US Air Force successfully test drops NUCLEAR gravity bomb

[Kellhound]

If it's guided isn't it not a gravity bomb? What's the distinction? (I know I'm probably wrong here, going off like 1 minute of wikipedia reading).

You can have a guided gravity bomb, it just means it has no propulsion or aerodynamic lift.

- - - Updated - - -

Correct. It was my understanding that nukes had astronomically too much "BOOM" to begin with. If we wipe out 6 cities, instead of 5, is that really a big issue, considering we have hundreds, if not thousands of these?

The story just strikes me as one of those, "Great but why" kind of military spending programs.

Tactical nukes are not for killing cities.

[Gorgodeus]

So you agree the footage of the MOAB detonating that we've all seen seems a little... underwhelming?

I would not call a bomb blast that extends 1 mile in every direction underwhelming.

[Hammerfest]

Underwhelming how? How big do you think it's supposed to be? I'm not sure how this type of criticism is relevant in anyway. Do you think it's supposed to be a fireworks show?

I expected a much bigger display of concussive and explosive force. This is the biggest conventional explosive bomb in the US arsenal, after all.

- - - Updated - - -

Ah you're that special type of stupid I almost forgot.

An insult is not a rebuttal, just so you know there, genius.

- - - Updated - - -

I would not call a bomb blast that extends 1 mile in every direction underwhelming.

Right, but can you tell that from the footage? I can't. Like I said, the footage seems underwhelming.

[Skroe]

Correct. It was my understanding that nukes had astronomically too much "BOOM" to begin with. If we wipe out 6 cities, instead of 5, is that really a big issue, considering we have hundreds, if not thousands of these?

The story just strikes me as one of those, "Great but why" kind of military spending programs.

Nuclear explosions are big... but not nearly as big as we're lead to believe from popular fiction. But they were big enough that for decades accuracy wasn't really worried about. A 1.2Mt warhead would wipe out an enormous area, regardless of how "accurate" it was, (it had a 200m CEP).

A few pages back I linked a document that said in so many words that doubling a bomb's accuracy increases its destructiove power 8 fold.

To put it simply, the US wants to retire a whole number of nuclear mobs (the B83 City buster, the B61 Mod 4,6,7,10) in order to only pay for the costs of supporting a smaller, modern arsenal. Once the B61 Mod 12 replaces those 5 listed, the US bomb force will consist of the B61 Mod 12, and the B61 Mod 11 (a specialized nuclear bunker buster).

The accuracy of the Mod 12 allows it to be far smaller than it's predecessors. The B61-12 has a dial-a-yield of 0.3, 5, 10 and 50 kilotons. For comparison, Hiroshima was 18 kilotons, India's largest warheads are about 40 kilotons, and the W88 Warheads on a Trident II come in at 475 kilotons.



As you can see, it's a comparatively small bomb, replacing bombs much larger than it, but it's accuracy makes it far more destructive.

The US is also doing something similar to its ICBM and SLBM warheads, an entirely different program.

http://thebulletin.org/how-us-nuclea...ing-super10578

They're building a new type of "superfuse" to enable warheads to detonate detirectly above (instead of simply "near") their targets, typically silos. This will enable a single warhead to destroy a single silo.

Right now most US nuclear bombs and warheads are designed to be used redundantly. The US had 1550 warheads for about 400 Russian targets, because it knows that some of those 1550 warheads will fail (they're always duds), some will be intercepted, but many are targeted at sites that need to be hit multiple times. The B61 Mod 11 nuclear bumker buster for example - if it were ever to be used, the US would bomb the exact same spot multiple times to "dig".

The B61 mod 12 and these superfuses are largely justified on economic grounds. The US will be able to shift from utilizing 3 wahreads per target to 2, because "digging" will be less necessary, if necessary at all, and overall consolidation will allow for a much smaller nuclear force (perhaps below 1000 warheads). This will be far cheaper to maintain.

