PDA

View Full Version : US's nuclear



ckabusk
01-26-2008, 09:11 PM
http://hypersonics.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/471px-minuteman3launchdotjpg
http://www.ki4u.com/nuclearsurvival/nuke1mapdotgif
http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/maps/usdotjpg
http://www.picture-newsletter.com/nuclear/power-nuclear-plantdotjpg
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7120/images/444660a-i1.0dotjpg
http://www.russiablog.org/BushNuclearPlantVisitdotjpg
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Spartanwarhddotjpg
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/publications/nh/nhpho1dotjpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/images/w88-nytdotjpg
http://www.ananuclear.org/Portals/0/images/warheaddotjpg
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/designs/abwr/images/ABWR-fulldotgif
http://hypersonics.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/untitleddotjpg
http://www.vaniercollege.qc.ca/main/faculnws/deltredici/040_face_of_candudotjpg
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/7/78/Nuclear_weapon_size_chartdotjpg
http://www.sciam.com/media/inline/8B5FD6F8-E7F2-99DF-3349E548E4D3AE3F_10dotjpg
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/us_minuteman_01dotjpg

Alfacentori
01-26-2008, 09:13 PM
.......................................ok

Sloppy Joe2
01-26-2008, 09:16 PM
i love nukes!!

ckabusk
01-26-2008, 09:33 PM
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/mm3-DFST9803326_JPGdotjpg
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/Slide92dotJPG
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/lgm118_7dotjpg
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/mxss_01dotjpg
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/atm-12dotjpg
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/us_nuke_titan1_05dotjpg
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/titan-2_DFST8909618_JPGdotjpg
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/titan-2-DFST8506733dotjpg

ckabusk
01-26-2008, 09:40 PM
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/Slide91dotJPG
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/Image078dotjpg
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/rgmx_04dotjpg
http://meriwi.net/home/modules/Gallery/albums/J_may2005/us_nuke_testingdotjpg

szr
01-26-2008, 09:43 PM
Totally random...but I like it. Got any oldschool pictures of the dudes in spacesuits messing with the missiles from those platforms that fold out inside the silos? I always thought that looked like a cool job, mostly because I had no idea what it actually entailed (still don't). :)

JJC
01-26-2008, 09:51 PM
Very intriguing pictures. The globe with the nuke impacts is creepy.

ckabusk
01-26-2008, 09:51 PM
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/mm3-SITE21dotjpg
http://www.fragilekitty.com/img/blog/bombdotjpg
http://onemansblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/nuketestsitedotjpg
http://www.wipp.energy.gov/science/UG_Lab/gnome/gnome_sectiondotjpg
http://www.wipp.energy.gov/science/UG_Lab/gnome/gnome_cavitydotjpg
http://ndep.nv.gov/boff/flatdotjpg
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/2/28/300px-NTS_test_preparation2dotjpg
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42178000/gif/_42178607_nuclear_testing416x332dotgif
http://dcnr.nv.gov/graphic/nts0702dotjpg

Partial_Panel
01-26-2008, 09:51 PM
It's the end of the world as we know it.....And I feel fine.

A little tired, perhaps. But fine.


(Some cool pics there, though.)

ckabusk
01-26-2008, 10:05 PM
http://www.lanl.gov/history/hbombon/images/JN69386tunneldotjpg
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Oct-26-Sun-2003/photos/complexdotjpg
http://www.thewe.cc/thewei/&_/images7/nuclear_bombs/nuclear_bomb.jpe
http://www.jaysnet.com/666-2005-july27_atomic_bombdotjpg
http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/3770/116308779767990cdfi8dotjpg
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/histories/cv22-independence/indy22-1946bombdotjpg
http://www.wired.com/news/images/full/b61_bomb2_fdotjpg
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/ssbn-726-DNST8201336_JPGdotjpg

ckabusk
01-26-2008, 10:25 PM
http://www.siteselection.com/ssinsider/images/sf040920fdotjpg
http://www.siteselection.com/ssinsider/images/sf040920cdotjpg
http://www.siteselection.com/ssinsider/images/sf040920adotjpg
http://colorado.indymedia.org/files/pic0003026dotjpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2006/060409-nuclear-strikes-iran_telegraphdotjpg
http://amahchewahwah.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/fatmanlittleboydotjpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/232/470637077_b79f9fac65_odotjpg
http://www.strategic-air-command.com/missiles/Aircraft-Launched_Missiles/images/agm-129-assemblydotjpg
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/W87clrdotjpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y125/idahobeef/Damon12/nuclear_plant_security_zonesdotjpg
http://www.lostweekend.tv/5f6e_12dotJPG

Andreas
01-26-2008, 10:37 PM
http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/3770/116308779767990cdfi8dotjpg

This is pretty scary........

