optimum nuke size?
Andrew Niese
having the highest yield isn't always worth the weight/size/cost of the
warhead.
I'm guessing 500kt to 2 MT.
-----------------------------------------
Fresh Software
http://fs.arez.com
Derek
news:385551B8...@arez.com...
> What is the optimum size of a thermonuclear weapon? I know that the
> having the highest yield isn't always worth the weight/size/cost of the
> warhead.
I think the 475kt warhead on Trident II missiles would represent what the US
thinks. It's our "pride and joy" warhead. The W-88 I think.
tnt tnt
>What is the optimum size of a thermonuclear
>weapon? I know that the having the highest
>yield isn't always worth the weight/size/cost of
>the warhead.
>I'm guessing 500kt to 2 MT.
That would be determined by what you would want to use it for,
(city, hardened silo, EMP,etc.) and how you'd want to deliver it
(bomber, cruise missle, ICBM). Most modern weapons have more accurate
delivery systems than the older ones, and don't require the multimegaton
yields the older ones did. Missles require lighter weight and more
compact warheads than bombs, although some more modern missles have
greater "throw weight" in addition to greater accuracy, allowing MIRV
(Multiple Independently targeted Reentry Vehicle) capability. It's a
complicated technical issue that is pretty well covered at the FAS
(Federation of American Scientists) site, High Energy Weapons Archive,
among others.
Pluto
Jussi I Jaatinen
>What is the optimum size of a thermonuclear weapon? I know that the
>having the highest yield isn't always worth the weight/size/cost of the
>warhead.
That depends dramatically on what you plan to do with it, and how accurate
your missile/bomber/truck is. The British and French have installed warheads
of about 100kt yield, the US 450kt, and the Russians 550 to 750kt. (ICBM/SLBM
warheads, "tactical" ones are different)
The higher yield/weight ratio bombs of today usually involve a high fission
fraction, which translates to larger radioactive fallout, which leads to an
interesting thought considering the chemical nature of these
weapons. (increasing the fission fraction to deliberately create a more lethal
fallout)
-JJ
--
Mr. Jussi Jaatinen I "And they looked upon the World, and behold!
jija...@cc.helsinki.fi I they saw that its many hurts were healed,
I and it was complete to the last and
I smallest."
Andrew Niese
- Russia wants to lay waste to southern californian cities with ICBM's.
- A B52 wants to drop several bombs on China.
tnt tnt wrote:
> Andrew Niese said
>
> >What is the optimum size of a thermonuclear
> >weapon? I know that the having the highest
> >yield isn't always worth the weight/size/cost of
> >the warhead.
> >I'm guessing 500kt to 2 MT.
>
> That would be determined by what you would want to use it for,
> (city, hardened silo, EMP,etc.) and how you'd want to deliver it
> (bomber, cruise missle, ICBM). Most modern weapons have more accurate
> delivery systems than the older ones, and don't require the multimegaton
> yields the older ones did. Missles require lighter weight and more
> compact warheads than bombs, although some more modern missles have
> greater "throw weight" in addition to greater accuracy, allowing MIRV
> (Multiple Independently targeted Reentry Vehicle) capability. It's a
> complicated technical issue that is pretty well covered at the FAS
> (Federation of American Scientists) site, High Energy Weapons Archive,
> among others.
>
> Pluto
--
-----------------------------------------
Fresh Software
fr...@arez.com
http://www.arez.com/fs
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
>Here are some scenarioes:
>
>- Russia wants to lay waste to southern californian cities with ICBM's.
>- A B52 wants to drop several bombs on China.
>
weapons, for more total coverage and "insurance" in case of a falure ofa
any one weapon. I've gotten the impression that the 300-500KT size is a
good compromise of yeild/wieght for a delivery vehicle. However,
something like a bomber has volume and weapon package issues over simple
wieght so a load of SRAMs or Cruise missles might give more coverage than
a few even very large gravity bombs.
edg...@my-deja.com
Mod-3s left in their inventory? I read somewhere that these carry a
single 20-26MT warhead. Anyone else heard this?
Also, isn't the USN gradually replacing the 475kt W-88s on all the
Trident II D-5s, with 100kt W-76s?
While we're on it, is it true that under the upcoming strategic arms
reductions, that all the MGM-188 "Peacekeepers" are going to be
decommissioned and their W-88 warheads placed on top of 3-MIRVd
Minuteman III-B rounds? What is the estimated yield on these?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Joseph S. Powell, III
Vorlons, you'll need a 500mt yield.
But in reality, does anyone know the highest yield theoretically possible
for, say, an aircraft deliverable device? (not counting the actual 50 mt
bomb dropped by the Russians way back when).
Jussi I Jaatinen wrote in message <834v6b$pu1$1...@sirppi.helsinki.fi>...
>In <385551B8...@arez.com> Andrew Niese <ic...@arez.com> writes:
>
>>What is the optimum size of a thermonuclear weapon? I know that the
>>having the highest yield isn't always worth the weight/size/cost of the
>>warhead.
>
Carey Sublette
says...
> In article <38569CD1...@arez.com>, Andrew Niese <ic...@arez.com> wrote:
> >Here are some scenarioes:
> >
> >- Russia wants to lay waste to southern californian cities with ICBM's.
> >- A B52 wants to drop several bombs on China.
