Nuclear-isomer weapon?

[Sea Skimmer]

link

Does this article have an actual grounding in reality? If so, the potential applications are rather preposterously potent.

[Dark Hellion]

It looks sorta legit, although I haven't heard of it before, the explainations seem somewhat good, although the fact that they have been dumbed down makes it harder to spot pseudoscience.
I think they are just exaggerating the progress they have made in this article and it will be longer than they make it seem until these weapons can be fielded.
I don't know though?

[kojikun]

Sounds plausible. I'm more interested in its potential to store energy tho. Perhaps if we can find a way to have a nuclei reradiate at a usable frequency (microwave, maybe?) we could use it to replace batteries. Assuming, ofcourse, that it has the ability to store the right amount of energy and release it on demand slow.

but arent we looking for explosives that have nuclear weapon yield without the radiation? whats the point of this? and whats the problem with the very low yield battlefield weapons like the davy crockett?? i dont see any logical reason not to use them..

[SirNitram]

Sounds plausible. I'm more interested in its potential to store energy tho. Perhaps if we can find a way to have a nuclei reradiate at a usable frequency (microwave, maybe?) we could use it to replace batteries. Assuming, ofcourse, that it has the ability to store the right amount of energy and release it on demand slow.

but arent we looking for explosives that have nuclear weapon yield without the radiation? whats the point of this? and whats the problem with the very low yield battlefield weapons like the davy crockett?? i dont see any logical reason not to use them..

You see no problem with a weapon whose blast radius is greater than it's range?

[Sea Skimmer]

You see no problem with a weapon whose blast radius is greater than it's range?

Actually was live fired by crews several times without them suffering ill effects. The whole range blast radius thing seems to by a myth. The articles is wrong about the Crocket anyway as the US went on to produce several thousand of them and deployed them for years.

[kojikun]

Nitram: 50s rocket technology wasnt the best. We not have rockets that can easilly put the weapon far into the distance. But even so, a DC theatre nuke had, what, a few hundred feet for its blast radius, most? I don't think it had the ability to cause flash burns or anything at one mile even, I think it was too underpowered.

[SirNitram]

You see no problem with a weapon whose blast radius is greater than it's range?

Actually was live fired by crews several times without them suffering ill effects. The whole range blast radius thing seems to by a myth. The articles is wrong about the Crocket anyway as the US went on to produce several thousand of them and deployed them for years.

To my knowledge, the live fire tests involved having to dig a hole for the squad to jump in when it fired. Now, I could be wrong, but that's a pretty bad system.

[SirNitram]

Nitram: 50s rocket technology wasnt the best. We not have rockets that can easilly put the weapon far into the distance. But even so, a DC theatre nuke had, what, a few hundred feet for its blast radius, most? I don't think it had the ability to cause flash burns or anything at one mile even, I think it was too underpowered.

What I've seen pegged it at a 2 mile blast radius, with a one mile range. And why the fuck would we need it, anyway? Tanks work.

[Sea Skimmer]

What I've seen pegged it at a 2 mile blast radius, with a one mile range. And why the fuck would we need it, anyway? Tanks work.

The Crocket yielded 15 tons, at two miles you wont even feel a breeze, the blast radius is more like a few hundred meters.

A group of tanks presents a excellent target for the enemies Davy Crocket, and of course the Soviets have twenty times more tanks of equal quality. The Davy Crocket and several other weapons where the result of the US's inability to match the Soviets conventionally without an unsustainable level of defence spending and manning. Four men an a jeep could destroy an armored battalion, which would need at least a company of tanks and a hundred men to stop conventionally. That's ignoring the huge increased logistical load of that armored unit. Some armor did remain in the Army, but its purpose was only to provide a Calvary screen for the nuclear forces.

By the early 60's the Soviets had begun to scrap their huge conventional army in favor of more nuclear weapons as well so the Crocket got scrapped. Around the same nuclear shells that could be fired by 8 inch and 155mm guns also came into service, while previously it had taken a 280mm weapon to fire them.

[Sea Skimmer]

To my knowledge, the live fire tests involved having to dig a hole for the squad to jump in when it fired. Now, I could be wrong, but that's a pretty bad system.