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/03/JROppenheimer-LosAlamosdotjpg/200px-JROppenheimer-LosAlamosdotjpg


"If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the mighty one. Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

Tokamak
01-27-2008, 12:07 AM
Nuclear energy and nuclear bombs are pretty amazing things, however I don't like the bombs.

Rakki
01-27-2008, 02:31 AM
...In the old days people found arrowheads, axeheads and broken pottery. Nowadays we find old bunkers, unexploded shells and buried guns.
In a century or two, they'll be digging up god knows what...

Zmey
01-27-2008, 03:43 AM
...
In a century or two, they'll be digging up god knows what...

More pottery, stone axes and arrowheads... :)

Guishin
01-27-2008, 05:56 AM
...In the old days people found arrowheads, axeheads and broken pottery. Nowadays we find old bunkers, unexploded shells and buried guns.
In a century or two, they'll be digging up god knows what...

If there's anyone left to do the digging...:-(

Xaito
01-27-2008, 06:25 AM
Nuclear energy and nuclear bombs are pretty amazing things, however I don't like the bombs.

yeah x2.
Fusion energy is even more interesting - though it can't be used yet and makes the bombs even more scary as seen in the hydrogen-bombs

Somalimafia
01-27-2008, 08:27 AM
A quote from Albert Einstein fits here nicely:

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

Lamer
01-27-2008, 08:43 AM
Nukes = cool
Its like supercars: they are not realy usefull, practical, too expensive, you will probaly never need their power, most of them are downright dangerous to drive, but that is what makes them so awsome.

I would love to see a nuke go off live (from a safe bunker on test site, of course) must be one hell of a sight... the most powerfull thing that man has ever made, a triumf of scince.

Tokamak
01-27-2008, 09:29 AM
yeah x2.
Fusion energy is even more interesting - though it can't be used yet and makes the bombs even more scary as seen in the hydrogen-bombs

This time things were the other way round. The idea of a controlled fusion reaction came after the H bomb was created.
I think that the most powerful thing that mankind is about to create is called ITER, a fusion reactor so complex that is considered our modern Pyramid!.

Shadowstorm
01-27-2008, 02:17 PM
Nice thread. I like to reading about nations WMD programs including nuclear weapons.

Tokamak
01-27-2008, 02:23 PM
I have a couple of articles about nuclear weapons let me gett them. Do you know if I can post articles published on Journals? (Due to copyright and that stuff?)

Sloppy Joe2
01-27-2008, 02:50 PM
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/2109/14799532qf9dotpng (http://imageshack.us)
http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/1728/86828660ss9dotpng (http://imageshack.us)

Owen
01-27-2008, 03:29 PM
Does anyone have any images of the nuclear 16"
projectiles that were designed for the Iowa class
battleships??

n1ck
01-27-2008, 03:45 PM
Sweet thread.

FelixA9
01-27-2008, 03:56 PM
Does anyone have any images of the nuclear 16"
projectiles that were designed for the Iowa class
battleships??

That would be the Mk23 "Katie"

FelixA9
01-27-2008, 04:00 PM
More pottery, stone axes and arrowheads... :)


iPods, Nintendos, and Twinkies.

throwback
01-27-2008, 05:06 PM
http://www.russiablog.org/BushNuclearPlantVisitdotjpg

"Doh, I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night."

Shadowstorm
01-27-2008, 05:11 PM
Does anyone have any images of the nuclear 16"
projectiles that were designed for the Iowa class
battleships??
Even though they made MK-23 nuclear shells for the Iowa class battleships, they never carried the shells.

m.i.t
01-27-2008, 05:26 PM
http://galeri.milliyet.com.tr/2008/1/28Daha_once_gormediginiz_fotograflarla_Hirosima_cehennemi/31dotjpg (http://www.milliyet.com.tr/content/galeri/yeni/goster.asp?prm=0.589163&id=2&galeriid=2710#galeriStart)

hiroshima...

http://galeri.milliyet.com.tr/2008/1/28Daha_once_gormediginiz_fotograflarla_Hirosima_cehennemi/27dotjpg (http://www.milliyet.com.tr/content/galeri/yeni/goster.asp?prm=0.9860932&id=6&galeriid=2710#galeriStart)

little boy...

http://galeri.milliyet.com.tr/2008/1/28Daha_once_gormediginiz_fotograflarla_Hirosima_cehennemi/26dotjpg (http://www.milliyet.com.tr/content/galeri/yeni/goster.asp?prm=0.9860932&id=7&galeriid=2710#galeriStart)http://galeri.milliyet.com.tr/2008/1/28Daha_once_gormediginiz_fotograflarla_Hirosima_cehennemi/26dotjpg (http://www.milliyet.com.tr/content/galeri/yeni/goster.asp?prm=0.9860932&id=7&galeriid=2710#galeriStart)

pics from enola gay ...

