Talk:WE.177

Tornado
Isn't the plural of the proper noun "Tornado" properly spelled "Tornados"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.178.76 (talk) 16:37, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

By the way guys
This article should have a picture of the kind of plane which would have dropped these bombs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.180.230 (talk) 03:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Would this one do? Or did you mean 'aeroplane' - different device entirely? DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Design history
Does anyone know if the WE177 physics package was based on the American Mark 28 bomb? --ManInStone 13:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Use as Depth Charge
The article states that it was "used by the Royal Navy as a nuclear depth charge". Is this appropriate to say, even though none were ever actually utilized in this manner?


 * I think the phrase "used by ..." is purely a literary device meaning that the Navy had the devices available for use. No nuclear depth charge of any description has ever been used operationally by the Royal Navy.


 * It depends what you mean by "used". For example "Were nuclear weapons USED to prevent nuclear war even though no angry shot was fired during the cold war?"--ManInStone 13:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Rainbow Code
Has anyone else heard of this device being rainbow coded as 'Green Parrot'? I dimly recall overhearing service conversations about a Green Parrot as a child in the context of the Falklands War and being told that it was a bomb when I asked. This maybe an ass pull - I was very young at the time - and I may misremember, but could this have been a reference to the RN WE.177s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.242.7 (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I have not heard of a rainbow code for the WE177 but earlier bombs did have code names such as "Orange Herald", "Green grass", "Yellow Sun" I think. There is a link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Code, but no reference to "Parrot". 90.205.123.105 (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Rainbow_Codes#Non-Rainbow_codes I would suspect the item in question was the Soviet era air delivered anti–personnel mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.34.57 (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The Rainbow Code for WE.177 was Red Flag although that may have only been used during early development. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Article is complete Rubbish
The article contains a number of errors. Although I have the correct information, unless I can find that information on publicly available resources, I am unable to correct the article as I have no way of knowing the current classification of this correct information. (Anonymous comment by 20.133.0.14)


 * To provide a clue: A thermonuclear (fusion) bomb having twice the yield of a fision bomb wouldn't be nearly twice as heavy, it would in fact be much lighter. It is therefore reasonable to conjecture that either both were fision or both were fusion weapons.


 * I would assume someone with close personal knowledge of a nuclear weapons program would know how to spell "fusion".


 * My spelling, though good, isn't always 100% perfect. You could always have corrected it.


 * Searching around various sources, it is clear how little information has been released on these weapons. Some of the misinformation comes from people who operated the weapons on RAF bases.  Nearly every source carries different information.  I even believe I have located the COPYRIGHTED source from which the article itself was clearly plagiarised (there is nothing to beat errors to betray plagiarism).  Some sources state that the weapons are fission weapons, some fussion.  Some state that the weapons were of American design, some claim entirely British.  At least one source claimed that the information on the weapons is now public knowledge - clearly not.  Several sources include photographs of museum exhibits of what is clearly not a WE177 weapon (they are the wrong colour for a start).  I worked closely on the WE177 project at its height and, as I said before, if I can verify the correct information from a publicly available source or can verify that the information is no longer classified, I will produce a correct article.  (Note IP address changed from 21.133.0.14).


 * UPDATE: The more I investigate, the more I gather that the relevant information does not appear to have been released as such. I can only assume that much that has been published is guesswork.  I note that the article has acquired some additional information since the above comment was added - much of it inaccurate.
 * Question to above IP - email me and I will provide you with my real identity, I will then get in touch with you and if you are not a crank provide you with the identity of someone I know who lives in aldermaston (he is a cambridge fizzy-cyst but not actually to do with bombs or whatever) then we can discuss things... Egg   Centri  c  22:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Follow the link from the comment on 'Blue disc' and it will reveal my relationship with the whole project. 86.169.33.6 (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

"...as I have no way of knowing the current classification of this correct information"

Mate, if you know it, and you aren't aware of its classification, and you havent' been doing any espionage, then it isn't classified. It sounds very impressive - "Guys, I have to tell you you're wrong about something but I cant tell you why because what I know might be a super-secret!" - but this is the internet dude, claims like that make you sound like a kook. I'm very sorry if you are legitimately in a position of knowledge, but it really sounds like you are talking rubbish, eg: why couldnt a fusion device with a larger yield weigh more? The physics package may weigh less, but to think for 5 seconds, a higher yield would mean a larger and heavier parachute, or a stronger casing, or any number of other things. That is certainly enough of an omission to defeat what little evidence of expertise that you provided.