[Deleted]

Nuclear explosions are big... but not nearly as big as we're lead to believe from popular fiction. But they were big enough that for decades accuracy wasn't really worried about. A 1.2Mt warhead would wipe out an enormous area, regardless of how "accurate" it was, (it had a 200m CEP).

A few pages back I linked a document that said in so many words that doubling a bomb's accuracy increases its destructiove power 8 fold.

To put it simply, the US wants to retire a whole number of nuclear mobs (the B83 City buster, the B61 Mod 4,6,7,10) in order to only pay for the costs of supporting a smaller, modern arsenal. Once the B61 Mod 12 replaces those 5 listed, the US bomb force will consist of the B61 Mod 12, and the B61 Mod 11 (a specialized nuclear bunker buster).

The accuracy of the Mod 12 allows it to be far smaller than it's predecessors. The B61-12 has a dial-a-yield of 0.3, 5, 10 and 50 kilotons. For comparison, Hiroshima was 18 kilotons, India's largest warheads are about 40 kilotons, and the W88 Warheads on a Trident II come in at 475 kilotons.



As you can see, it's a comparatively small bomb, replacing bombs much larger than it, but it's accuracy makes it far more destructive.

The US is also doing something similar to its ICBM and SLBM warheads, an entirely different program.

http://thebulletin.org/how-us-nuclea...ing-super10578

They're building a new type of "superfuse" to enable warheads to detonate detirectly above (instead of simply "near") their targets, typically silos. This will enable a single warhead to destroy a single silo.

Right now most US nuclear bombs and warheads are designed to be used redundantly. The US had 1550 warheads for about 400 Russian targets, because it knows that some of those 1550 warheads will fail (they're always duds), some will be intercepted, but many are targeted at sites that need to be hit multiple times. The B61 Mod 11 nuclear bumker buster for example - if it were ever to be used, the US would bomb the exact same spot multiple times to "dig".

The B61 mod 12 and these superfuses are largely justified on economic grounds. The US will be able to shift from utilizing 3 wahreads per target to 2, because "digging" will be less necessary, if necessary at all, and overall consolidation will allow for a much smaller nuclear force (perhaps below 1000 warheads). This will be far cheaper to maintain.

My god Skroe you were missed a few hugs when small weren't you.

[Skroe]

My god Skroe you were missed a few hugs when small weren't you.

This is why you're not a serious or interesting poster.

My post is actually about nuclear disarmament - smaller explosions and far fewer warheads - and how to get there while still maintaining our nuclear deterence. That is how the US intends to agree to nuclear reductions beyond NewSTART and in line with it's NNPT commitment. How the policy interacts with the history and the technology is interesting stuff. The US is at 1550 weapons. if the intent is to get below 1000, the above is HOW it would do it.

The Navy and Air Force consider the nuclear mission their most important, but they also hate paying for the extreme cost of it. Their ideal world would have as few and as simple systems as possible that cost as little money as possible. There's been some hay about how the USAF is going to build a New ICBM. Often overlooked is how the USAF and USN are looking to unify their rocket designs (for Trident II and whatever replaces Minuteman III) as much as possible... again... to save costs.

If you don't like learning how sausage is made, perhaps you should stick to easier topics. I haven't seen a relationship thread in some time. Maybe start one of those?

[schwarzkopf]

I thought there was an international treaty forbidding above ground nuke testing.

It detonated on ground didn't it ?

[namecraft]

It might not be revolutionary, but it sure is showing Kim power of the US. NK cannot do this, US can, with ease.

Kim Jong un does not know any of this, television and internet is illegal there

[Skroe]

It detonated on ground didn't it ?

It didn't detonate at all. It was a B61 without the warhead.