http://galeri.milliyet.com.tr/2008/1/28Daha_once_gormediginiz_fotograflarla_Hirosima_cehennemi/22dotjpg (http://www.milliyet.com.tr/content/galeri/yeni/goster.asp?prm=0.9860932&id=11&galeriid=2710#galeriStart)

http://galeri.milliyet.com.tr/2008/1/28Daha_once_gormediginiz_fotograflarla_Hirosima_cehennemi/16dotjpg (http://www.milliyet.com.tr/content/galeri/yeni/goster.asp?prm=0.9860932&id=17&galeriid=2710#galeriStart)

vaporized human body shadow...

http://galeri.milliyet.com.tr/2008/1/28Daha_once_gormediginiz_fotograflarla_Hirosima_cehennemi/15dotjpg (http://www.milliyet.com.tr/content/galeri/yeni/goster.asp?prm=0.9860932&id=18&galeriid=2710#galeriStart)

burned bridge ...fences prevented to burn backwards..

http://galeri.milliyet.com.tr/2008/1/28Daha_once_gormediginiz_fotograflarla_Hirosima_cehennemi/9dotjpg (http://www.milliyet.com.tr/content/galeri/yeni/goster.asp?prm=0.9860932&id=24&galeriid=2710#galeriStart)

Hippo
01-27-2008, 07:54 PM
"Doh, I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night."

I dont get it...can you explain it please?

Jso
01-27-2008, 08:42 PM
Do you have any pictures of the Snuke?

FelixA9
01-27-2008, 08:44 PM
I dont get it...can you explain it please?


Just another Bush-hater trying to be a clown. Move along.

Lt-Col A. Tack
01-27-2008, 08:45 PM
This really is an interesting thread, and although I suspect this thread was intended as a political statement of some kind (nuclear technology is bad, why don't we get rid of it or some such nonsense), there have been some really interesting pictures.

FelixA9
01-27-2008, 08:45 PM
Do you have any pictures of the Snuke?


I think it would turn you to stone if you looked at it.

Shadowstorm
01-27-2008, 08:51 PM
This really is an interesting thread, and although I suspect this thread was intended as a political statement of some kind (nuclear technology is bad, why don't we get rid of it or some such nonsense), there have been some really interesting pictures.
Yeah, I agree. Any technological device has a double edge sword.

cinoeye
01-27-2008, 08:53 PM
Nice topic, but I hate them!

Lt-Col A. Tack
01-27-2008, 08:55 PM
Yeah, I agree. Any technological device has a double edge sword.

I believe the US has been very responsible with its nuclear arsenal.

And for all those who criticize Bush as a warmonger, it might interest them to know that he has done quite a bit to reduce the US stocks of nuclear weapons.

I worry he might be getting rid of too many.

I wish we would have kept the AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missile. There was a picture on the first page, I think.

There's something fascinating about them.

And like Audie said, it's about time to nuke the whales (terrorists!) :)

Shadowstorm
01-27-2008, 09:01 PM
Definitely agree. I see Russia building more while the US is getting smaller. Yeah, to me that is major concern.

FelixA9
01-27-2008, 09:24 PM
Definitely agree. I see Russia building more while the US is getting smaller. Yeah, to me that is major concern.


The only bright spot is that D-5s are still coming off the line- for the moment.

Lt-Col A. Tack
01-27-2008, 09:29 PM
The only bright spot is that D-5s are still coming off the line- for the moment.

Seriously? I didn't know, thanks!

I thought I read somewhere that all the Minutemen in the arsenal being converted to single warhead, is this true?

Shadowstorm
01-27-2008, 09:48 PM
Yep, which is stupid.

Lt-Col A. Tack
01-27-2008, 09:51 PM
AGM-48 Skybolt

The Douglas GAM-87A Skybolt was an air-launched ballistic missile (ALBM) developed during the late 1950s. It was intended to provide a mobile basing for the USAF's ICBM missile force by mounting them on heavy bombers rather than in fixed missile silos. A series of test failures and the development of submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) eventually led to its cancellation in the mid 1960's.

Development

In 1958 several US contractors demonstrated that large ballistic missiles could be launched from strategic bombers at high altitude. The use of astronavigation systems for mid-flight corrections of an inertial guidance platform, similar to that of the US Navy's SLBM systems, led to an accuracy similar to that of their existing ground-based missiles.

