Something's going down... (Page 8 of 9)
Joined:
Nov 2025
Posts:
3153
EE: 0% (0)
TX, USA
|
Originally Posted By MudEagle: Re: nuclear capable B-1. One piece of the START treaty was modifying the B-1's external pylon mounts so they could no longer hold ALCMs or ACMs, as well as moving the internal weapons bay bulkhead so the nuclear rotary launcher could no longer be installed. Moreover, there's a *lot* more to having the ability to unlock, arm, and deliver a nuclear weapon than simply the capability to hang it in a weapons bay, on a launcher, or on a pylon. Given how much has changed with nuclear weapon safety and surety features since the mid-90s when all of the relevant equipment and wiring was removed from the BONE fleet, it would be a substantial modification program to put it back in even one single airframe. Don't forget that the START treaty also included boots-on-the-ground inspection of relevant aircraft and facilities by Russian inspectors. |
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
|
Originally Posted By xd341: That was the Bs mission. Not sure if the B2 does low level. TF radars are certainly still a thing but I doubt they want to be beating up billion dollar national assets down low. Just guessing. The low and fast profile is mechanically tough on B1s and the crews probably. Originally Posted By xd341: Originally Posted By R2point0: But do the B-2 and B-21 have the same capability? Genuine question. Isn't the B-1B the last low level penetration bomber we have? The low and fast profile is mechanically tough on B1s and the crews probably. I recall an article years ago saying the Bone was no longer being flown high speed low level due to airframe fatigue life concerns. They are already way beyond their planned life. |
|
Originally Posted By Hesperus: The F-35 can definitely do that job. It’s been set up to drop bombs for awhile. The USAF just doesn’t like the F/A designation very much. Originally Posted By Hesperus: Originally Posted By BB: Originally Posted By R2point0: But do the B-2 and B-21 have the same capability? Genuine question. Isn't the B-1B the last low level penetration bomber we have? Cant the F-35 fill that role? Outside of it not being a bomber of course The F-35 can definitely do that job. It’s been set up to drop bombs for awhile. The USAF just doesn’t like the F/A designation very much. The F/A designation for the Hornet is non-standard. The F primary mission letter explicitly includes dual role aircraft and there is no provision in the regulation for anything like F/A. |
|
Originally Posted By FreefallRet: I dream of a halo jump onto a zodiac that takes me to a sub. I hand the Captain orders to shadow a Russian sub, transmit a fake message to the Kremlin that as a Russian Captain I defect to China and just turned all my launch keys. Then I order the Captain to launch his nukes at Moscow, Iran and Saudi Arabia. We pull away, sink the Russian sub and report we were too late to stop the launch. Richard Marcinko, is that you? Great story line and I would read the book. I got to hang with Marcinko one time for a few hours and the guy was impressively intelligent. |
|
Originally Posted By fssf158: I recall an article years ago saying the Bone was no longer being flown high speed low level due to airframe fatigue life concerns. They are already way beyond their planned life. |
|
You guys see that UFO over Tehran? Could be what everyone is freaking out about https://x.com/sentdefender/status/2101836899702689834?s=46 |
|
Originally Posted By Morgan321: im sure it’s hard on the aircraft, but modern detection systems are so much better now that supersonic low altitude penetration is just not a feasible tactic. We moved to stealth for penetration, the jury is still out as to how effective it would be in all out war. Originally Posted By Morgan321: Originally Posted By fssf158: I recall an article years ago saying the Bone was no longer being flown high speed low level due to airframe fatigue life concerns. They are already way beyond their planned life. Low level attack was abandoned a couple days into Desert Storm as the extremely intense AAA was deemed more dangerous than the smaller number of radar guided SAMs. The usefulness of low level penetration before reaching the target is probably an “it depends” matter. |
|
Originally Posted By OrondoShooter: You guys see that UFO over Tehran? Could be what everyone is freaking out about https://x.com/sentdefender/status/2101836899702689834?s=46 That's just ELO. |
Preferred Pronoun: Space Lord Mutherfucker
|
Originally Posted By OrondoShooter: You guys see that UFO over Tehran? Could be what everyone is freaking out about https://x.com/sentdefender/status/2101836899702689834?s=46 |
|
Originally Posted By MudEagle: Re: nuclear capable B-1. One piece of the START treaty was modifying the B-1's external pylon mounts so they could no longer hold ALCMs or ACMs, as well as moving the internal weapons bay bulkhead so the nuclear rotary launcher could no longer be installed. Moreover, there's a *lot* more to having the ability to unlock, arm, and deliver a nuclear weapon than simply the capability to hang it in a weapons bay, on a launcher, or on a pylon. Given how much has changed with nuclear weapon safety and surety features since the mid-90s when all of the relevant equipment and wiring was removed from the BONE fleet, it would be a substantial modification program to put it back in even one single airframe. Don't forget that the START treaty also included boots-on-the-ground inspection of relevant aircraft and facilities by Russian inspectors. We had Ukrainians firing harms with ipads i dont think loading up some b1’s with some would be hard. At all. |
