...wherein they have specific models/lots of the aircraft that are designated nuclear capable, rather than the whole production run?

 

Doesn't it make more sense to enable all aircraft to be configured so (proper pylon equipment, proper wiring, etc) ?

 

Seems like an ideal system would be to have all aircraft nuke capable, but the software that interfaces and controls the weapon for arming and launch is only installed when the aircraft are actually readied (heaven forbid) for a nuclear sortie.

Seems like that would be more than sufficient an initial failsafe: plane is equipped to haul the nukes, but can't fully arm and deploy them without the software (and maybe some minor hardware tweaks).

 

Wouldn't that lessen any chance that a given nation's nuclear strike arm isn't specifically targetted whilst leaving the non-nuke capable aircraft as lower priority targets?

 

Is this USAF and USN policy as well: only configure certain models of aircraft as nuke capable?

Most books I've seen over the years suggest that the majority of US tactical aircraft can carry and deploy (authorization required, of course) tactical nukes, not requiring aircraft to be specifically tailored or built to do so.

It's my understanding (and Bluewings can correct me on this) that the Rafale N is a modified version of the strike aircraft rigged to carry the ramjet ASMP nuclear tipped cruise missile.  It, no doubt, has some addtional rad hardening for the nuclear combat role and is set up with extra fuel for the longer range mission requirements.  It is slated to take over from the N version of Mirage for the Force De Frappe.

 

The USAF and USN can rig any of the F series to carry tactical nuclear weapons but the strategic role is left to ACC.  The Air Combat Command (former SAC) force of bombers are outfitted to carry the heavy stuff, free fall nukes and cruise missiles.  The Buff, Bone and Spirit are set up with rad hardening and C3 for strategic nuclear combat. 

Glad you clarified this issue.

 

This is does not bode well for Raphale in the export market. Reduce domestic orders is bound to drive up unit costs   Since the French are delaying the decision to build another carrier you can figure that they will delay or reduce the buy of M model Raphales.

Interesting aside about the Rafale M.  The first nine Rafale Ms, which were F1 standard and equipped Flotille 12F on the CdG, have been mothballed rather than upgrade them to the F2 standard.  Flotille 12F now has 12 new Rafale M built to the F2 standard, and since there is only one (well, presently none active) carrier, there is no urgent need for more aircraft.  Production of Rafale Ms is continuing and 12F will have its full strength of 16 new Rafale Ms in time for CdG's scheduled return to service.

It's still an interesting choice to mothball those "older" F1s.  The first was delivered in 2000 I believe, the last in 2004.

Hmmm, maybe France could offer those mothballed F1s to India for free, if they choose Rafale under mig-21 replacement contract?

 

Hell, they've even flown over the Indian Ocean already on operational deployment, so they are no stranger.

 

Re: French carrier down time... maybe the US could lend-lease one for 2 yrs as needs may be?  Would be a fair gesture for a NATO and historic partner, while keeping the Flotille solvent, imo.

 

and Bluewings.. it's not that nations today are not as wealthy (they are wealthier than ever, in mankinds existence)... just  the ungodly infrastructure is most expensive to uphold and with unprecedented wealth transferred to a most demanding, plump mankind, the required 'services' and upkeep demanded henceforth strains the richest of the rich states and challenges the greatest of democracies.

Whats interesting is the different directions of the Royal Navy and French Navy. The RN by committing to two new carriers and F-35s is seeking further integration with and influence in USN operations. The French Navy is essentially accepting a single carrier navy with an emphasis on the Med and areas immediately surrounding France. BOTH navies are also essentially acknowledging that the USN will control the worlds oceans and choke points for the next 50 to 100 years at least.

-DA

WIthe a focus on the Med France really wouldn't need a carrier would it?

 

Sarkozy pushes Mediterranean Union  Mediterranean Union