The USAF was interested, and began accepting bids for development systems in early 1959. Douglas Aircraft received the prime contract in May, and in turn subcontracted to Northrop (guidance system), Aerojet (propulsion), and General Electric (reentry vehicle). Initially being known as WS-138A, in 1960 the project was given the name GAM-87 Skybolt.

At the same time the Royal Air Force was having problems with their IRBM missile project, Blue Streak. Not only was the missile long overdue and over budget, but the limited land area available on the British isles meant that it would be fairly easy for the USSR to find, and thus attack, the silos.

They felt that the Skybolt would provide a much safer basing system, while at the same time allowing their V-bomber fleet to present a continued credible threat, with a long standoff range keeping them well away from the ever-increasing PVO Strany air defenses.

This meant that their expensive Blue Steel II standoff missile, then under development, would not be needed. Prime Minister MacMillan met President Eisenhower and agreed to purchase 144 Skybolts for the RAF, and Blue Streak and Blue Steel II were both cancelled. By agreement, British funding for research and development was limited to that required to modify the V-bombers to take the missile.

Operation

The GAM-87 was powered by a two-stage solid-fuel rocket motor and was intended to be launched by a B-52H heavy bomber. Each B-52H was to carry four missiles, two under each wing on side-by-side pylons, while the Avro Vulcan carried one each on smaller pylons. The missile was fitted with a tailcone to reduce drag while on the pylon, which was ejected shortly after being dropped from the plane. After first stage burnout, the Skybolt coasted for a while before the second stage ignited. First stage control was by movable tail fins, while the second stage was equipped with a gimballed nozzle.

http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/7537/xagm48asj6dotjpg

Wikipedia Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skybolt_ALBM)

Power_serj
01-27-2008, 10:43 PM
Time to turn some of those nuclear ICBMs into conventional warhead bunker busters. *cough* Iran *cough*

ckabusk
01-28-2008, 03:17 PM
Nuclear Bunker Buster wont work against Iran.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8f2_1201511368&p=1

Valkyries
03-17-2008, 11:57 AM
smile everyone your on digg.
http://digg.com/general_sciences/US_Nuke_Program_Random_Photos_Maps_Diagrams
the comments some of those people make, hahah

Bongopete
03-17-2008, 12:46 PM
One must learn to love the bomb.

Kaplanr
03-17-2008, 02:03 PM
One must learn to love the bomb.

Duck & cover.

9mmRifle
03-17-2008, 02:18 PM
interesting thread, thanks for the photos

Abbadon the Despoiler
03-17-2008, 03:18 PM
Castle Bravo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Castle

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5d/Castle_Bravo_Blastdotjpg/800px-Castle_Bravo_Blastdotjpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/Castle_Bravo_%28black_and_white%29dotjpg/750px-Castle_Bravo_%28black_and_white%29dotjpg

Operation Castle Bravo almost overgrew in planetary thermonuclear reaction...the end of the world.

Tsar bomb was the largest, most powerful nuclear weapon ever detonated (about 100megatons)


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/131/339291829_59679da6f8_odotgif

http://cfs5.tistory.com/upload_control/download.blog?fhandle=YmxvZzkzMTUzQGZzNS50aXN0b3J5LmNvbTovYXR0YWNoLzAvNy5qcGc=

benbach
03-17-2008, 04:18 PM
yeah cool but not cool at the same time. Anyone heard of antimatter bombs?

Steaks
03-17-2008, 06:10 PM
My favorite nuke site, it has video of ALL atomic tests, with history, goal, etc.

http://www.sonicbomb.com/index.php

Douros81
03-18-2008, 12:17 AM
You still can't beat the LGM-118A Peacekeeper, the good old days.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/lgm118l5dotjpg


Primary function:Intercontinental ballistic missileContractor:Basing: Boeing Aerospace and Electronics; assembly and test: Martin Marietta and Denver AerospacePower Plant:First three stages, solid-propellant; fourth stage, storable liquid (by Thiokol, Aerojet, Hercules and Rocketdyne)Length:71 feet (21.8 meters)Weight:195,000 pounds (87,750 kilograms) including re-entry vehiclesDiameter:7 feet, 8 inches (2.3 meters)Range:Greater than 6,000 miles (5,217 nautical miles)Speed:Approximately 15,000 miles per hour at burnout (Mach 20 at sea level)Guidance system:Inertial; integration by Rockwell, IMU by Northrop and RockwellWarheads:10 Avco MK 21 re-entry vehiclesYield:Circular Error Probable:Date Deployed:December 1986Unit Cost:$70 millionInventory:Active force, 50; ANG, 0; Reserve,

:)

Shadowstorm
03-18-2008, 12:21 AM
I wish they kept them in service along with AGM-129 ACM.

