RC Tank Warfare community hobby forum

Fat Man, which was dropped on Nagasaki, had a 6.4kg plutonium core. Of this, less than 0.7 gram was completely turned into energy. This was 21 Kiloton exosion.

silversurfer1947 wrote:Fat Man, which was dropped on Nagasaki, had a 6.4kg plutonium core. Of this, less than 0.7 gram was completely turned into energy. This was 21 Kiloton exosion.

Which just goes to show how inefficient those bombs were, and in my mind, thankfully.

General Jumbo01 wrote:
Weren't the UKs first claimed nuclear bombs nothing of the sort? Little white lies!

My mistake - l should have said Hydrogen bomb claim.

From Wiki'
The next test was Grapple 2, of Orange Herald,[120] the first British weapon to incorporate an external neutron initiator.[121] It was dropped on 31 May,[120] and exploded with a force of 720 to 800 kilotonnes of TNT (3,000 to 3,300 TJ). The yield was the largest ever achieved by a single stage device,[122] which made it technically a megaton weapon.[123] The bomb was hailed as a hydrogen bomb, and the truth that it was actually a large fission bomb was kept secret by the British government until the end of the Cold War.

More redundancies? Just as aircraft carriers made battleships out moded, so on the news yesterday was a piece on the Navy panicking about the threat to their two new carriers from killer subs as the far east problems ramp up. Don't you find it amazing that we (the UK) spend so much on assets that are just liabilities! This wasn't a decision sanctioned by parliament was it?

I guess that's why US carriers have and entire battle fleet with them and an extensive net of sensors networked together on those other ships. The smaller ships are running active sonar around the carrier and the carrier deploys hunter/killer aircraft for support. It can also out run most submarines. There is a good article about it here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthomp ... 46ee572f7a

And a Trident Class Submarine coordinating with a satellite could get a fix and launch a salvo of cruise missiles armed with conventional warheads at the carrier task force and that would be the end of that.
Anything anywhere on the surface of this planet is a potential target.

Not to be combative, but why would an Ohio class submarine operated by the US Navy armed with Trident missiles be firing on a US or British carrier group?

tankme wrote:Not to be combative, but why would an Ohio class submarine operated by the US Navy armed with Trident missiles be firing on a US or British carrier group?

I guess you don't watch James Bond movies

I've heard that Britain may be going for a hat-trick, there could be a third new carrier in the pipeline.

Carriers are needed for quick air superiority, their support ships are quite capable of defending from an impressive array of crap coming their way, at the moment, effectively defending the world from tin pot tyrants. It's only something like a third world war that they wouldn't be needed.

jarndice wrote:And a Trident Class Submarine coordinating with a satellite could get a fix and launch a salvo of cruise missiles armed with conventional warheads at the carrier task force and that would be the end of that.
Anything anywhere on the surface of this planet is a potential target.

A good point apart from Tridents are ballistic missiles, so neither them nor the submarines that carry them, are or can fire cruise missiles. Carrier groups can and do out fox satellite reconnaissance, ask the Russian and even the American Navy (who incidentally were one of the biggest supporters of continued SR-71 operations as they were very handy for finding ships that satellites lost track of), finally the AEGIS system found on most US warships now was specifically designed to defeat sea skimming swarm missile attacks.