The advance with the B61 mod 12 isn't the warhead. It's the bomb design / tail fins/ nose / guidance system, which is lifted from the conventional (and famous) JDAM. The advance is that the precision of it allows a small bomb - 50 kilotons max - to be as destructive as a 1.2 megaton bomb free-fall, unguided bomb. A key rationale for the B61 is that it's accuracy will allow the US to retire the B83 Citybuster, our largest bomb, along with 5 other bombs, and have just two bombs in our arsenal - B61-12 and B61-11 (bunker buster). Saves money, has a modern design and is overall smaller in potency.

The Warhead itself reportedly is a re-manufactured B61 mod 7. And this makes total sense: the B61 Mod 7 was tested in prior decades. The design is verified to work. Since the US would never equip itself with an unverified weapon design, but nor does it want to resume nuclear testing at this time, it'll just impliment a verified design, hence the B61 mod 12's warhead being basically an earlier version.

[Deleted]

This is why you're not a serious or interesting poster.

My post is actually about nuclear disarmament - smaller explosions and far fewer warheads - and how to get there while still maintaining our nuclear deterence. That is how the US intends to agree to nuclear reductions beyond NewSTART and in line with it's NNPT commitment. How the policy interacts with the history and the technology is interesting stuff. The US is at 1550 weapons. if the intent is to get below 1000, the above is HOW it would do it.

The Navy and Air Force consider the nuclear mission their most important, but they also hate paying for the extreme cost of it. Their ideal world would have as few and as simple systems as possible that cost as little money as possible. There's been some hay about how the USAF is going to build a New ICBM. Often overlooked is how the USAF and USN are looking to unify their rocket designs (for Trident II and whatever replaces Minuteman III) as much as possible... again... to save costs.

If you don't like learning how sausage is made, perhaps you should stick to easier topics. I haven't seen a relationship thread in some time. Maybe start one of those?

Some of us don't need to overcompensate.

[Skroe]

Some of us don't need to overcompensate.

Are you sure? Pretty much all your posts are bravado and shit talking to paper over staggering ignorance and your lack of caring to do something about that ignorance. I think you could use some overcompensation.

Just my 2 cents.

[Deleted]

Are you sure? Pretty much all your posts are bravado and shit talking to paper over staggering ignorance and your lack of caring to do something about that ignorance. I think you could use some overcompensation.

Just my 2 cents.

Ignorance? You talking about Ignorance? Skroe, you might fool the random costinr from romania, but do you seriously think that anyone able to actually read something, and not only look at the pretty words isn't going to be shocked by the generic amount of blandness coming out of your mouth?
I guess you do know about big big rockets though. I'll give you that.

[Skroe]

Ignorance? You talking about Ignorance? Skroe, you might fool the random costinr from romania, but do you seriously think that anyone able to actually read something, and not only look at the pretty words isn't going to be shocked by the generic amount of blandness coming out of your mouth?
I guess you do know about big big rockets though. I'll give you that.

Uh-huh. You're legitimately the first person on this forum to ever call my writing "bland" lmao.

Oh well, you're entitled to your opinion, even if it comes from somebody whose particularly uncreative anti-American rants say the same thing every time.

You don't like us and think we're a menace to the world. Nobody cares. We're not going anywhere. Scram.

[Zoibert the Bear]

Oh, good ol' yellow journalism...

Paper: Preparing for WAR? US Air Force successfully test drops NUCLEAR gravity bomb

Reality: US Air Force drops empty shell from a plane and manage to hit the Earth

[Deleted]

But the title says nuclear in all caps! Who do I believe!

Online media, fake news.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, good ol' yellow journalism...

Paper: Preparing for WAR? US Air Force successfully test drops NUCLEAR gravity bomb

Reality: US Air Force drops empty shell from a plain and manage to hit the Earth

That's far less exciting, and earns 100% less clicks.

[Deleted]

Uh-huh. You're legitimately the first person on this forum to ever call my writing "bland" lmao.

Oh well, you're entitled to your opinion, even if it comes from somebody whose particularly uncreative anti-American rants say the same thing every time.

You don't like us and think we're a menace to the world. Nobody cares. We're not going anywhere. Scram.