Kak
03-18-2008, 02:05 AM
Definitely agree. I see Russia building more while the US is getting smaller. Yeah, to me that is major concern.
That is incorrect, Russia is not building more nukes, they are replacing the ones they have with newer models while at the same time reducing the overall number of their nuclear weapons.

eATS
03-18-2008, 02:41 AM
That is incorrect, Russia is not building more nukes, they are replacing the ones they have with newer models while at the same time reducing the overall number of their nuclear weapons.

U.S. is upgrading as well.. still cold war...

eATS
03-18-2008, 02:43 AM
US needs nuclear weapons for rest of century: general


by Staff Writers
Washington (AFP) March 4, 2008
The commander of US strategic forces said Tuesday the United States will need nuclear weapons as a deterrent for the rest of the 21st century and should move now to field more modern weapons.

Air Force General Kevin Chilton said new, more reliable nuclear weapons would enable the United States to reduce the large inventory of non-deployed weapons it keeps as a hedge.

"As we look to the future -- and I believe we are going to need a nuclear deterrent for this country for the remainder of this century, the 21st century -- I think what we need is a modernized nuclear weapon to go with our modernized delivery platforms," he told reporters.

The administration has requested 10 million dollars for the program in its 2009 budget request even though the US Congress turned down a similar request in its previous budget submission.

It also is seeking 100 million dollars for a plant to make nuclear triggers for the new weapon.

The program is controversial in part because it runs counter to the US obligation under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to work toward bringing its stockpile to zero.

"I'm the father of two children, and I would love to have them grow up in a nuclear-free world, absolutely," said Chilton. "But I'm not for unilateral disarmament. I also want them to grow up free."

Chilton, who heads the US Strategic Command, said the new weapons would be designed to be more reliable, safer and more secure than those in the existing stockpile.

New infrastructure to build and maintain the weapons also would enable the United States to reduce its hedge stockpile, he said.

"As long as there are other countries in the world that possess enough nuclear weapons to destroy the United States of America, we will have to deter those countries," he said.

He said his command needed to do technical studies over the next year to present the new administration early next year with a "decision package" on which way they want to go.

"I really think now is the time to act on this. This is not something that we can continue to either not talk about or to kick down the road for future generations," he said.

The United States currently has about 6,000 deployed nuclear warheads but is required to come down to 2,200 by 2012 under the 2002 Moscow Treaty.

eATS
03-18-2008, 02:47 AM
Northrop GrummanAnd USAF Complete Guidance Upgrade Installations On Minuteman III ICBMs
NS50 missile guidance set is transported to a launch facility at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana. Malmstrom is one of three sites in the U.S. that houses the Minuteman III ICBM weapon system.

by Staff Writers
Clearfield UT (SPX) Mar 12, 2008
With the installation of a modernized missile guidance set (MGS) delivered by Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC), the U.S. Air Force declared full operational capability on Feb. 25 for the Minuteman III inter-continental ballistic missile (ICBM) guidance replacement program, a major milestone in the ICBM modernization effort

NS50 missile guidance set is transported to a launch facility at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana. Malmstrom is one of three sites in the U.S. that houses the Minuteman III ICBM weapon system.

The MGS was installed by the 20th Air Force onto a Minuteman III missile at Minot Air Force Base, N.D in January. Today, the entire force of 450 land-based ICBMs is converted to the modernized MGS, known as NS50.

The MGS upgrade is being performed under the ICBM Guidance Replacement Program (GRP), a modernization effort aimed at replacing and upgrading the 1970s-vintage electronics in the Minuteman III missile, which have been determined to be unreliable in flight due to aging effects. As a result of the new NS50 MGS, field reliability is approximately double that of the old system. The new system is also safer, and easier to maintain and support.

GRP is one of eight major ICBM upgrade programs managed by prime contractor Northrop Grumman. In this role, the company is modernizing and maintaining the reliability, safety, and security of the nation's entire force of land-based Minuteman III missiles, under a 15-year effort awarded by the U.S Air Force in 1997. For the past ten years, the company has successfully maintained force readiness while implementing a series of complex upgrades that extend the missile's service life through 2030.

"Significant progress has been made today in completing the first step in meeting the Air Force's requirement to increase the reliability and nuclear safety of the Minuteman III weapon system," said John Clay, vice president and general manager of the ICBM Prime Integration Contract at Northrop Grumman's Mission Systems sector.

"The Guidance Replacement Program has been a flagship program for Northrop Grumman and its teammates and more significantly for our customer, the United States Air Force. This major accomplishment could not have occurred without the significant contributions of all parties involved, especially the Air Force airmen responsible for installing each guidance set onto the Minuteman III missile at each launch facility."

