP for nuclear war. Why is this so? I would think nuclear gravity bombs and their delivery methods too vulnerable to the "double didget" SAMs made by Russia, and copied by China. Maybe I am thinking wrong. Is low level delivery something that is realistic and capable against the latest air defenses? The "loft" delivery will buy you five miles or so, and depending on the terrain, you might get within ten or twenty miles of a target before you are painted on radar. Both B-83 and B-61 can be "layed down" as well, from low level at supersonic speeds, but then you are flying right over the target which seems questionable.
          Russia appears to depend on at least some stand off distance in the form of a missle delivery system. France has a nuclear stand off weapon. The US has cruise missiles, but has retired the SRAM, (aero-ballistic) which seems to be the best weapon against a well defended target. The Russians copied it. (AS-16 Kickback) Any thoughts?
          If the US is going to attack anyone with nuclear devices it will be with ICBMs, standoff cruise missiles, or B-2s.

          In reality, the F-15Es are totally irrelevant.

          Comment


          • #6
            I think the F-15E's nuclear capability was a political/last resort move to gain funding for the F-15E program.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by The_Burning_Kid
              I think the F-15E's nuclear capability was a political/last resort move to gain funding for the F-15E program.
              I don't recall that being a factor.

              As Snipe said, nuclear delivery is not something we would use a fighter jet for anyway.
              "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by The_Burning_Kid
                I think the F-15E's nuclear capability was a political/last resort move to gain funding for the F-15E program.
                The vacuum that was to be in the wake of retiring the F-111 fleet is where funding for the E came from.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by highsea
                  I don't recall that being a factor.

                  As Snipe said, nuclear delivery is not something we would use a fighter jet for anyway.
                  I'm not actually saying that they did, but it kind of seems like it as we all know politicans and they want something from what our aircrafts can give.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by jgetti
                    The vacuum that was to be in the wake of retiring the F-111 fleet is where funding for the E came from.
                    That's a bit more realistic...

                    jgetti, how long you been at the lazy-B? Did you work on the A-6 rewing?
                    "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by highsea
                      That's a bit more realistic...

                      jgetti, how long you been at the lazy-B? Did you work on the A-6 rewing?
                      5 years. Have worked almost exclusively on F-15 and F/A-18 programs.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Lol, I was gone before you arrived...

                        I won't say how long, but I feel old. The A-6 rewing wasn't even early on for me, I was there for the original tilt-rotor work!

                        Oh, man, I better take my geritol. ;)
                        "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          How about this then,
                          Clinton, as much as I absolutely love him as president, not, actually was considering a nuclear option to North Korea at one point during negotiations regarding nukes, and it included about a couple dozen F-15Es with B-61s..
                          If you were planning such a strike, what method of delivery would you prescribe? Low level loft? That could get you a few miles standoff, couldn't it? How many would that give you? Five? Ten, or twenty?
                          Or maybe an "over the shoulder" which is said to give the most energy on the weapon from low level, but I can't see as a pilot how you could possibly aim that one, but I guess there was a way. That one wore out B-47s before their time.
                          Or maybe a flat out max afterburner low level "lay down" which both bombs could do above Mach 1 below 100 feet...

                          Which would be most survivable?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Sandman
                            It seems that the low level delivery method for the F-15E continues to be in the SIOP for nuclear war. Why is this so? I would think nuclear gravity bombs and their delivery methods too vulnerable to the "double didget" SAMs made by Russia, and copied by China. Maybe I am thinking wrong. Is low level delivery something that is realistic and capable against the latest air defenses? The "loft" delivery will buy you five miles or so, and depending on the terrain, you might get within ten or twenty miles of a target before you are painted on radar. Both B-83 and B-61 can be "layed down" as well, from low level at supersonic speeds, but then you are flying right over the target which seems questionable.
                            Russia appears to depend on at least some stand off distance in the form of a missle delivery system. France has a nuclear stand off weapon. The US has cruise missiles, but has retired the SRAM, (aero-ballistic) which seems to be the best weapon against a well defended target. The Russians copied it. (AS-16 Kickback) Any thoughts?
                            So where did you get a copy of the current SIOP?

                            Back in my 2362 days, that wasn't something that was just laying around. IIRC it was TPI stuff.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Gun Grape
                              So where did you get a copy of the current SIOP?

                              Back in my 2362 days, that wasn't something that was just laying around. IIRC it was TPI stuff.
                              I don't have a copy of the original, sorry. I didn't mean to imply that I had first hand knowlege of it. Many estimates, and my source of what it may include can be Googled. Also it is common knowlege that many tactical aircraft still have a nuclear capability. I am just curious as to how that capability could be used, if it can be used at all.
                              Last edited by Sandman; 07 Feb 06,, 14:57.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X