|
Originally Posted By MudEagle: Yes, there is a variable range of stages to afterburner in some 3rd gen and all 4th gen and beyond fighters. See that area between where the throttles can be set at MIL (the highest non-afterburner power setting) and MAX (the highest afterburner setting)? Yes....@wildboar "partial afterburner" is possible, and @vmax84 "full afterburner" is a thing, although the correct terminology would be "MIN afterburner" through "MAX afterburner". https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/470117/Screenshot_2026-09-20_at_03_31_03_copy_j-3829978.JPG Full afterburner, hmm, I wonder if afterburners can be used at less than full capacity. I figured they could, but now I know, and even have a bit of background as to how that changed over generations of aircraft. However, I remain unconvinced that anyone writing the news story would be able to tell the difference between moderate afterburners and full. I think the newsies just write so it sounds cool. |
|
Originally Posted By Keekleberrys: We had Ukrainians firing harms with ipads i dont think loading up some b1’s with some would be hard. At all. Originally Posted By Keekleberrys: Originally Posted By MudEagle: Re: nuclear capable B-1. One piece of the START treaty was modifying the B-1's external pylon mounts so they could no longer hold ALCMs or ACMs, as well as moving the internal weapons bay bulkhead so the nuclear rotary launcher could no longer be installed. Moreover, there's a *lot* more to having the ability to unlock, arm, and deliver a nuclear weapon than simply the capability to hang it in a weapons bay, on a launcher, or on a pylon. Given how much has changed with nuclear weapon safety and surety features since the mid-90s when all of the relevant equipment and wiring was removed from the BONE fleet, it would be a substantial modification program to put it back in even one single airframe. Don't forget that the START treaty also included boots-on-the-ground inspection of relevant aircraft and facilities by Russian inspectors. We had Ukrainians firing harms with ipads i dont think loading up some b1’s with some would be hard. At all. It would be. Nuclear surety is a really, really BFD. |
Joined:
Aug 2023
Posts:
10302
EE: 0% (0)
NC, USA
|
Originally Posted By R2point0: Well, I guess that answers my question. Though I can't say I'm not disappointed. Originally Posted By R2point0: Originally Posted By MudEagle: Re: nuclear capable B-1. One piece of the START treaty was modifying the B-1's external pylon mounts so they could no longer hold ALCMs or ACMs, as well as moving the internal weapons bay bulkhead so the nuclear rotary launcher could no longer be installed. Moreover, there's a *lot* more to having the ability to unlock, arm, and deliver a nuclear weapon than simply the capability to hang it in a weapons bay, on a launcher, or on a pylon. Given how much has changed with nuclear weapon safety and surety features since the mid-90s when all of the relevant equipment and wiring was removed from the BONE fleet, it would be a substantial modification program to put it back in even one single airframe. Don't forget that the START treaty also included boots-on-the-ground inspection of relevant aircraft and facilities by Russian inspectors. We have Bluetooth now , we dont need no stinkin wires ... probly. |
Decadence is no longer morally acceptable.
Joined:
Jan 2014
Posts:
43524
EE: 100% (6)
ID, USA
|
Originally Posted By Embittered: It would be. Nuclear surety is a really, really BFD. Originally Posted By Embittered: Originally Posted By Keekleberrys: Originally Posted By MudEagle: Re: nuclear capable B-1. One piece of the START treaty was modifying the B-1's external pylon mounts so they could no longer hold ALCMs or ACMs, as well as moving the internal weapons bay bulkhead so the nuclear rotary launcher could no longer be installed. Moreover, there's a *lot* more to having the ability to unlock, arm, and deliver a nuclear weapon than simply the capability to hang it in a weapons bay, on a launcher, or on a pylon. Given how much has changed with nuclear weapon safety and surety features since the mid-90s when all of the relevant equipment and wiring was removed from the BONE fleet, it would be a substantial modification program to put it back in even one single airframe. Don't forget that the START treaty also included boots-on-the-ground inspection of relevant aircraft and facilities by Russian inspectors. We had Ukrainians firing harms with ipads i dont think loading up some b1’s with some would be hard. At all. It would be. Nuclear surety is a really, really BFD. Yeah, you really, really don’t want random shmucks with iPads able to activate nuclear weapons. Can’t have them Ctrl, alt, deleting a city. Deleting a Pantsir or an SA-6 is fine though. |
Exaggerate the essential, leave the obvious vague.