Boeing Electronic Systems Missile Defense is a principal teammate on GRP and produces the MGS for the program. Honeywell Space Systems Division is a major subcontractor to Boeing and provides the system's missile guidance computer.

Final GRP production deliveries are expected to be complete by early 2009. These include approximately 200 more missile guidance sets that will be used for future Minuteman III flight tests and spares. The new NS50 has successfully flown on 23 Minuteman III flight test missiles with no failures, providing high confidence that it meets its in-flight reliability requirement.

eATS
03-18-2008, 02:52 AM
Lockheed Martin Receives 849 Million Dollar Contract For Trident II D5 Missile
First deployed in 1990 and scheduled for operational deployment until 2042, the Trident II D5 is aboard Trident II-configured Ohio-class submarines. The three-stage, solid-propellant, inertial-guided ballistic missile has a nominal range of 4,000 nautical miles and carries multiple independently targeted reentry vehicles.

by Staff Writers
Sunnyvale CA (SPX) Dec 21, 2007
The U.S. Navy has awarded Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) a contract valued at $849 million for fiscal year 2008 production and deployed system support for the Trident II D5 Fleet Ballistic Missile (FBM) program. Work under the contract includes D5 production support, including reentry system hardware, and operations and maintenance to support the readiness and reliability of missile systems deployed aboard FBM submarines and at on-shore facilities.

The contract also continues D5 Life Extension development work. Deliveries under the original D5 contract, which called for production of 425 missiles, began in 1989 and concluded in 2007. D5 Life Extension missile deliveries are scheduled to begin in 2011, with a minimum of 108 additional missiles being delivered by 2017. The D5 Life Extension program will support the service life of the Navy's Trident II Ohio-class submarines, which has been extended to 2042.

"Under the leadership of our Navy customer, we will continue our work in support of the D5 missile while continuing to prepare for the Navy's transition to the D5 Life Extension missile," said Tory Bruno, vice president and general manager of Strategic Missile Programs, Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company.

First deployed in 1990 and scheduled for operational deployment until 2042, the Trident II D5 is aboard Trident II-configured Ohio-class submarines. The three-stage, solid-propellant, inertial-guided ballistic missile has a nominal range of 4,000 nautical miles and carries multiple independently targeted reentry vehicles.

eATS
03-18-2008, 02:52 AM
its not like were throwing everything out...

matt9070
03-18-2008, 03:07 AM
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/131/339291829_59679da6f8_odotgif




wow....this diagram can't be real... there can't have been a bomb that strong created yet..wouldnt that take out the entire country and destroy the atmosphere?

Abbadon the Despoiler
03-18-2008, 03:22 AM
wow....this diagram can't be real... there can't have been a bomb that strong created yet..wouldnt that take out the entire country and destroy the atmosphere?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba

its real. Soviets were crazy ...

It was the largest, most powerful nuclear weapon ever detonated. Developed by the Soviet Union, the bomb was originally designed to have a yield of about 100 megatons of TNT; however that was reduced by half in order to limit the amount of nuclear fallout that would result.

The original U.S. estimate of the yield was 57 Mt, but since 1991 all Russian sources have stated its yield as 50 Mt. Khrushchev warned in a filmed speech to the Communist parliament of the existence of a 100 Mt bomb (technically the design was capable of this yield). The fireball touched the ground, reached nearly as high as the altitude of the release plane, and was seen and felt 1,000 km away. The heat from the explosion could have caused third degree burns 100 km away from ground zero. The subsequent mushroom cloud was about 60 km high (nearly seven times higher than Mount Everest) and 3040 km wide. The explosion could be seen and felt in Finland, even breaking windows there. Atmospheric focusing caused blast damage up to 1,000 km away. The seismic shock created by the detonation was measurable even on its third passage around the Earth.

BMUS
03-18-2008, 03:47 AM
wow....this diagram can't be real... there can't have been a bomb that strong created yet..wouldnt that take out the entire country and destroy the atmosphere?
That thing about 'destroying the atmosphere' is a bit exaggerated, in the sixties the US used to blow nukes up in our outer atmosphere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime

Shadowstorm
03-18-2008, 04:31 AM
Soviets also planned to build a 100MT nuclear bombs and their was a radical proposal to put the same bomb on a transport ship and move out to the ocean and detonate the device for a suicide mission which could start a global catastrophe in case the Soviet Union was ever defeated in a conflict with West. But luckily Nikita Khrushchev killed that project.

