Read the forum code of contact
By: - 25th September 2009 at 18:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Pounds or numbers? Designed for or the numbers trimmed back by treaties?
By: - 25th September 2009 at 18:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Which aircraft can carry the most amount of nuclear weapons?
I'm guessing it will probably be the B-52 or the TU-160.
I am after the amount of nuclear weapons not the largest. If anyone knows types as well that would be good.
I'm probably going to make a chart to show the comparison between different aircraft. Number of bombs or missiles is fine.
I have read that the Tu-95 was going to be made to carry 16 missiles but that is wasn't developed and instead they stuck with the 6 missiles. Tu95M16 i think was the designation.
Most tactical aircraft only carried 1 or 2 but if someone thinks they can carry more please share it with us. Pictures would be great to.
Cheers
The Tu-95MS-16 was developed - and flew.
57 were built.
It carried 6 Kh-55 cruise missiles internally on a rotary launcher - plus another ten on underwing pylons.
The wing pylons were removed under the terms of the START-1 treaty - which limited the number of nuclear warheads to be carried by a single delivery vehicle.
The Tu-160 has two weapons bays - each of which can be fitted with a rotary launcher carrying six Kh-55s (or the longer range Kh-55SM) - making a total of twelve.
Ken
By: - 25th September 2009 at 19:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How about B-1?
Could carry and would carry need to to be considered. I belive the B-1 "could" carry 8 B-61 or B-83 on each of it's three rotary launchers. Total of 24.
The above comment on treaties applies here, and it would be more common to have a fuel tank in one of the bays, but if want an maximum number in theory load, I think the 24 is valid.
By: - 25th September 2009 at 22:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
While no longer certified (or allowed under treaty restictions) to carry nuclear payloads, the B-1B could carry 24 B61/B83/SRAM internally plus a further 14 B61/B83/SRAM externally (for a total of 38 weapons).
By: - 25th September 2009 at 22:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Looking at this thread and I can't but help think about the Tsar bomb dropped by the Tu95, now that is one big Nuclear Weapon!
By: - 25th September 2009 at 22:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Looking at this thread and I can't but help think about the Tsar bomb dropped by the Tu95, now that is one big Nuclear Weapon!
Or a B-36 with a pair of Mk17/24s. (Make one wonder how many 25 Mt Mk41s they could have fit onboard.)
By: - 25th September 2009 at 22:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Or a B-36 with a pair of Mk17/24s. (Make one wonder how many 25 Mt Mk41s they could have fit onboard.)
You know the really scary thing about the RDS-220 as the Tsar bomb was properly known as only had 50% of its design yield of 100megatons!:eek:
They used lead rather then Uranium tertiary stage (and possibly the secondary) reducing its yield.
Well I say reducing it's yield because when they tested it the weapon over performed with an approximate yield of 57megatons..ish!(depends where you do your research)
An amazing albeit totally unusable weapon system the full yield weapon of 100megatons could level urban areas in a zone 60 km wide, cause heavy damage in a zone 100 km across, cause 3rd degree burns in a region 170 km across (only a bit smaller than the width of West Germany) and eye damage to 220 km.:diablo:
By: - 25th September 2009 at 22:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Another thing, the American KC135 fitted out to monitor the test was scorched by the explosion:eek:it was so close to the test area!
By: - 26th September 2009 at 00:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
While no longer certified (or allowed under treaty restictions) to carry nuclear payloads, the B-1B could carry 24 B61/B83/SRAM internally plus a further 14 B61/B83/SRAM externally (for a total of 38 weapons).
B-1B could carry 24 AGM-69 SRAMs with dual yield W69 warhead. The SRAMs were carried on eight round rotary launchers with one launcher in each of the B-1B's three weapons bays. I've never seen the external pylons mounted for anything other than tests.
SRAM was de-certified by King George I in 1990 as part of the "Peace Dividend" reward to the Russians for the Berlin Wall. The B-1B was de-certified as a nuke delivery system by Billy Bl0wjob Clinton a few years later.
By: - 26th September 2009 at 02:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Another thing, the American KC135 fitted out to monitor the test was scorched by the explosion:eek:it was so close to the test area!
How'd it get THAT close? :confused:
By: - 26th September 2009 at 02:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You know the really scary thing about the RDS-220 as the Tsar bomb was properly known as only had 50% of its design yield of 100megatons!:eek:They used lead rather then Uranium tertiary stage (and possibly the secondary) reducing its yield.