|
Originally Posted By OrondoShooter: You guys see that UFO over Tehran? Could be what everyone is freaking out about https://x.com/sentdefender/status/2101836899702689834?s=46 Strange coincidence how those alien species that evolved in a world somewhere out in the universe just happened to equip their interstellar ship with multicolored lights that human eyes can see and operate in Earth's atmosphere.. |
|
Originally Posted By Keekleberrys: We had Ukrainians firing harms with ipads i dont think loading up some b1’s with some would be hard. At all. Uh, no. US nuclear weapons are not unlocked, armed, or released (and actually function) without very specific crypto-keyed hardware. Hardware that the B-1 no longer has...and even if it did have what it originally came with, that original hardware is obsolete by now. It has been a couple decades since I went to the Sandia course, but in 1990s-era weapons there were something like 120 operations that had to be executed in order and sequence and in correct timing in order for a nuclear yield to be achieved. There are layer upon layer of "nuclear surety features" which ensure that they are only released by specifically authorized personnel under specifically authorized conditions and circumstances. And, if those features are attempted to be spoofed or bypassed, the weapons very conveniently render themselves quite inert and useless. Good luck with the iPad, though. |
|
Originally Posted By Embittered: It would be. Nuclear surety is a really, really BFD. Originally Posted By Embittered: Originally Posted By Keekleberrys: Originally Posted By MudEagle: Re: nuclear capable B-1. One piece of the START treaty was modifying the B-1's external pylon mounts so they could no longer hold ALCMs or ACMs, as well as moving the internal weapons bay bulkhead so the nuclear rotary launcher could no longer be installed. Moreover, there's a *lot* more to having the ability to unlock, arm, and deliver a nuclear weapon than simply the capability to hang it in a weapons bay, on a launcher, or on a pylon. Given how much has changed with nuclear weapon safety and surety features since the mid-90s when all of the relevant equipment and wiring was removed from the BONE fleet, it would be a substantial modification program to put it back in even one single airframe. Don't forget that the START treaty also included boots-on-the-ground inspection of relevant aircraft and facilities by Russian inspectors. We had Ukrainians firing harms with ipads i dont think loading up some b1’s with some would be hard. At all. It would be. Nuclear surety is a really, really BFD. Nuclear weapons are analog. It would be easy. |
|
Originally Posted By MudEagle: Uh, no. US nuclear weapons are not unlocked, armed, or released (and actually function) without very specific crypto-keyed hardware. Hardware that the B-1 no longer has...and even if it did have what it originally came with, that original hardware is obsolete by now. It has been a couple decades since I went to the Sandia course, but in 1990s-era weapons there were something like 120 operations that had to be executed in order and sequence and in correct timing in order for a nuclear yield to be achieved. There are layer upon layer of "nuclear surety features" which ensure that they are only released by specifically authorized personnel under specifically authorized conditions and circumstances. And, if those features are attempted to be spoofed or bypassed, the weapons very conveniently render themselves quite inert and useless. Good luck with the iPad, though. Originally Posted By MudEagle: Originally Posted By Keekleberrys: We had Ukrainians firing harms with ipads i dont think loading up some b1’s with some would be hard. At all. Uh, no. US nuclear weapons are not unlocked, armed, or released (and actually function) without very specific crypto-keyed hardware. Hardware that the B-1 no longer has...and even if it did have what it originally came with, that original hardware is obsolete by now. It has been a couple decades since I went to the Sandia course, but in 1990s-era weapons there were something like 120 operations that had to be executed in order and sequence and in correct timing in order for a nuclear yield to be achieved. There are layer upon layer of "nuclear surety features" which ensure that they are only released by specifically authorized personnel under specifically authorized conditions and circumstances. And, if those features are attempted to be spoofed or bypassed, the weapons very conveniently render themselves quite inert and useless. Good luck with the iPad, though. Physics > software |
|
Originally Posted By MudEagle: Yes, I'm sure none of the 100-lb brains at LANL or LLNL ever thought of that strategy over the last 80 years. Originally Posted By MudEagle: Originally Posted By Keekleberrys: Physics > software Yes, I'm sure none of the 100-lb brains at LANL or LLNL ever thought of that strategy over the last 80 years. Your argument is to resort to acronyms for national laboratories/FFRDC’s? |
