Talk:W80 (nuclear warhead)

Need more info
I think the article would benefit from -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:27, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * A mention of where the warheads were made (which facility) and by whom (which contractor)
 * A link, or explanation of, what "supergrade" fuel is
 * The numbers don't add up in the second-to-last paragraph. I imagine this means the remaining warheads were retained as a reserve; if this is true, we should explicitly say that, and if possible say where.
 * Other than the lower-than-expected yield experiment mentione in the article, did teh W80 program require any other nuclear tests?


 * In answer to my first question, I guess the pits were made at Rocky Flats Plant and the whole bombs assembled at Pantex - as this seems to be the only way US nuclear weapons are made. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:49, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

++The W80 is probably a fission only weapon, an "atomic bomb", not a fusion weapon "hydrogen bomb".


 * Looks like a hydrogen bomb to me, and all of the specs on it claim it is one. --Fastfission 14:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

There is not a single fisson type nuclear weapon in the US inventory. So believe me the W80 is a H-Bomb. [ Eric J]

It is generally silly for such to be pure fission weapon as a lot of fissionable material should be around, which creates problems with working in high radiation (ie. nuclear war theatre!) conditions as the operational environment could start spontaneous fission (though fizzle more likely). Also it is not very cost/maintenance effective. At the same time the warhead has too small yield to be primarily fusion one. W80 is obviously a fusion neutron boosted fission weapon, which you can tell from the given yield range and the dial-a-yield feature alone. In other words, it would be wrong to call it either H-bomb or fission weapon. Most proper is to refer to it as "fusion neutron boosted fission bomb" or such everywhere. [Meppo]
 * Please see the B61 nuclear bomb and B61 Family pages for more details about these family of weapons, including a declassified picture of the internal nuclear components (not the explosives, just the fission and fusion components) of a B61 bomb, which the W80's design is derived from. It's clearly a two-stage fission-fusion bomb, and the variable yield options make it clear that the fission primary is boosted (about a 0.5 kt unboosted yield, about 10 kt boosted, and then you can fire the secondary or not).  See also the Nuclear Weapons FAQ at nuclearweaponarchive.org  Georgewilliamherbert 21:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added three drawings (to External Links) from an article by Howard Morland http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/cardozo.html He writes "The Greenpeace drawing is unique. Every other drawing in this presentation originates outside the secrecy wall, as some artist’s attempt to illustrate a concept. The Greenpeace drawing is said to come from a British nuclear weapons manual and to depict an actual weapon." I don't think this is a British weapon. It looks like the W80. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Contradiction
The article BGM-109 Tomahawk lists a warhead option as the W80 with a 200 kt yield. - MSTCrow 06:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

http://www.softwar.net/bgm109.html lists the w80 as 250kt while http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WMUS_Tomahawk.htm shows 200kt. Sadly, Periscope On-line no longer exists.


 * According to this source (Cochran, Thomas, et al. Nuclear Weapons Databook, Volume I: US Nuclear Forces and Capabilities. NRDC/Ballinger: Cambridge, 1984.), the W80 yield was selectable, circa 200 kT. The book's footnotes quote Military Balance for the 200 kT figure, and note a claim of 250 kT from Aviation Week and Space Technology. Christopher Campbell's Nuclear Weapons Fact Book claims 200 kT. GlobalSecurity supports the 200 kT figure, as well. Basedc on this, I think it's reasonable to post 200 kT as the yield for the time being. Sacxpert 17:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The Greepeace drawing in the External Links shows 2 possible configurations. The second one is a 200 kt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.6.227.230 (talk) 20:47, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

"small" thermonuclear warhead?
I'd delete the word "small" in the first sentence "The W80 is a small thermonuclear warhead ...".

Generally as a nuclear weapon this could be considered "small", as in comparison to the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan measuring 3 or 3.3 meter in length the W80 with 0.8 meters is rather small. But as a "warhead" - head on a missle - I wouldn't know why this is considered "small". If this warhead is small, which warhead is then medium in size and which one is big? I don't know of any significantly larger warheads that would make the W80 to be considered "small". --Orangwiki (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If no one objects I will delete the word "small". Any objections? --Orangwiki (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Definitely smaller in comparison to russian warheads.Mphil1805 (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

...And another thing...
Strictly speaking that object in the photo isn't a "physics package". That would be the radioactive, explode-y assembly inside. I think the outer case is called the "ballistic case" (and it's rather likely that thing is an inert trainer anyway).

Basesurge (talk) 05:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Submarine/Exposure seems to come out of nowhere, and not explained.
"Submarine crew members routinely operate in proximity to stored weapons in torpedo rooms, in contrast to the air force where exposure to warheads is relatively brief." is dropped in without lead in or followup. Dbrower (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)