Talk:W54

Untitled
Was there ever a nuclear-armed torpedo project using this warhead?--DV8 2XL 13:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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) The UK currently has four Vanguard class submarines based at HMNB Clyde in Scotland, armed with nuclear-tipped Trident missiles. The principle of operation is based on maintaining deterrent effect by always having at least one submarine at sea.

Each submarine carries 16 Trident II D-5 missiles, which can each carry up to 12 warheads. However, the UK government announced in 1998 that each submarine would carry only 48 warheads, an increase of 50% over the 32 warheads carried by Trident's predecessor, Chevaline, (halving the limit specified by the previous government), which is an average of three per missile. However one or two missiles per submarine are probably armed with fewer warheads for "sub-strategic" use causing others to be armed with more; but this is speculative.

The UK-designed warheads are thought to be selectable between 0.3, 5–10 and 100 kt (1.3, 21–42 and 420 TJ); the yields obtained using either the unboosted primary, the boosted primary, or the entire "physics package"; these yields and similar data are speculative. Although the UK designed, manufactured and owns the warheads, there is evidence that the warhead design is similar to, or even based on, the US W76 warhead fitted in some US Navy Trident missiles, with design data being supplied by the United States through the 1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement.[58][59] The United Kingdom owns 58 missiles which are shared in a joint pool with the United States government and these are exchanged when requiring maintenance with missiles from the United States Navy's own pool and vice versa.

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)

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)


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

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)

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)

Article permanently semiprotected
Due to ongoing long term persistent vandalism by the anonymous editor behind http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/ and http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/ ("The WTC was nuked on 9/11"), the articles W54, David Worby, Suitcase nuke, and Health effects arising from the September 11 attacks have been permanently semiprotected. Only logged in editors with Wikipedia accounts who have been autoconfirmed (are at least 4 days old) can edit the articles from now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Much bad information when using "Davy Crockett" to describe warhead, artillery piece, etc.
The Davy Crockett was a spigot operating gun. A nuclear loaded Davy Crockett would have contained the M388 atomic projectile (attached to the spigot, which became the launching piston when fired); within the M388 was the W54-2 nuclear warhead. I don't get why the article describes the nuclear warhead in the M388 as a cylinder (where is that research coming from?)

Reference: http://www.1-33rdar.org/Detailed_M29.jpg

Note: Both the M28 & M29 were called Davy Crocketts - they both fired the M388. The M28 was smaller & used a smaller propellant cartridge to launch its spigot-attached M388. The M388 was not called the Davy Crockett -- it was called an atomic projectile (& within that atomic projectile was the atomic or nuclear warhead, which is referred to in one place & regarding the M29 D/C gun, as the W54-2 atomic/nuclear warhead). The Davy Crocketts were smooth bore, so they were guns, not rifles. Since they were recoilless, the correct description is "Recoilless Gun". The M29 Davy Crockett included the M64 gun, which mainly consisted of a chamber and a barrel. Correctly, the M29 was a recoilless spigot gun. However there is a bit of confusion since the spigot cylinder (attached to the M388 atomic projectile) becomes a launching piston (attached to the M388 atomic projectile) when the propellant cartridge is discharged. However, the Army simply refers to a M2 launching piston for the M29 Davy Crockett, thus further disguising any reference to "spigot". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.247.204 (talk) 12:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Pending changes/Queue  are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

There are currently no citations as of today that I can see at all to verify any of these statements.Mylittlezach (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I beg your pardon. There are 4. The only one used is #1 on the very last section. The others are unverifiable except on one website.Mylittlezach (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Theodore Taylor design?
I'm ppretty sure the lead designer was Theodore B (Ted) Taylor, Ted Taylor (physicist). Just ordered McPhee's :Curve of Binding Energy:, his biography, and will return. --Pete Tillman (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)