If you are an expert on something, but you are not sure if you are allowed to prove it or even talk about it, then how about you just spare us.94.175.244.252 (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Production Numbers
What was the total production run of the variants and when were they made?


 * That information is (or was) TOP SECRET.

Inconsistent data
The data in the text regarding model suffix, weight, and yield does not agree with the data in the table. What's more, there are at least two transpositions, so that it is not possible to determine the correct matchups upon inspection. --Blainster 10:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC).

A reliable and factual update
May 2006. Much of this article is factually inaccurate. As are the comments on the talk page. This is not a criticism of the authors, merely that time moves on, more official documents are declassified, more research is done correcting earlier speculation used to fill gaps in factual knowledge that cannot be supported by hard evidence. The article does need to be rewritten. and perhaps I will do that later, time permitting. Meanwhile, here are some comments starting at the top.

'Used by' is better replaced by 'deployed by' since no UK armed service has ever 'used' a nuclear weapon. The most useful comments are those that suggest that most contributions are largely guesswork, or based on unsubstantiated data from elsewhere.

WE.177B was a thermonuclear bomb of 950lbs weight and 450kt yield. Not variable. It was the first to be deployed circa 1966 for use as a strategic laydown bomb to enable the Vulcan force to continue in service until Polaris became operational, following the cancellation of Skybolt. This bomb was retained in service until the 1990's for use with Vulcan successor aircraft. It comprised two parts, a fission primary, known as KATIE, and a fusion secondary known as SIMON. RAF stock is believed to number 53 (speculation). All were retired by August 1998.

Katie was developed from a British designed boosted fission weapon that evolved from CLEO, earlier Super Octopus, and tested in Nevada at Pampas and Tendrac UGTs. Although intended for the cancelled Skybolt, it was also intended for use in a 'family' of other weapons, including the British version of Polaris. The original US primary for these weapons used HE that did not meet British safety standards and was replaced with a British design. The SIMON secondary had a similar history, being a UK variant of the US W-59 secondary intended for RE.179, the Skybolt warhead. With Skybolt cancellation both were adapted for use in Polaris and the WE.177 series.

KATIE was originally conceived as the 'Improved Kiloton Bomb' a replacement for RED BEARD, but with the cancellation of Skybolt was put onto the back burner until the WE.177B bomb and the Polaris warheads were completed, explaining why WE.177B was deployed first, followed by Polaris, followed by WE.177A.

Katie was adapted to become KATIE A and WE.177A was deployed 1971. It used an adaptation of KATIE re-engineered to fit a shorter and lighter casing and was known as KATIE A. It was a boosted fission bomb for use against tactical surface targets by RAF and Royal Navy fixed-wing aircraft, and in an anti-sub role as an NDB. It weighed 600lbs and yielded approx 10kt. Not variable except in the NDB role. As a NDB (nuclear depth bomb) it was deployed on Royal Navy surface vessels for use with embarked helicopters. For this role it also had hydrostatic fusing and a variable yield facility of 0.5kt for use in shallow coastal waters or to safeguard nearby shipping. For deep oceanic waters it could use the full 10kt yield below 130ft (40m). There is, as yet no hard evidence of numbers deployed. The Navy stock of approx 20 for fixed-wing use was transferred to the RAF with the Bucanneer aircraft, the Navy retaining 43 for ASW helicopters. These 43 were retired by 1992. The RAF stock believed to be approx 150 was retired by Aug 1998. In the mid-1970's, some were 'converted' for use as a primary with a 200kt thermonuclear bomb known as WE.177C. Quantities are unknown but believed to be approx 48-60 'conversions'.

WE.177C was a 200kt thermonuclear laydown bomb deployed only by RAF Germany for use on tactical aircraft. It comprised two parts. The primary was a 'converted' KATIE A. The secondary was known as REGGIE. This secondary was removed from the Polaris warhead ET.317 when ET.317 was replaced by the Chevaline warhead. Polaris A3T had three ET.317 warheads. Chevaline had only two of a different design. The primaries of the retired ET.317 warheads were scrapped. The secondaries not required (one third) for re-use in the Chevaline warhead were re-used in WE.177C, matched with converted KATIE A 'conversions' as primaries in a bomb casing identical to WE.177B, ballasted to match WE.177B ballistic properties. It remained in service until the mid-1990's. There is hard evidence that a boatload of Polaris ET.317 warheads numbered 48 plus 12 spares for use in the servicing/re-supply chain. 32 plus 8 spares numbering 40 of those secondaries were re-used in Chevaline, leaving 20 of these to be re-used as WE.177C. We can speculate that with three boatloads to re-use, WE.177C numbers might range from 48 to 60. For those with an interest in politics, this is a neat illustration of how the then Prime Minister Harold Wilson was able to reconcile his election promises of 'no new nuclear weapons' with the actualitié. Astute readers will focus on the word 'new'.