That was done for one test and there's nothing wrong with it, you see in combat troops normally dig holes into hid from such pesky things as artillery and bombs and the operational firing unit had a remote control anyway. It was mostly going to be used as an ambush weapon so the crew wouldn't need to man and aim it during a combat firing.

[SirNitram]

What I've seen pegged it at a 2 mile blast radius, with a one mile range. And why the fuck would we need it, anyway? Tanks work.

The Crocket yielded 15 tons, at two miles you wont even feel a breeze, the blast radius is more like a few hundred meters.

I sit corrected.

By the early 60's the Soviets had begun to scrap their huge conventional army in favor of more nuclear weapons as well so the Crocket got scrapped. Around the same nuclear shells that could be fired by 8 inch and 155mm guns also came into service, while previously it had taken a 280mm weapon to fire them.

Quite; for the time it was a logical defense against the fear of a collosal armor column charing across Europe. But in today's world, there's no armor colum so huge that we would need such a nuclear arsenal. If you really need to flashburn an area use a Fuel-Air Bomb.

[Sea Skimmer]

Quite; for the time it was a logical defense against the fear of a collosal armor column charing across Europe. But in today's world, there's no armor colum so huge that we would need such a nuclear arsenal. If you really need to flashburn an area use a Fuel-Air Bomb.

The US wants such weapons to destroy deep bunkers. Fuel air wont do crap to those, a conventional bomb is impractical and leaning towards the impossible to machine and normal nuclear weaponry will breach the surface resulting in a very dirty, if localized burst. If this new explosive can offer nuclear yields with reduced radioactivity and size it will be of great use.

[SirNitram]

Quite; for the time it was a logical defense against the fear of a collosal armor column charing across Europe. But in today's world, there's no armor colum so huge that we would need such a nuclear arsenal. If you really need to flashburn an area use a Fuel-Air Bomb.

The US wants such weapons to destroy deep bunkers. Fuel air wont do crap to those, a conventional bomb is impractical and leaning towards the impossible to machine and normal nuclear weaponry will breach the surface resulting in a very dirty, if localized burst. If this new explosive can offer nuclear yields with reduced radioactivity and size it will be of great use.

Ah, I see. I'm sorry; I don't have HAB's extensive knowledge, and thought the so-called 'Bunker Busters' could handle most.

[Sea Skimmer]

Ah, I see. I'm sorry; I don't have HAB's extensive knowledge, and thought the so-called 'Bunker Busters' could handle most.

The 2000-pound BLU-109 can penetrate 99% of the world's bunkers, and the 4700-pound BLU-113, that's the thing we improvised during the First Gulf War but have since mass-produced, can kill around half of the remaining 1%. However with large bunkers a single hit is unlikely to destroy all the chambers but there's no way to really tell. Even if all the doors are blown off you still don't know if you got everything. The remaining .5% or so of bunkers are basically immune to anything less then the 300 kiloton B61-11 earth penatraitor, and the Russians have a couple bunkers which can survive multiple 9 megaton bomb hits, with each successive bomb landing in the crater of the first.

The biggest advantage of using a nuclear level yield is you don't have to penetrate the things roof, which might be physically impossible. You can drop the bomb alongside the bunker and still crush it. Or a hit that doesn't penetrate the roof will likely still destroy the bunker via shock. With a direct penitrating hit on a lesser bunker holding say chemical weapons you'd have the added advantage of incinerating them.

Now really the number of potential targets s quite low. But buying more concrete and rebar is always an option and with the US smashing so many hardened targets once thought to be immune there's going to be a spike in bunker building. With every target we destroy people learn how to build bigger and better.

[kojikun]

The US wants such weapons to destroy deep bunkers. Fuel air wont do crap to those, a conventional bomb is impractical and leaning towards the impossible to machine and normal nuclear weaponry will breach the surface resulting in a very dirty, if localized burst. If this new explosive can offer nuclear yields with reduced radioactivity and size it will be of great use.

you still have the radiation output, but I suppose its better then uranium because uranium has a critical mass lower limit while the hafnium doesnt. and the hafnium wont decay, just radiate. I just wonder if the irradiation of the surrounding area will cause a significant hazard. It shouldn't tho, right? Cause Hiroshima was pretty safe after the blast, low residual radiation..