Abbadon the Despoiler
03-18-2008, 05:44 AM
^ yeah I heared about this too. They wanted to blow Tsar class nuke in Mariana trench to start chain reaction wchich would eventualy mean end of the life on Earth in case of fail of communism. what a freaks!

wagon
03-18-2008, 07:25 AM
Makes you wonder how much radioactive crap is floating around in the air we breathe. Oh, and how good are we humans at finding 'new and improved' ways of killing each other. BUT, I suppose, if your neighbour has a big stick and you only have a twig, there will be the chance of your neighbour jumping the fence and whacking you with the big stick - so, maybe retaining some nukes maybe a good idea.

Tokamak
03-18-2008, 09:44 AM
yeah cool but not cool at the same time. Anyone heard of antimatter bombs?

Do you have more info about this?.

Lt-Col A. Tack
03-18-2008, 02:59 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba

its real. Soviets were crazy ...

It was the largest, most powerful nuclear weapon ever detonated. Developed by the Soviet Union, the bomb was originally designed to have a yield of about 100 megatons of TNT; however that was reduced by half in order to limit the amount of nuclear fallout that would result.

I believe the US bomb with the greatest yield was the B-41 (Mk-41) high yield strategic thermonuclear bomb

The Mk/B-41 was the highest yield nuclear weapon ever deployed by the U.S. It was also the only three-stage thermonuclear weapon ever developed by the U.S., and it achieved the highest yield-to-weight ratio of any U.S. weapon design.

Yield 25 Megatons
Weight 10,670 lb
Length 12 ft. 4 in (148 in)
Diameter (body) 52 in
Diameter (tail fin) 74 in
Number Manufactured About 500
Manufactured September 1960 to June 1962
Retired November 1963 to July 1976

Design Features
Three stage radiation implosion weapon
Deuterium-tritium boosted primary.

Fusion stages presumalby use Lithium-6 (95% enrichment) deuteride fusion fuel.

The B-41 was deployed in a a "dirty" version (the Y1, with a U-238 encased tertiary stage) and a "clean" version (the Y2, with a lead encased tertiary stage). It may be that both used a secondary with a lead fusion tamper.

There are actually two reported yields for this bomb, "less than 10 Mt" and 25 Mt. It is possible that the 25 Mt yield applies only to the dirty Y1 version, with the clean Y2 version having the lower yield.

According to Dr. Theodore Taylor (physicist and former weapons designer), the practical limit for nuclear weapon yield to weight ratio is about 6 Kt/kg. Using the deployed weapon weight (10,670 lb), and a yield of 25 Mt, the Mk-41 achieved 5.2 Kt/kg. If we look at the test devices fired in Hardtack I however (see below), which lack such weighty and in principle unnecessary things as parachutes, we see weights 8,752 - 9,723 lb. Taylor's maximum achievable yield-to-weight ratio of 6 Kt/kg corresponds to a device weight of 9,190 lb; well within the weight range of these devices.

Delivery Method
Strategic bomber - most recently the B-52G (internal bomb bay)

Safeguards and Arming Features
Unknown

Fuzing and Delivery Mode
"Full Fuzing Options" (FUFO), options probably selected on ground prior to mission.
Five fuzing options:

* Free fall air burst
* Parachute retarded air burst
* Free fall surface burst
* Parachute retarded surface burst
* "Laydown" - parachute retarded delayed surface burst

Parachutes used: parachutes 4-5 ft diameter pilot chute, and a 16.5 ft diameter main ribbon chute for high-speed stabilization.

Development
The B-41 program originated in 1955 when the Air Force issued a requirement and a feasibility study for a Class "B" (10,000 lb), 62 inch diameter high yield thermonuclear weapon. UCRL proposed adapting an experimental three-stage thermonuclear system they were developing, which was subsequently scheduled for test-firing during Operation Redwing in 1956.

Two version of the proposed UCRL test device, named "Bassoon" and "Bassoon Prime", were test-fired in "clean" and "dirty" configurations during the Zuni and Tewa shots of Redwing.

The Bassoon device fired in Redwing Zuni (27 May 1956) was 39 inches in diameter, 135.5 inches long, and weighed 12,158 lbs. The predicted yield for Zuni was 2-3 Mt, it achieved 3.5 Mt. This device used a lead fusion tamper and was quite clean, with 85% of the energy coming from fusion, and only 15% from fission.

The Bassoon Prime device fired in Redwing Tewa (20 July 1956) was 39 inches in diameter, and 135.5 inches long, and weighed 15,735 lb. The predicted yield for Tewa was was 6-8 Mt, the actual yield was 5 Mt. In contrast to Zuni, Tewa used an uranium fusion tamper and was quite dirty, with only 13% of the energy coming from fusion, and 87% from fission. This device produced a fusion yield of only 650 Kt compared to the 3 Mt of Zuni.

