The US Air Force has a new atomic bomb carrier

The US Air Force has a new atomic bomb carrier

The US Air Force replenished with another aircraft capable of using the B61-12 atomic bomb. According to the Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) press service, the F-15E Strike Eagle fighter-bomber passed the final tests for the use of the atomic bomb.


In a recent test, the F-15E aircraft at the Tonopah test site in Nevada successfully applied an atomic bomb training prototype without any nuclear components. The discharge was carried out from a height of about 7 m. Based on the test results, it was concluded that the B600-61 atomic bomb was fully compatible with the F-12E Strike Eagle.

This test was the last in a series of tests designed to show the compatibility of the restored B61-12 bombs with the F-15E Strike Eagle combat aircraft. Functioning B61-12 worked out at all stages of application, the developers are "absolutely sure" of the compatibility of the bomb with the F-15E

- said in a statement.

It is also specified that the tests for compatibility of the atomic bomb with the F-15E fighter are one of the main components for extending the life of the B61-12 by 20 years.

Earlier it was reported that in August last year, tests were conducted in Nevada on the use of the B61-12 atomic bomb from an F-15E aircraft. Also, this fighter was seen with a mock atomic bomb during the Red Flag exercises in Nevada.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

15 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. swnvaleria 9 June 2020 09: 29 New
    • 3
    • 12
    -9
    atomic bombs? this was true until the 60s, now you can’t intercept missiles, not a single technically developed country will allow such a bomb to be delivered to its borders
    1. URAL72 9 June 2020 09: 46 New
      • 12
      • 0
      +12
      Missiles are good for a first strike. And then there will be enough holes in the air defense system. Bombs are still cheaper, but expensive enough to not only be discarded, but also disposed of. They have a much longer shelf life than rockets. So while they are suitable for use, you need to have both delivery vehicles and application plans.
      1. novel66 9 June 2020 09: 48 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        absolutely! reset easier
      2. stalki 9 June 2020 11: 14 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Missiles are good for a first strike. And then there will be enough holes in the air defense system. Bombs are still cheaper, but expensive enough to not only be discarded, but also disposed of. They have a much longer shelf life than rockets. So while they are suitable for use, you need to have both delivery vehicles and application plans.
        Holes will be in both air defense systems. And in a row whether the airfields survive. If, of course, these are not countries of the 3rd world, then yes, your option will work hi
        1. URAL72 9 June 2020 12: 14 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          You do not know much about military affairs. In the event of a serious war, aircraft will be dispersed. There are specially prepared sections of routes, and our tactical aviation was originally designed with the possibility of basing on field airfields. Even the IL-76 is able to take off from the ground. So, - intelligence, air defense, rear (supply), = survival of aviation and other military branches.
          1. stalki 9 June 2020 13: 24 New
            • 0
            • 3
            -3
            In case of serious troubles, there will be no one to take off. And this is not a fantasy in the absence of "knowledge of military affairs", just a logical understanding of the development of events. Hypothetically, two nuclear powers capable of setting up a triad will not leave anything on this ball. Therefore, there is a right to be only one option. With countries of the 3rd world. Which are unable to give an equivalent answer.
    2. vvvjak 9 June 2020 10: 03 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: swnvaleria
      this was true until the 60s

      In any case, the doctrine of strategic nuclear forces must take into account the presence of more than 200 additional nuclear weapons carriers.
    3. Starover_Z 9 June 2020 10: 09 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Another "bandwagon" for Russia. Bombs of this type seem to be available in European warehouses in the United States. F-15 is also not uncommon here .... Hrenovenko ...
      1. EXPrompt 9 June 2020 15: 03 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        Quote: Starover_Z
        Another "bandwagon" for Russia. Bombs of this type seem to be available in European warehouses in the United States. F-15 is also not uncommon here .... Hrenovenko ...

        To whom is the bandwagon is a big question ..
        Do you think that they, from a good life, on old F15s catch on 61-12?
        They now have extremely limited strategic aviation; there are already few aircraft left. B2 there are simply few of them, B1-B are extremely worn out and a lot of them have already been written off. B52 is already outright rubbish, which of course can break through the air defense of Paraguay, but the Russian Federation is unlikely. .
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. The comment was deleted.
    6. EXPrompt 9 June 2020 15: 07 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: swnvaleria
      atomic bombs? this was true until the 60s, now you can’t intercept missiles, not a single technically developed country will allow such a bomb to be delivered to its borders

      And the United States has such a doctrine ... To kill survivors of a nuclear strike with nuclear submarines and intercontinentalcocks, already free-falling bombs .. They hope to knock out all the air defense at once.
      And it's stupidly cheaper ..

      Whether this is realistic is an interesting question.
    7. smoltish 9 June 2020 19: 51 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Missiles and bombs have different purposes. Bombs are still relevant. Not all cases will require ICBMs and the Kyrgyz Republic. And in some cases, ICBMs and KRs cannot be used at all where a bomb can be used.
  2. novel66 9 June 2020 09: 46 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    it would be strange - the main attack aircraft without this bauble
  3. knn54 9 June 2020 10: 02 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    B61-12-12, homing.
  4. Old26 9 June 2020 13: 50 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Quote: vvvjak
    In any case, the doctrine of strategic nuclear forces must take into account the presence of more than 200 additional nuclear weapons carriers.

    And what, the F-15E has already become a strategist, since you plan to take it into account in the ceilings of the strategic nuclear forces?

    Quote: Starover_Z
    Another "bandwagon" for Russia. Bombs of this type seem to be available in European warehouses in the United States. F-15 is also not uncommon here .... Hrenovenko ...

    Not yet. It is with this modification of the bomb that they plan to replace those that are now in warehouses in Europe.
  5. The comment was deleted.
  6. Ham
    Ham 10 June 2020 06: 22 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    when it’s impossible to cut something technically advanced, they begin to sculpt a substitute ...
    transport bombers ... atomic bombs on fighter jets ...