Thought the F-117's were all headed for museums or the boneyard? Well, Think Again...

This may very well be an global adjustment of defense on the part of the U.S. and it's Pacific allies. The Japanese just changed the status of their defense agency to that of a ministry. We appear to be positioned, globally, in a manner to counter potential nuclear threats in an effort to retain control of vital regions.

The following tells me that North Korea is testing the nuclear bomb to use against South Korea and if North Korea does hit South Korea the US will intervene.

General B.B. Bell, the commander of US forces in South Korea, said Tuesday he believes North Korea will test a second nuclear bomb at some time in the future, following its first test on October 9.

"Should North Korea attack the South in any way, the combined forces command will respond and we will win quickly and we will win decisively," he said.

Bell heads 29,000 US troops in the peninsula, supporting South Korea's 680,000-strong armed forces against any attack from the North's 1.1 million military.

www.defencetalk.com...

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Infact a quick peak at the Gunsan AFB(again presuming this is the same as Kunsan) on Google Earth: 35 deg 54' N 126 deg 36' E will reveal aircraft hangar structures very similar(if not the very same) to those in Pics 4 and 5.

Yes, Gunsan and Kunsan are the same place.

Originally posted by gfad
Could the deployment of 12 F-22s to Okinawa have anything to do with the deployment of the F-117s to South Korea?

In a word... Yes.

It has everything to do with it.

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by kilcoo316
The B-2 has deployed to another country?!? When/Where did that happen?

I know both have done airshows before, but I didn't know of any actual exersizes

Ok I got carried away there for a second, while not an independent country per se the B-2 has deployed to Diego Garcia under wartime conditions and have traveled to the UK for RIAT several times.

Except for that all the other things I listed about the two AC are correct.

When was the B2 deployed to Diego Garcia ? As far as my informtaion says it has never been deployed outside the US. All missions are conducted directly from Whiteman AFB, Missouri, using tanker support. ONly B1's and B-52's fly from Diego Garcia.
Also Diego Garcia is a British Protectorate not a US one.

Originally posted by rogue1
When was the B2 deployed to Diego Garcia ? As far as my informtaion says it has never been deployed outside the US. All missions are conducted directly from Whiteman AFB, Missouri, using tanker support. ONly B1's and B-52's fly from Diego Garcia.
Also Diego Garcia is a British Protectorate not a US one.

In March of 2003 there were 4 B-2's deployed at Diego Garcia.
They were housed in special hangars built especially for them -- their mission of course was to support Operation Iraqi Freedom as it was called then.
I know one of the aircraft was the Spirit of Mississippi, I don't know the names of the others.

Natalie~




[edit on 1-11-2007 by intelgurl]

While it was only a quick crew change, the B-2 stopped over in Darwin, Australia as well.

B-2 in Aus

Willard thanks for that article, never heard about that event before.

Also, to add to what Intelgurl was saying.

On March 21st, 2003 at least three B-2 bombers were launched from Diego Garcia to bomb Baghdad during Operation Iraqi Freedom. The B-2's operating from DG at that time were Spirit Of Mississippi (98-21071), Spirit Of Georgia (98-90129), Spirit Of Florida (99-31085) and (99-31087) Spirit Of Pennsylvania.

[edit on 10-1-2007 by WestPoint23]

haha.. somehow my google earth pics of Gunsan are whitewashed!
They were ok yest when I uploaded em and posted here..
Maybe I stepped on some DoD toes? ..
Apologies if so..

It seems that the place from which I accessed the site early today had a proxy firewall that blocked personal storage sites and hence the pics turned up blank when I accessed the thread from there!
Jumped the gun on that on I did!
Anyways; I trust the nighthawks are secure at Kunsan.
as we were...
What about my questions on the N-capability of the F-117,F-22 and F-35?

Originally posted by Daedalus3
What about my questions on the N-capability of the F-117,F-22 and F-35?

Don't know about the F-117, there are contradicting reports. But personally I can't see why the USAF would choose not to make it nuclear capable when virtually all of our other A/C have such capability.

As for the F-22 and future F-35, well, in due time I don't see why not. They might be limited in what they can carry internally and might sacrifice some of their LO features to carry a nuclear weapon but I suspect the USAF will make it's premier next generation fighters nuclear capable as we begin retiring our legacy A/C.

[edit on 11-1-2007 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by Daedalus3
The nighthawk not N-capable aye? interesting..

I assume the N stands for Nuclear, correct?

If that is the case, then Yes, the Nighthawk does have tactical nuclear capibilities. If needed a pair of B-61 free-fall nuclear bombs could be put in the weapon bays of the aircraft.

However, I also need to point out that the F-117 have never been assign a role involving nuclear strike, and the planes have never carried nukes operationally. However, the Capibility for nuclear weapons is there.

Tim

Daedalus,

TAB-V = Theater Air Base Vulnerability

A mid-60s period study which 'suddenly' discovered that sitting in the middle of a nuclear warzone with a 12-15,000ft runway and satellites overhead was not such a good idea both for aircraft sheltering and all the support functions housed on said field.