Your writing? Oh No, your writing is rich. Your ideas are bland. Generic. Already heard. "We've been messing in the middle east since 2000 only", "the 1300 years old war between Sunni and Shia".... these are bland generic pub opinions thrown in at random, embellished by a few precious words and researched terminologies. Simply put, a polished turd.
And the example is right here, for everyone to see. You're accusing me of being anti American, even if I clearly stated I'm not anti America, I'm anti YOU. YOU being the worst America can offer to the world. The America of the nuclear testing on its own grounds at the health coast of its own people, of the decades running mkultra, of the wacko foreign policies.
Your, bland and generic attempt at creating a group to fit me in is just that. Bland and generic. Nothing new. You're definitely going to impress costinr from romania, you're going to impress a few people, mostly forum dwellers, but you're not going to make a valid point against anyone able to read through the polished writing if you keep using such bland, generic points.

[Deleted]

You do understand that the US is trying to make their nukes smaller and fewer in numbers?

Aww thank you <3

[Tijuana]

Nuclear explosions are big... but not nearly as big as we're lead to believe from popular fiction. But they were big enough that for decades accuracy wasn't really worried about. A 1.2Mt warhead would wipe out an enormous area, regardless of how "accurate" it was, (it had a 200m CEP).

A few pages back I linked a document that said in so many words that doubling a bomb's accuracy increases its destructiove power 8 fold.

To put it simply, the US wants to retire a whole number of nuclear mobs (the B83 City buster, the B61 Mod 4,6,7,10) in order to only pay for the costs of supporting a smaller, modern arsenal. Once the B61 Mod 12 replaces those 5 listed, the US bomb force will consist of the B61 Mod 12, and the B61 Mod 11 (a specialized nuclear bunker buster).

The accuracy of the Mod 12 allows it to be far smaller than it's predecessors. The B61-12 has a dial-a-yield of 0.3, 5, 10 and 50 kilotons. For comparison, Hiroshima was 18 kilotons, India's largest warheads are about 40 kilotons, and the W88 Warheads on a Trident II come in at 475 kilotons.



As you can see, it's a comparatively small bomb, replacing bombs much larger than it, but it's accuracy makes it far more destructive.

The US is also doing something similar to its ICBM and SLBM warheads, an entirely different program.

http://thebulletin.org/how-us-nuclea...ing-super10578

They're building a new type of "superfuse" to enable warheads to detonate detirectly above (instead of simply "near") their targets, typically silos. This will enable a single warhead to destroy a single silo.

Right now most US nuclear bombs and warheads are designed to be used redundantly. The US had 1550 warheads for about 400 Russian targets, because it knows that some of those 1550 warheads will fail (they're always duds), some will be intercepted, but many are targeted at sites that need to be hit multiple times. The B61 Mod 11 nuclear bumker buster for example - if it were ever to be used, the US would bomb the exact same spot multiple times to "dig".

The B61 mod 12 and these superfuses are largely justified on economic grounds. The US will be able to shift from utilizing 3 wahreads per target to 2, because "digging" will be less necessary, if necessary at all, and overall consolidation will allow for a much smaller nuclear force (perhaps below 1000 warheads). This will be far cheaper to maintain.

In other words, we have spent billions to make nukes smaller, and less destructive? Gee, no waste of money there, right? Who is the genius that figured that one out? Jocelyn Elders?

[Triggered Fridgekin]

Slightly OT but I keep hearing about NK saber rattling vs US chest trumping with China and Russian clinging underneath like it's Cape Fear but what do the South Koreans think about all of this?

Seems like they'd be the ones with the least to gain and most to lose should anything happen.

[Gorgodeus]

In other words, we have spent billions to make nukes smaller, and less destructive? Gee, no waste of money there, right? Who is the genius that figured that one out? Jocelyn Elders?

If doing so allows the US to eliminate the cost of maintaining 500-600 warheads and their launch vehicles, the cost is well worth it.