Well I say reducing it's yield because when they tested it the weapon over performed with an approximate yield of 57megatons..ish!(depends where you do your research)
An amazing albeit totally unusable weapon system the full yield weapon of 100megatons could level urban areas in a zone 60 km wide, cause heavy damage in a zone 100 km across, cause 3rd degree burns in a region 170 km across (only a bit smaller than the width of West Germany) and eye damage to 220 km.:diablo:
I sometimes wonder how much "boom" they could have got out of a Mk24-sized bomb with Mk41-level technology. The Mk17/24 was 15 Mt and weighed 42,000lbs while the Mk41 was 25 Mt at 10,000lbs or so. I wonder how much a full-up Tsar Bomba would weigh?
By: - 26th September 2009 at 02:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
B-1B could carry 24 AGM-69 SRAMs with dual yield W69 warhead. The SRAMs were carried on eight round rotary launchers with one launcher in each of the B-1B's three weapons bays. I've never seen the external pylons mounted for anything other than tests.SRAM was de-certified by King George I in 1990 as part of the "Peace Dividend" reward to the Russians for the Berlin Wall. The B-1B was de-certified as a nuke delivery system by Billy Bl0wjob Clinton a few years later.
IIRC the SRAMs were having problems with grain cracking in the motors and were due to be replaced by the longer ranged, smaller SRAM 2 (12 per rotary launcher). Which of course was cancelled. :mad:
By: - 26th September 2009 at 08:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
B-1B with cruise missiles
As far as I can tell, the Bone was theoretically capable of carrying 16 AGM-129 (4 internally and 12 on six double external pylons). The B-1B could only carry 8 AGM-86B internally. Two AGM-86 were fired from a B-1B in 1987-1989 during integration testing. Don't remember which treaty prohibited the Bone from carrying cruise missiles though....
By: - 26th September 2009 at 08:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Tsar bomba-Meteorit cruise missile
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxD44HO8dNQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9AMtUeyDP0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE9q0v71ZKw
Two mighty, but totally useless(ineffective..) weapons systems from the soviet era
By: - 26th September 2009 at 08:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Forgot to mention that the Soviet/Russians manufactured the largest cruise missile ever (Kh-20)
http://www.ausairpower.net/Kh-20-Kangaroo-Bear-C-2S.jpg
http://www.ausairpower.net/Kh-20-Kangaroo-Bear-C-1S.jpg
and the most powerful conventional bomb, the GPX 1109 Aka "Father of all bombs"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiT7M3YwyU4
By: - 26th September 2009 at 09:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
that meteorit thing doesnt look useless at all! scary! a 3000km supersonic cruise missile would be quite a headache to defence planning.
By: - 26th September 2009 at 13:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
B-1B could carry 24 AGM-69 SRAMs with dual yield W69 warhead. The SRAMs were carried on eight round rotary launchers with one launcher in each of the B-1B's three weapons bays. I've never seen the external pylons mounted for anything other than tests.SRAM was de-certified by King George I in 1990 as part of the "Peace Dividend" reward to the Russians for the Berlin Wall. The B-1B was de-certified as a nuke delivery system by Billy Bl0wjob Clinton a few years later.
I would consider the B-1B with 24 SRAMs as one of the weapon systems that marked the peak of nuclear delivery technology. Such an aircraft can basically blow its way to the target. Getting targeted by a HARM is one thing, getting a SRAM on your radar dish is another issue.
By: - 26th September 2009 at 15:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Forgot to mention that the Soviet/Russians manufactured the largest cruise missile ever (Kh-20)
http://www.ausairpower.net/Kh-20-Kangaroo-Bear-C-2S.jpg
http://www.ausairpower.net/Kh-20-Kangaroo-Bear-C-1S.jpgand the most powerful conventional bomb, the GPX 1109 Aka "Father of all bombs"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiT7M3YwyU4
Kangaroo was a POS. Half the range, half the boom, and double the weight of a Hound Dog, not to mention it was a BEAM RIDER.
Posts: 421
By: F35b - 25th September 2009 at 18:14
Which aircraft can carry the most amount of nuclear weapons?
I'm guessing it will probably be the B-52 or the TU-160.
I am after the amount of nuclear weapons not the largest. If anyone knows types as well that would be good.
I'm probably going to make a chart to show the comparison between different aircraft. Number of bombs or missiles is fine.
I have read that the Tu-95 was going to be made to carry 16 missiles but that is wasn't developed and instead they stuck with the 6 missiles. Tu95M16 i think was the designation.
Most tactical aircraft only carried 1 or 2 but if someone thinks they can carry more please share it with us. Pictures would be great to.
Cheers