|
Originally Posted By Keekleberrys: Your argument is to resort to acronyms for national laboratories/FFRDC’s? There's lots you could read about these features if you so desired to understand them. |
|
Originally Posted By MudEagle: I'm pointing out that there are lots of very smart people who have considered that nuclear weapons are attractive targets for being misused and designed and built them accordingly to counter that. There's lots you could read about these features if you so desired to understand them. I am not trying to be confrontational or be an ass or anything like that. But if you think this country couldnt figure out how to put a nuclear bomb on a non nuclear rated aircraft in a matter of hours you are smoking crack. |
|
Originally Posted By Keekleberrys: I am not trying to be confrontational or be an ass or anything like that. But if you think this country couldnt figure out how to put a nuclear bomb on a non nuclear rated aircraft in a matter of hours you are smoking crack. I'm pretty familiar with what is required to drop a nuclear weapon from an aircraft. This is me actually doing it up at Tonopah on the Sandia test range back in 2001. Or maybe I just hallucinated doing it while I was smoking crack. Attached File |
|
Originally Posted By MudEagle: I'm pretty familiar with what is required to drop a nuclear weapon from an aircraft. This is me actually doing it up at Tonopah on the Sandia test range back in 2001. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/470117/NucWSEP_2_jpg-3830486.JPG its 2026, and the technology has not changed at all. |
|
Originally Posted By MudEagle: Good to know. The rest of the system that ultimately creates those free neutrons does, though. Originally Posted By MudEagle: Originally Posted By Keekleberrys:Neutrons don't care about what version of windows is running on your jet. Good to know. The rest of the system that ultimately creates those free neutrons does, though. Only so much as it interfaces to your jet, it's a purely analog technology. It's trivial to use them once you have them. |
|
Originally Posted By Keekleberrys: Only so much as it interfaces to your jet, it's a purely analog technology. It's trivial to use them once you have them. I would hope any government that builds nuclear weapons takes great pains to secure and harden them against unauthorized use. Not doing so would be a crime against humanity. That being said, in basic form nuclear weapons aren't all that complex. It is just physics, very specific physics but not unknown in the least. I doubt, given modest resources and physical access, any nation state level effort couldn't bypass those safeguards eventually....maybe quickly. Getting the bone back in the star hauling business would require an extensive upgrade program that isn't likely to happen. In a dire national emergency, could we strip PAL systens off weapons and yeet them out of existing B1s.. yeah probably. Moving on. |
|
Originally Posted By MudEagle: I'm pretty familiar with what is required to drop a nuclear weapon from an aircraft. This is me actually doing it up at Tonopah on the Sandia test range back in 2001. Or maybe I just hallucinated doing it while I was smoking crack. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/470117/Tonopah_4_jpg-3830487.JPG   
|
|
Originally Posted By Houstons_Problem: That's a completely satisfying answer to the question that popped in my head after reading the full afterburner news quote. Full afterburner, hmm, I wonder if afterburners can be used at less than full capacity. I figured they could, but now I know, and even have a bit of background as to how that changed over generations of aircraft. However, I remain unconvinced that anyone writing the news story would be able to tell the difference between moderate afterburners and full. I think the newsies just write so it sounds cool. Originally Posted By Houstons_Problem: Originally Posted By MudEagle: Yes, there is a variable range of stages to afterburner in some 3rd gen and all 4th gen and beyond fighters. See that area between where the throttles can be set at MIL (the highest non-afterburner power setting) and MAX (the highest afterburner setting)? Yes....@wildboar "partial afterburner" is possible, and @vmax84 "full afterburner" is a thing, although the correct terminology would be "MIN afterburner" through "MAX afterburner". https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/470117/Screenshot_2026-09-20_at_03_31_03_copy_j-3829978.JPG Full afterburner, hmm, I wonder if afterburners can be used at less than full capacity. I figured they could, but now I know, and even have a bit of background as to how that changed over generations of aircraft. However, I remain unconvinced that anyone writing the news story would be able to tell the difference between moderate afterburners and full. I think the newsies just write so it sounds cool. |
Mach
Nobody is coming to save us.