Both were experimental "proof of concept" systems only, not test version of actual designs intended for deployment. Redesign to meet military requirements and additional testing was thus required, which was carried out in Operation Hardtack Phase I in 1958.

In November 1956 the feasibility study was completed and the designation TX/XW-41 for a bomb and a missile warhead version was assigned. On January 28, 1957, the DOD formally requested that the AEC develop a new Class "B" weapon using the UCRL design. The military characteristics for the bomb and warhead were approved in mid-February, and development engineering of the designs began. In June the proposed ordnance characteristics of the TX-41 bomb and XW-41 warhead were accepted by the Special Weapons Development Board; the ICBM warhead application was canceled at the end of July.

A test of the boosted TX/XW-41 warhead primary and secondary in a bomb mockup, was fired in Plumbbob Smoky at the NTS on 31 August 1957. The device yielded 44 Kt (predicted yield was 48 Kt, range 45-50 Kt); it measured 50" in diameter and 126.2" in length and weighed 9,408 lbs. The test included some thermonuclear yield.

Drop testing of the TX-41 ballistic shape was conducted between December 1957 and December 1959 at the AEC's Tonopah (Nevada) and Salton Sea (California) test ranges.

Prototypes of the TX-41 bomb, all of them clean variants, were fired during the Sycamore, Poplar and Pine shots of Operation Hardtack Phase I at the PPG between May 31 and July 27, 1958.

The Sycamore shot (31 May 1958) used a two-stage clean version of the TX-41. The predicted yield was five megatons, of which just 200 kilotons was to be fission yield. The device fizzled though, with a total actual yield of only 92 Kt although low level burning was detected in the second stage. The test device was 50 inches in diameter by 112.6 inches long and weighed 9,723 lbs.

The Poplar shot (12 July 1958) was a repeat test of the two-stage variant. This device had a diameter of 48.2 inches, a length of 112.1 inches, and a weight reduced of 9,316 lbs. The Poplar device was predicted to yield either 5-10 Mt, of which only 450 Kt was to be fission yield. This test was successful, with a yield of 9.3 Mt (the largest of Hardtack I, and the fifth largest U.S. test ever).

The Pine shot (26 July 1958) used a three-stage configuration. This device had a diameter of 50 inches, a length of 112.6 inches, and a weight reduced of 8,752 lbs. The predicted total yield was 4-6 Mt, only 200 Kt was to be from fission. Actual yield was only 2 Mt. The device is said to have had dual-primaries.

The ordnance characteristics of the TX-41 were revised and accepted by the SWDB in mid-October 1958. Production engineering of the TX-41 started soon afterwards.

Link (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html)

Bongopete
03-18-2008, 03:01 PM
Soviets also planned to build a 100MT nuclear bombs and their was a radical proposal to put the same bomb on a transport ship and move out to the ocean and detonate the device for a suicide mission which could start a global catastrophe in case the Soviet Union was ever defeated in a conflict with West. But luckily Nikita Khrushchev killed that project.


Makes me think of the old cobalt bomb idea.

benbach
03-18-2008, 03:16 PM
Do you have more info about this?.

yep,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter_weapon

Tokamak
03-18-2008, 07:32 PM
yep,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter_weapon

Interesting.

bryanc1_ctr
03-19-2008, 02:37 AM
Totally random...but I like it. Got any oldschool pictures of the dudes in spacesuits messing with the missiles from those platforms that fold out inside the silos? I always thought that looked like a cool job, mostly because I had no idea what it actually entailed (still don't). :)

I worked with a guy who used to go into em. He worked with me in telecom so it had to have something to do with the phones. He said he'd have to wait each time he'd have to go in to be vetted again! It was pretty intense, to say the least.

Dextermination
03-23-2008, 11:31 AM
wow....this diagram can't be real... there can't have been a bomb that strong created yet..wouldnt that take out the entire country and destroy the atmosphere?
lol? where have you been living the last 50 years?

Migs
03-24-2008, 12:12 AM
heres a vid on my youtube account...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qILBTqyhvw

Tokamak
03-24-2008, 11:29 PM
heres a vid on my youtube account...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qILBTqyhvw

Poor guys!.

Abbadon the Despoiler
03-29-2008, 09:19 AM
sad video, great editing.

heres another one, in second part theres discribed effect of Little boy in Hiroshima
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGTf-FZfIHg

Tokamak
03-29-2008, 10:18 AM
sad video, great editing.

heres another one, in second part theres discribed effect of Little boy in Hiroshima
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGTf-FZfIHg


Sad indeed!.