[Sea Skimmer]

you still have the radiation output, but I suppose its better then uranium because uranium has a critical mass lower limit while the hafnium doesnt. and the hafnium wont decay, just radiate. I just wonder if the irradiation of the surrounding area will cause a significant hazard. It shouldn't tho, right? Cause Hiroshima was pretty safe after the blast, low residual radiation..

Hiroshima was a high airburst, the fireball never touched the ground or sucked up any ground debris. Without that you don't get much fallout despite the bombs inefficient nature, most of the uranium wasn't use up in the reaction. Modern nukes are 99% efficient or more, but an anti bunker weapon would be bursting underground, it would irradiate vast amounts of material and that reaming 1% of bomb material would get attached to allot of dirt and such. However while very dirty such a blast wouldn't throw anything up into the stratosphere. The result is a heavy but localized fallout, which is still quite bad.

[NapoleonGH]

seems the best reason for these weapons is that they have much lower amounts of fallout compared to traditional nukes. Also if i remember my half lifes right their fallout shouldnt last nearly as long as those of conventional nukes

[General Trelane (Retired)]

Well, in reading the linked article, I notice that it is dated 13-Aug-03 and that it references the results of some study published 3-Jul-99. So doing a web search for "nuclear isomer" brings up some interesting results--including a subsequent, more detailed study that contradict the previous one.

For example:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 081301.php

[Sea Skimmer]

Well thats unfortunate, no more hope for gatling guns firing the equivalent of Mk82 bombs.

[NapoleonGH]

Well thats unfortunate, no more hope for gatling guns firing the equivalent of Mk82 bombs.

wouldnt that be a little dangerous? Friendly fire and the rest of that, wouldnt that be alot worse if our guns fired heavy duty explosives? you kinda gotta be alot more accurate then.

Also isnt there some rule against explosives in bullets?

[Sea Skimmer]

wouldnt that be a little dangerous? Friendly fire and the rest of that, wouldnt that be alot worse if our guns fired heavy duty explosives? you kinda gotta be alot more accurate then.

Such a weapon would be quite big; I don't think you'd ever pack such an explosive into less then a 30mm shell. So it would have to be mounted on a tank, the armor would protect the crew quite well. Another option is an aircraft. Though of course there's not much of a need for fully automatic direct fire with that kind of yield but it would make for an interesting anti everything weapon.

Also isnt there some rule against explosives in bullets?

Only those below 12.7mm that are being used against personal.

[phongn]

Also isnt there some rule against explosives in bullets?

Only those below 12.7mm that are being used against personal.

Bah, you're firing at the uniform, not the person.

[Chardok]

What I've seen pegged it at a 2 mile blast radius, with a one mile range. And why the fuck would we need it, anyway? Tanks work.

The Crocket yielded 15 tons, at two miles you wont even feel a breeze, the blast radius is more like a few hundred meters.

I sit corrected.

By the early 60's the Soviets had begun to scrap their huge conventional army in favor of more nuclear weapons as well so the Crocket got scrapped. Around the same nuclear shells that could be fired by 8 inch and 155mm guns also came into service, while previously it had taken a 280mm weapon to fire them.

Quite; for the time it was a logical defense against the fear of a collosal armor column charing across Europe. But in today's world, there's no armor colum so huge that we would need such a nuclear arsenal. If you really need to flashburn an area use a Fuel-Air Bomb.

Explain fuel/air bomb?

[Shinova]

link

Still not an N2 mine/bomb/missile.

[Sea Skimmer]

Explain fuel/air bomb?

A fuel air explosive works by spewing out an aerosol cloud of flammable material above the target, as it does so it mixes with the air and is then ignited by a small charge. The result is a massive overpressure and flame which is more destructive then normal explosives against most targets. However the horrible burns inflicted can create some of the same political problems napalm does and more importantly the whole system is unreliable and sensitive to atmosphere conditions. The Russians have had some luck, but the USAF decided to scrap all of its versions after poor results in the first Gulf War. Few other nations have them.

In addition to aircraft bombs there are thermobaric weapons which work in a similar way and are used with small rocket and missile warheads. The Russians have many different ones and the USMC has recently introduced one.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ns/fae.htm