Talk:W54

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Was there ever a nuclear-armed torpedo project using this warhead?--DV8 2XL 13:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No record of such that I know of, and the Navy used other series of warheads preferentially for a long time. Georgewilliamherbert 23:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never run across a reference to it ether, and I was wondering if it was my own inept research. Strange it was never used that way because it would seem to have been the ideal package for such a weapon. Thanks for replying. --DV8 2XL 23:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dimensions / interpolation

Fastfission commented that the dimensions given (roughly 5 inch long 11 inch diam center cylinder with roughly 5.5 inch hemispherical endcaps) are possibly OR. That is slightly true; I think I am the source of that comment. However, the physics package's dimensions are known from multiple verifyable sources (16 inches long and 11 diameter), and they correspond to the W-54 Davy Crockett projectile's nose and centerbody exactly (the tail is hidden, but *cough* other sources have confirmed it's symmetrical fore and aft, with a conical aft fairing).

If you object to the "OR"ness of observing the shape's specific character, within the verifyable envelope and photo sources, then that's an OR violation. I don't think it's a big deal, but I don't want to misrepresent where it came from either. Georgewilliamherbert 23:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The core can't possibly be that large - it must be the core, tamper, and explosive shell. A solid low-density delta-plutonium core that large would weigh 325 kg. A 1 kg semi-elliptical delta-Pu core ought to have been sufficient for the stated yield. (A sphere 4.8 cm in diameter would be 1 kg.) --Alchemy3083 18:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the outer shell size. Everything else inside that... Georgewilliamherbert 17:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yield

The yield comparisons need correcting. The Oklahoma bombing article puts the equivalent TNT yield there at 1.8 tons, making the smallest yield of W54 5-6 times bigger, not 2-4. Fig (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fireball

How big would the fireball and blast overpressure radius be? Nothing in the article about that. 68Kustom (talk) 02:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]