The TAB-V HAS was among the protective improvements implemented (which is why it is rounded like an arch instead of square like a barn) as a result.

www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...

>>
Pardon my ignorance but this 'ex-victor' installation is a security design concept? Or another hangar formation?
>>

Victor Alert aircraft were those kept on permanent cocked-and-locked (PAL on bomb) nuclear launch status on a restricted hardstand with it's own shelters and fuel behind a separate fenced enclosure within the existing base complex. It was more to secure the weapons igloos from all but a select group of weaponeers and pilots (I'm not sure but that even basic maintenance didn't actually go on outside the shelter area with aircraft rotated in and out) as a guard against sabotage than anything related to direct physical security.

If you were inside the fence (which was under camera and always run on a 2-man privelege watched over by nuke-trained SPs when an armed aircraft was in-situ) you either belonged or were in a HUGE amount of trouble.

>>
On a separate note, correct me if I'm wrong but the USAF has never really concentrated much on designing a/c(and thus the involved flight tactics)that serve as N capable fighter-bombers. Its always been more of a cruise/ballistic and pure bomber approach aye?
>>

Wellllll. No. Not really. While a wide range of aircraft undertook the nuclear mission, the best were always specialist types and included the B-57, 105 and 111. It should also be noted that a lot of the theater nuclear mission was in fact a SAC one, especially early on, with the B-47.

>>
On second thoughts the B-61 has been configured for almost every major USAF fighter as well :F-104,A-4,A-6,A-7,F-15 variants and F 18 variants..

Question though: Was it ever configured for the F 14 Tomcat and is it presumably configured for the F-22 and F-35(internal bays)?
Maybe a problem of it being too large for internal stores and thus a stealth compromise for the F-22 & F-35 ?
Does it fit ok into the bay of the F117?
>>

To my knowledge, the Tomcat was never nuclear roled, simply because the early specialist racks were never procured and the later BRU-32 came online only after the nuclear-air mission had largely left the Navy. The F-14 was such a maintenance hag to keep flying in the FADF mission set that there frankly wasn't much interest in 'other missions'. Part of what killed it no doubt.

Depending on variant, the B-61 is about 11.2 to 11.75ft long with a 22.5" wingspan. Comparitively, the GBU-32 is about 10ft long with a 19.6" wingspan (though, at 715-800lbs, the B61 is nearly 500lbs lighter in all variants).

Clearance from the F-22 is going to be iffy IMO, while on the F-35 and F-117 fit and release should be fine such that it's going to be more about the AMAC or 'Aircraft Monitoring And Control' equipment which is more or less a strippable databus system specifically designed for compatibility with one of the 5, 6 or 12 digit coded arming sequencers known as 'CAT B/D/F PAL' or Permissive Action Link. This particular interface is crucial to the powerup and arming of the weapons and while my knowledge is dated (they may be using something closer to the 1760 now) without it in place, the weapons simply _will not_ be droppable as anything more than inert. Everything with PAL compliance either onboard or 'possible' has to be declared and that gets you into trouble with a whole bunch of treaties even now that Stealth is out of the black.

As with so many other things dumb and dumberer in the USAF nuclear mission, I have never figured out why the graduation from penetrating tacair to strategic standoff (CM) weapons platform role allocation has been demarcated by the stupidity of using ballistic ordnance on the former and very high DAYs on the latter.

If you need a nuclear penetrator 'outside of war' conditions (i.e. against a rogue state) it had jolly well better contribute to the problem by being shot down getting to the target area and the SRAM was the best nuke we ever had for ensuring that with _superb_ inertial accuracies, even in the analog gyro days of the AGM-69.

With the AGM-131B SRAM-T we would have had a followon weapons system that made almost any aircraft tasked with nuclear delivery more survivable by standoff than a stealth is by reduced RCS with ballistic laydowns.

Add this the WX plus flashover worries of an IRADS-as-ARBS delivery approach in Korean winter weather and there is simply no excuse for employing a radarless Nighthawk as a nuclear laydown platform, IMO. Ballistic is as ballistic is and without the standoff of the F-22, you can't even ensure random approach options to a given delivery basket (as dictated by target terrain, nearby civillian centers, ingress defenses etc.).


KPl.

intelgirl your source is absolutely right, it is a show of force that we can potentiallly use if nessessary. the 4 i worry about is iran , venezuella, and korea and cuba. for now, the others will show themselves later when the domminos fall.

Oops question answered.

[edit on 1/14/2007 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by ch1466
Frankly, if I wanted to smack the Koreans around and show them exactly HOW LITTLE of the world 'paid heed' to their ego games, I would do the same thing to them as was done to Vietnam:

1. Mine The Harbors Shut.
2. Cut Every Bridge Into China.

Let the bastards starve completely.

What the hell?

Sorry, do you support the idea of killing innocent people? North Korea does have some food resources, thus the military and Kim will till eat. Only the innocent people who have no power will starve. Let's be honest, you're as sick as Kim if you support starving innocent people.

That's without taking into account the fact China owns those bridges as well. Bombing something they own won't result in a backlash in the slightest oh no it won't. Look at me as a I place my head in the sand.