6 ms·

Quote "...it does not have any American or Turkish aircraft equipped to deliver them. " What kind of aircraft would be that?

by ccozan 10y ago

valarauca1 10y ago
>it does not have any American or Turkish aircraft equipped to deliver them. This is a lie. B-61's mount on to any NATO MIL-STD-8591 hard point. Any F-15, F-18 can mount and fire B61's without any modification.
- arethuza 10y ago
  Out of interest, at what time is the PAL (presumably a code?) entered in one of these bombs? Is it done in flight or before the weapons are loaded?
  - valarauca1 10y ago
    I don't know to be honest. To speculate the B61 is a dumb bomb. And most photo's of the casing show no plug/contact point for electronics. I'm assuming at take off. When the neutron reflector's distance is set, and the barometric pressure for denotation height is calibrated.
    - arethuza 10y ago
      I wonder if arming of a bomb like that has a time limit - so that it safes itself if not "used" or explicitly deactivated within a particular time period.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - vonmoltke 10y ago
      Yeah, my guess is the bomb is armed and the yield and other parameters set just before the aircraft is set to taxi out for takeoff. Some part of it must be done on the ground, because no US nuclear weapon can be armed by a single person.
    - rtkwe 10y ago
      It wouldn't have to have a port. The US has had radio programmed artillery shells for a long time so using the same tech to set and arm bombs isn't a stretch.
      - valarauca1 10y ago
        >The US has had radio programmed artillery shells These are just proximity fuses. I can find no reference to actual communication with in-flight artillery shells. Furthermore Nuclear Artillery shells were armed when loaded. They were one of the few systems outside of the two-man rule. As a single inferior officer would arm the shell when loading it.
        rtkwe 10y ago
        I didn't mean radio programmed in flight just before they were loaded proximity fuses could be armed and configured via rf.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    '0000'.
    - arethuza 10y ago
      I think it was actually "00000000" ;-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_Action_Link#Development_and_dissemination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_Action_Link#Develop... Edit: Unless you mean that bike locks that the UK used to secure nukes, these days we just trust our submarine crews not to do anything rash.
      - jacquesm 10y ago
        Ah, thank you. Some faulty bits in my memory caused an early nul termination.
        arethuza 10y ago
        As long as there are no premature detonations! ;-)
      - BuildTheRobots 10y ago
        I had no idea - thank you :) >To arm the weapons you just open a panel held by two captive screws - like a battery cover on a radio - using a thumbnail or a coin. >Inside are the arming switch and a series of dials which you can turn with an Allen key to select high yield or low yield, air burst or groundburst and other parameters. >The Bomb is actually armed by inserting a bicycle lock key into the arming switch and turning it through 90 degrees. There is no code which needs to be entered or dual key system to prevent a rogue individual from arming the Bomb. https://web.archive.org/web/20120311235156/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7097101.stm https://web.archive.org/web/20120311235156/http://news.bbc.c... http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4ad_1227686113&comments=1 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4ad_1227686113&comments=1 I like to believe it's the same bike locks that could be defeated with a ballpoint pen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kryptonite_lock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kryptonite_lock
- idlewords 10y ago
  My take was the author meant no aircraft with the range to drop them on Russian targets. The New Yorker is pretty obsessive about fact-checking, so I think calling a statement like this a lie is an uncharitable reading.
  - vonmoltke 10y ago
    If that is what the author meant, that is what the author should have said. "Equipped to deliver" pretty clearly means no aircraft that can load the bomb. At any rate, southern Russia is easily within range of Incirlik.
    - idlewords 10y ago
      You can load the bomb onto a Toyota Hilux; it doesn't mean it's equipped to deliver it.
      - vonmoltke 10y ago
        The Toyota Hilux isn't an aircraft. The B61 is an air-dropped dumb bomb. Any aircraft that can load it and drop it in the air can deliver it. If you didn't care about accuracy you could roll the thing out the back of a C-130 and successfully deliver it. The point is, there is no equipment required to deliver the B61 other than a standard weapons rack with any air-to-ground aircraft has. The only A/G aircraft I am aware of that can't deliver the B61 is the F-22A, and only because the bomb won't fit in the weapons bay.
        sdenton4 10y ago
        I was under the impression that many nuclear bombs had arming mechanisms that required special electronics in the plane. Is that not true for the b61?
        vonmoltke 10y ago
        The B61 is designed to be delivered from any aircraft that can carry Mark 80-series iron bombs. Combined with the two-man rule (which means at least partial arming on the ground for a weapon launched from a single-seat aircraft), this means most of the setup needs to be done on the ground. It may be that the weapon is completely armed at that point, save for a failsafe tied to the rack that keeps the bomb from going off when still attached to the aircraft.
- dingaling 10y ago
  They can mount it but most exported aircraft models lack the firing circuits that initiate the PAL chain.
- jhayward 10y ago
  I have no direct knowledge, but I thought there was special command consent hardware required to arm the bomb. I'd be surprised if nuclear consent capability was standard on every plane. Edit: After some googling I'm surprised to find that they do indeed all seem to have consent controls standard. Not sure what I think about that. I read an Air Force safety standards memo[1] which seemed to confirm that the PAL codes are entered on the ground. [1] http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_se/publication/afi91-111/afi91-111.pdf http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_se/publica...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Shivetya 10y ago
F15s, F16s, and many aircraft that the Navy uses. Still I would think that its high time to get them out of Turkey with the stability of the region in question, let alone the debate on whether or not the coup was staged
- valarauca1 10y ago
  >let alone the debate on whether or not the coup was staged I don't understand why you are being downvoted for this. A decent number of military analysist and Turkish civilians have come to this conclusion. -No government buildings were seized, only bridges and airports. -Normally within the first 30 minutes of a coup a Turkish Military General was on TV directly addressing civilians as to why this had taken place, and what was going to happen. -The past 5 coups took place in <2 hours. -The Turkish Air Force established air superiority over Istanbul but never shot down the president's plane. -Turkish troops weren't equip for crowd control, or even for fighting most were lacking body armor and helmets. -Turkish troops didn't set up fire-hoses, or wear riot gear for crowd control like previous coups. -More Judges have been fired from their posts in Turkey then Military Officers post coup. -Most military units blatantly weren't involved. In the coup or even scrambled to defend against it. Turkey has had 5 successful coups in the past 100 years why did this one differ so extremely from the previous ones? Incompetence is a simple defense, but this is a NATO trained and drilled military. Officers education requires they be able to switch between nations, and officer sharing programs are common. Saying the Turkish military is incompetent is really damning to the whole of NATO, and it's attempts to standardize education/training across member nations.
  - dom1n0 10y ago
    "Saying the Turkish military is incompetent is really damning to the whole of NATO." A determined invader could probably take Europe in 48 hours. The Cold War days of preparedness are gone; just witness the commitment of EU NATO members to ME conflicts; the lack of preparedness in Nice. The train has already begun derailing, one carriage at a time.
    - valarauca1 10y ago

