Nuclear warheads of the world - Page 2

hello · 06-01-2006, 13:54 PM

That's possible, but there is more chance of the B-52s getting detected and attacked there. Also, can a single B-52 carry 16 AGM-129s? I said 336 in a SINGLE SORTY. B-52s would carry 460 and finish it off in one go, although I don't know of a country that can withstand 460 150 kt nuke hits. B-52s would need lots of extra tanking and escorts if they plan on inflicting the kind of damage B-2s can by themselves and a few tankers.

**Officer of Engineers** · 06-01-2006, 14:04 PM

It takes 30 minutes for ICBMs to do their work and 12 min for SLBMs. For most countries on Earth, the destruction of 12-20 cities is enough to stop them from being countries.

Don't you think you're a bit overbloated in touting the B2?

HistoricalDavid · 06-01-2006, 14:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hello

That's possible, but there is more chance of the B-52s getting detected and attacked there.

At 2,000nm?

Quote:

Also, can a single B-52 carry 16 AGM-129s?

12.

Quote:

I said 336 in a SINGLE SORTY.

58 B-52s - the number now - multiplied by twelve comes to 696 missiles. So you could have 8 missiles per bomber, or instead have 39 fully-loaded B-52s.

Quote:

Well right now there B-52s would carry 460 and finish it off in one go,

The point eludes me.

Quote:

B-52s would need lots of extra tanking

70 KC-10s and over 600 KC-135s not enough for you? They wouldn't need 'lots' of extra tanking. These are B-52s attacking from up to 2,000nm, not F-16s dropping bombs.

If I remember correctly, it was the B-52 which kept nuclear weapons aloft 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year until 1990.

Quote:

and escorts if they plan on inflicting the kind of damage B-2s can by themselves and a few tankers.

To suggest that all 21 B-2s would be absolutely invulnerable in the face of the most advanced air defences in the world strikes me as a tad arrogant.

Regardless, that scale of nuclear attack - hundreds of warheads - using aircraft belongs in the pages of Clancyesque war films and the popular (though uninformed) imagination.

The Ohio class exists for a reason.

**TopHatter** · 06-01-2006, 14:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

It takes 30 minutes for ICBMs to do their work and 12 min for SLBMs.
Don't you think you're a bit overbloated in touting the B2?

Quote:

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

To suggest that all 21 B-2s would be absolutely invulnerable in the face of the most advanced air defences in the world strikes me as a tad arrogant.
Regardless, that scale of nuclear attack - hundreds of warheads - using aircraft belongs in the pages of Clancyesque war films and the popular (though uninformed) imagination.
The Ohio class exists for a reason.

I was just thinking the same things....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

For most countries on Earth, the destruction of 12-20 cities is enough to stop them from being countries.

Not to mention stopping them from being inhabitable for the next couple hundred years...

Anon · 06-02-2006, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

A

70 KC-10s and over 600 KC-135s not enough for you? They wouldn't need 'lots' of extra tanking. These are B-52s attacking from up to 2,000nm, not F-16s dropping bombs.

If I remember correctly, it was the B-52 which kept nuclear weapons aloft 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year until 1990.

The B-52H has a combat radius(unrefueled) of about 4500 miles, to which you can add ALCMs range to get your maximum one way unrefueled attack radius.

ALCM range is always stated at "Over 1500 miles", which might mean 1600 or it might mean 2200. In that light, 1500 is good enough for me for the sake of conversation.

So unless a target is more than 6000 miles away from the closest US Airbase no inflight refueling would be needed at all.

Anon · 06-02-2006, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TopHatter

I was just thinking the same things....

Not to mention stopping them from being inhabitable for the next couple hundred years...

Or decades(at most)....depending who you ask.

HistoricalDavid · 06-03-2006, 13:33 PM

Apparently Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving modern cities, but with higher-than-normal cancer rates. That was with inefficient, fairly dirty bombs; does anybody have a detailed analysis of how modern thermonuclear weapons reduce the fallout:yield ratio?

Hiroshima today.

2DREZQ · 06-16-2006, 00:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

So unless a target is more than 6000 miles away from the closest US Airbase no inflight refueling would be needed at all.

Half the B-52's are station 75 Northwest of where I'm sitting right now, which is almost 6000 miles from the nearest decent restaurant...

06-01-2006, 14:04 PM	#17 (permalink)
Officer of Engineers Moderator Scotch taster Join Date: 08-06-03 Posts: 15,688 Country:	It takes 30 minutes for ICBMs to do their work and 12 min for SLBMs. For most countries on Earth, the destruction of 12-20 cities is enough to stop them from being countries. Don't you think you're a bit overbloated in touting the B2? __________________ Chimo

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
US-India Nuclear Deal Clears House	Bane	Political Discussions	17	08-24-2006 15:57 PM
British India	Grundy	Political Discussions	187	07-01-2006 07:39 AM
Why use force when talk works so well?	Leader	International Defense Topics	54	12-05-2005 04:29 AM
Developing countries’ goods trade share surges to 50-year peak	oneman28	World Affairs Board Pub	0	04-21-2005 13:58 PM
@ I don't think US should be the leader of the world..	MIKEMUN	Political Discussions	17	03-16-2005 01:41 AM

06-01-2006, 13:54 PM	#16 (permalink)
hello Contributor Join Date: 05-31-05 Posts: 683	That's possible, but there is more chance of the B-52s getting detected and attacked there. Also, can a single B-52 carry 16 AGM-129s? I said 336 in a SINGLE SORTY. B-52s would carry 460 and finish it off in one go, although I don't know of a country that can withstand 460 150 kt nuke hits. B-52s would need lots of extra tanking and escorts if they plan on inflicting the kind of damage B-2s can by themselves and a few tankers.

06-03-2006, 13:33 PM	#22 (permalink)
HistoricalDavid Distant Deeps or Skies *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 07-19-05 Location: North London, UK Posts: 1,972 Country:	Apparently Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving modern cities, but with higher-than-normal cancer rates. That was with inefficient, fairly dirty bombs; does anybody have a detailed analysis of how modern thermonuclear weapons reduce the fallout:yield ratio? Hiroshima today.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)