> >
> If I were doing the planning, I'd opt for more small to medium size
> weapons, for more total coverage and "insurance" in case of a falure ofa
> any one weapon. I've gotten the impression that the 300-500KT size is a
> good compromise of yeild/wieght for a delivery vehicle. However,
> something like a bomber has volume and weapon package issues over simple
> wieght so a load of SRAMs or Cruise missles might give more coverage than
> a few even very large gravity bombs.
>
> >>
> >> >weapon? I know that the having the highest
> >> >yield isn't always worth the weight/size/cost of
> >> >the warhead.
> >>
> >> That would be determined by what you would want to use it for,
> >> (city, hardened silo, EMP,etc.) and how you'd want to deliver it
> >> (bomber, cruise missle, ICBM).
It depends on what parameter you are optimizing for. E.g.:
1. maximum area of blast destruction for a given weight?
2. maximum area of blast destruction for a given warhead cost?
3. maximum area of lethal fallout for a given weight?
And so on.
In general it appears that there is a practical limit to achievable
yield-to-weight ratios. Ted Taylor says this is about 6 kt/kg (which
accords with available info about actual U.S. tests). There is
information indicating that YTWRs of up to 9 kt/kg might be achievable
though (declassified statements about the maximum yield warhead that
could fitted to a Titan missile).
It is easier to reach these practical limits in large warheads, but once
this is reached increasingly sophisticated design allows this same YTWR
to be reached in smaller and smaller warheads. Since the area of blast
destruction increases with the 2/3 power of yield (less than linear),
the optimum warhead size in terms of criteria 1. (above) is the smallest
warhead that reaches this YTWR limit. For the U.S. and Russia this
appears in warheads in the 100 kt range.
Since nuclear warheads are delivered by the most expensive
transportation systems ever devised, the cost of which exceed that of
the warheads they carry, the maximum destruction for a given weight also
means the minimum cost for the system as a whole.
Cheap very large bombs can be built (this was the design approach taken
for the early gigantic 10-15 Mt bombs like the Mk 17) using a minimum of
expensive materials (tritium, plutonium, highly enriched uranium,
lithium-6, in order of decreasing cost by weight). But they don't fit
into current strategic plans, and require very large aircraft as
delivery vehicles.
Maximum lethal fallout area actually favors very large bombs (with
of course very high fission fractions). The high intensity fallout area
increases as a greater-than linear function of yield.
Carey Sublette
Pavel Podvig
Joseph S. Powell, III wrote...
> But in reality, does anyone know the highest yield theoretically possible
> for, say, an aircraft deliverable device? (not counting the actual 50 mt
> bomb dropped by the Russians way back when).
The bomb was, in fact, a 100 MT device, tested at half yield. It was still
"deliverable", although the aircraft was to be modified for the mission (it
was one of a kind Tu-95 Bear bomber).
Paul
Jonathan Rozes
in article <838dvc$ade$1...@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net>:
> If you want to seed an asteroid belt in order to destroy some Shadows &
> Vorlons, you'll need a 500mt yield.
> for, say, an aircraft deliverable device? (not counting the actual 50 mt
> bomb dropped by the Russians way back when).
Given a weight limit of 20,000 kg, ~430 gigatons would be the theoretical
limit. That's assuming a bomb that converts *all* of its matter into
energy. By comparison, a bomb using 15,000 kg of Li-6 Deuteride would
yield "only" ~960 MT. At those yields, there isn't much point in making
the device aircraft-deliverable.
jonathan
--
+++ Jonathan Rozes, System Administrator, Will Vinton Studios
Robert Merrill
>What is the optimum size of a thermonuclear weapon? I know that the
>having the highest yield isn't always worth the weight/size/cost of the
>warhead.
just believe that that is the average.
Robert Merrill
EB Jet
degree of hardening of the target.With a CEP of around 50-100ft,a 500kt weapon
would get the job done on most hard targets.Some though,would almost require a
direct hit,so there is a degree of redundancy in the target plans.Soft targets
such as cities,don't require as much accuracy,therefore are usually targeted by
SLBM's.Since Russia's SLBM's aren't nearly in the class of the D-5 in terms of
accuracy,they use larger warheads to make up for the lack of accuracy.The
SS-18s with the 20+MT warheads are still operational,being targeted for
underground complexes.The Peacekeepers in fact use the W-87 warhead
package,which is hardened against EMP,standard fare for a land based weapon.The
W-88 Trident D-5 is not shielded to the same degree as the W-87,but the weapons
are very similar in most other respects.There are plans to equip the Minuteman
III with the W-87,if the Peacekeepers are withdrawn.
Derek Lyons
>Also, isn't the USN gradually replacing the 475kt W-88s on all the
>Trident II D-5s, with 100kt W-76s?
Not all of the D5's were equipped with W88/MK6's because not enough
were available. From the beginning several were equipped with W76/MK5
warheads. Does your question imply that they are replacing MK6's with
MK5's, or that they are placing W76's in MK6 REBs? (Which would
affect several things, but SMN#1 applies...) (When you are talking
ballistic missile warheads, you must take into account the heat
sheilding as well as the physics package.)
Derek L.
------------------------------
Proprietor, Interim Books http://www.interimbooks.com
USS Henry L. Stimson homepage http://www.hurricane.net/~elde/655.html
Derek on Books http://www.interimbooks.com/derek/books/
------------------------------