Quote "...it does not have any American or Turkish aircraft equipped to deliver them. " What kind of aircraft would be that?

by ccozan 10y ago

Quote "...it does not have any American or Turkish aircraft equipped to deliver them. " What kind of aircraft would be that?

valarauca1 10y ago

>it does not have any American or Turkish aircraft equipped to deliver them. This is a lie. B-61's mount on to any NATO MIL-STD-8591 hard point. Any F-15, F-18 can mount and fire B61's without any modification.

arethuza 10y ago
Out of interest, at what time is the PAL (presumably a code?) entered in one of these bombs? Is it done in flight or before the weapons are loaded?
- valarauca1 10y ago
  I don't know to be honest. To speculate the B61 is a dumb bomb. And most photo's of the casing show no plug/contact point for electronics. I'm assuming at take off. When the neutron reflector's distance is set, and the barometric pressure for denotation height is calibrated.
  - arethuza 10y ago
    I wonder if arming of a bomb like that has a time limit - so that it safes itself if not "used" or explicitly deactivated within a particular time period.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - vonmoltke 10y ago
    Yeah, my guess is the bomb is armed and the yield and other parameters set just before the aircraft is set to taxi out for takeoff. Some part of it must be done on the ground, because no US nuclear weapon can be armed by a single person.
  - rtkwe 10y ago
    It wouldn't have to have a port. The US has had radio programmed artillery shells for a long time so using the same tech to set and arm bombs isn't a stretch.
    - valarauca1 10y ago
      >The US has had radio programmed artillery shells These are just proximity fuses. I can find no reference to actual communication with in-flight artillery shells. Furthermore Nuclear Artillery shells were armed when loaded. They were one of the few systems outside of the two-man rule. As a single inferior officer would arm the shell when loading it.
      - rtkwe 10y ago
        I didn't mean radio programmed in flight just before they were loaded proximity fuses could be armed and configured via rf.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- jacquesm 10y ago
  '0000'.
  - arethuza 10y ago
    I think it was actually "00000000" ;-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_Action_Link#Development_and_dissemination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_Action_Link#Develop... Edit: Unless you mean that bike locks that the UK used to secure nukes, these days we just trust our submarine crews not to do anything rash.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      Ah, thank you. Some faulty bits in my memory caused an early nul termination.
      - arethuza 10y ago
        As long as there are no premature detonations! ;-)
    - BuildTheRobots 10y ago
      I had no idea - thank you :) >To arm the weapons you just open a panel held by two captive screws - like a battery cover on a radio - using a thumbnail or a coin. >Inside are the arming switch and a series of dials which you can turn with an Allen key to select high yield or low yield, air burst or groundburst and other parameters. >The Bomb is actually armed by inserting a bicycle lock key into the arming switch and turning it through 90 degrees. There is no code which needs to be entered or dual key system to prevent a rogue individual from arming the Bomb. https://web.archive.org/web/20120311235156/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7097101.stm https://web.archive.org/web/20120311235156/http://news.bbc.c... http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4ad_1227686113&comments=1 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4ad_1227686113&comments=1 I like to believe it's the same bike locks that could be defeated with a ballpoint pen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kryptonite_lock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kryptonite_lock
idlewords 10y ago
My take was the author meant no aircraft with the range to drop them on Russian targets. The New Yorker is pretty obsessive about fact-checking, so I think calling a statement like this a lie is an uncharitable reading.
- vonmoltke 10y ago
  If that is what the author meant, that is what the author should have said. "Equipped to deliver" pretty clearly means no aircraft that can load the bomb. At any rate, southern Russia is easily within range of Incirlik.