.
Nobody is coming to save us.
.
|
Originally Posted By Keekleberrys: its 2026, and the technology has not changed at all. Originally Posted By Keekleberrys: Originally Posted By MudEagle: I'm pretty familiar with what is required to drop a nuclear weapon from an aircraft. This is me actually doing it up at Tonopah on the Sandia test range back in 2001. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/470117/NucWSEP_2_jpg-3830486.JPG its 2026, and the technology has not changed at all. Go ahead high speed, keep arguing with SME's who have direct experience and knowledge on what you are mouth breathing about. Keep smacking that keyboard with your Iron Eagle/Top Gun expertise. This is almost as good as the Higgs particle burn. |
|
Originally Posted By Morgan321: im sure it’s hard on the aircraft, but modern detection systems are so much better now that supersonic low altitude penetration is just not a feasible tactic. We moved to stealth for penetration, the jury is still out as to how effective it would be in all out war. No more F-111 
|
|
I am not an expert at anything but I have to believe in my heart of hearts that there are people that could solve this issue in short order if we had to. It may break current protocol or procedures but surely we havent fallen so far as a country that we can no longer solve problems through some Jerry rigging. Also let me add...I am a contractor and use a hammer but that doesnt make me a metalurgist. |
Joined:
Jun 2025
Posts:
3961
EE: 100% (57)
UT, USA
|
Originally Posted By SquatchAv8: And this folks is pure GD in a bottle. Go ahead high speed, keep arguing with SME's who have direct experience and knowledge on what you are mouth breathing about. Keep smacking that keyboard with your Iron Eagle/Top Gun expertise. This is almost as good as the Higgs particle burn.  But I played flight sim! |
|
Wondering what this flight is about. It originated from Andrew's near DC. Attached File Most likely routine normal stuff I know nothing about. |
|
Originally Posted By 9D1Alpha: We have Bluetooth now , we dont need no stinkin wires ... probly. |
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
|
Originally Posted By MudEagle: Strange coincidence how those alien species that evolved in a world somewhere out in the universe just happened to equip their interstellar ship with multicolored lights that human eyes can see and operate in Earth's atmosphere.. |
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
|
Originally Posted By MudEagle: Uh, no. US nuclear weapons are not unlocked, armed, or released (and actually function) without very specific crypto-keyed hardware. Hardware that the B-1 no longer has...and even if it did have what it originally came with, that original hardware is obsolete by now. It has been a couple decades since I went to the Sandia course, but in 1990s-era weapons there were something like 120 operations that had to be executed in order and sequence and in correct timing in order for a nuclear yield to be achieved. There are layer upon layer of "nuclear surety features" which ensure that they are only released by specifically authorized personnel under specifically authorized conditions and circumstances. And, if those features are attempted to be spoofed or bypassed, the weapons very conveniently render themselves quite inert and useless. Good luck with the iPad, though. My whole life is a lie. |
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
|
Originally Posted By Canoeguy: I am not an expert at anything but I have to believe in my heart of hearts that there are people that could solve this issue in short order if we had to. It may break current protocol or procedures but surely we havent fallen so far as a country that we can no longer solve problems through some Jerry rigging. Or, we could just use the hundreds of other actually nuclear-capable aircraft the US has in our operational inventory. Funny how a discussion around a HFGCS broadcast, combined with an ARFCOMer noting that the only aircraft seen in theater was a B-1, mutated into this idea that there's some (desperate?) need to make a BONE deliver a nuclear munition. |
|
Originally Posted By MudEagle: I'm pretty familiar with what is required to drop a nuclear weapon from an aircraft. This is me actually doing it up at Tonopah on the Sandia test range back in 2001. Or maybe I just hallucinated doing it while I was smoking crack. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/470117/Tonopah_4_jpg-3830487.JPG |
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
|
Originally Posted By MudEagle: Or, we could just use the hundreds of other actually nuclear-capable aircraft the US has in our operational inventory. Funny how a discussion around a HFGCS broadcast, combined with an ARFCOMer noting that the only aircraft seen in theater was a B-1, mutated into this idea that there's some (desperate?) need to make a BONE deliver a nuclear munition. Oh I agree that would be a more logical choice, but I didnt realize we were discussing reality. The reality is we arent dropping any nukes anytime soon in my opinion...again I am not an expert at anything but I doubt we will be starting a nuclear war. |