  - idlewords 10y ago
    You can load the bomb onto a Toyota Hilux; it doesn't mean it's equipped to deliver it.
    - vonmoltke 10y ago
      The Toyota Hilux isn't an aircraft. The B61 is an air-dropped dumb bomb. Any aircraft that can load it and drop it in the air can deliver it. If you didn't care about accuracy you could roll the thing out the back of a C-130 and successfully deliver it. The point is, there is no equipment required to deliver the B61 other than a standard weapons rack with any air-to-ground aircraft has. The only A/G aircraft I am aware of that can't deliver the B61 is the F-22A, and only because the bomb won't fit in the weapons bay.
      - sdenton4 10y ago
        I was under the impression that many nuclear bombs had arming mechanisms that required special electronics in the plane. Is that not true for the b61?
        vonmoltke 10y ago
        The B61 is designed to be delivered from any aircraft that can carry Mark 80-series iron bombs. Combined with the two-man rule (which means at least partial arming on the ground for a weapon launched from a single-seat aircraft), this means most of the setup needs to be done on the ground. It may be that the weapon is completely armed at that point, save for a failsafe tied to the rack that keeps the bomb from going off when still attached to the aircraft.
dingaling 10y ago
They can mount it but most exported aircraft models lack the firing circuits that initiate the PAL chain.
jhayward 10y ago
I have no direct knowledge, but I thought there was special command consent hardware required to arm the bomb. I'd be surprised if nuclear consent capability was standard on every plane. Edit: After some googling I'm surprised to find that they do indeed all seem to have consent controls standard. Not sure what I think about that. I read an Air Force safety standards memo[1] which seemed to confirm that the PAL codes are entered on the ground. [1] http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_se/publication/afi91-111/afi91-111.pdf http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_se/publica...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Shivetya 10y ago

F15s, F16s, and many aircraft that the Navy uses. Still I would think that its high time to get them out of Turkey with the stability of the region in question, let alone the debate on whether or not the coup was staged

valarauca1 10y ago
>let alone the debate on whether or not the coup was staged I don't understand why you are being downvoted for this. A decent number of military analysist and Turkish civilians have come to this conclusion. -No government buildings were seized, only bridges and airports. -Normally within the first 30 minutes of a coup a Turkish Military General was on TV directly addressing civilians as to why this had taken place, and what was going to happen. -The past 5 coups took place in <2 hours. -The Turkish Air Force established air superiority over Istanbul but never shot down the president's plane. -Turkish troops weren't equip for crowd control, or even for fighting most were lacking body armor and helmets. -Turkish troops didn't set up fire-hoses, or wear riot gear for crowd control like previous coups. -More Judges have been fired from their posts in Turkey then Military Officers post coup. -Most military units blatantly weren't involved. In the coup or even scrambled to defend against it. Turkey has had 5 successful coups in the past 100 years why did this one differ so extremely from the previous ones? Incompetence is a simple defense, but this is a NATO trained and drilled military. Officers education requires they be able to switch between nations, and officer sharing programs are common. Saying the Turkish military is incompetent is really damning to the whole of NATO, and it's attempts to standardize education/training across member nations.
- dom1n0 10y ago
  "Saying the Turkish military is incompetent is really damning to the whole of NATO." A determined invader could probably take Europe in 48 hours. The Cold War days of preparedness are gone; just witness the commitment of EU NATO members to ME conflicts; the lack of preparedness in Nice. The train has already begun derailing, one carriage at a time.
  - valarauca1 10y ago