Almost all the above is supported by hard evidence in declassified official documents in the National Archives, some declassified as recently as Jan 2006. There is so much inaccurate speculative data on the web on nuclear issues that I have learned not to contribute to it by adding my own speculation, except where it is clearly identified as such.

I too worked very briefly on the ballistic casing for the WE.177 series in 1959, or a very similar weapon. The requirements of secrecy then means I can never be completely certain. I have also drawn heavily on the work done by fellow researchers, especially Dr Richard Moore and Chris Gibson. B.Burnell.


 * The article is now much better. It would seem that the author of the current work has (wisely) refrained from adding information that he (or she?)has not been able to verify.  I can report that there are still one or two factual inaccuracies, but they are of such a minor nature, that they do not detract from the informative nature of the article.  As previously promised, if I can verify the correct information from a publicly accesible source, I will correct the article.


 * As the author referred to and signing off as Brian Burnell, I am most definitely male, and after a recent look 'down there' I can confirm that.


 * Aplogies if I caused offence - it was not intentional.

Page move to WE.177?
Apparently the offical name/designation of the weapon is WE.177 (with a full-stop/period), so unless anyone objects or can think of a good reason not, to I'll have a go at moving the page sometime within the next few days. Ian Dunster 10:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC).


 * Done. Ian Dunster 18:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The MOD apparently added the period to all its project codes sometime in the late 80's or early 90's. In the period 1970 to late 1980 it was definately WE177 (without the period).  The standard project code at that time consisted of 2 letters followed by 3 numbers.


 * If I can figure out how to upload photographs anonomously, I might upload a photograph of the official project tie. All projects had an official tie that people associated with the project could wear.  WE177 was refused one for many years until someone figured out a way of working the project code into the pattern without it being apparent unles you knew what had been done. 86.134.121.61 16:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Unless there are very good reasons for needing to be anonymous i.e. as protection from obsessives, or a public official who's employment would be at risk, it is never a good idea to upload photographs; especially photographs, anonymously. Wikipedia has policies on copyright verification that are there for a good reason; and are a protection against the site being sued for copyright violation. In my experience; and having an old-fashioned view of these things; contributions signed with the author's name are regarded as more reliable and verifyable than contributions that are anonymous. Although others might take a different view. Brian.Burnell 17:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have good reasons to remain anonymous. If anonymous photos are discouraged then I will naturally bow to the policy.  The proposed photograph does not yet exist.  I was proposing to take a photograph of my own personal project tie (now do you understand why I am able to comment on the factual accuracy - and why I am unable to publish corrections?) 86.132.201.65 20:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You can be as anonymous as you want to be - just open an account (which will allow you to upload photos) and then choose a username. This name can be anything you want (within reason!), such as Fred Nurke or something similar. If you are bothered about the IP address being traceable then use an Internet Cafe or a PC away from your usual surroundings.


 * The use of a username is more to do with allowing an editor's contributions to be assigned to one particular user, which then allows a picture of the editors credibility and responsibility to be built-up and known throughout Wikipedia - it's for accountability really, you don't need to use a real name, just the same one when you edit.


 * As a last resort, you can e-mail me the photo and I'll do any processing needed and upload it myself, stating in the image tag that the picture was uploaded by me and supplied by a person who wishes to remain anonymous - use the E-mail this user link on my user page. Ian Dunster 14:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the offer, but I have now sorted it. I B Wright 12:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK - good picture! - I have added the image to the Necktie page and also added your explanation of the tie's motif to the image page itself, for anyone who comes across the image from somewhere else. Ian Dunster 12:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

In-the-field
This term has a specific military usage; and that is why it was used here; although I recognize that it may not meet with the approval of language purists, as many other examples of specialist jargon fail to do. It has the great advantage of meaning exactly what it says on the tin. It doesn't mean that the user didn't undertake any servicing tasks; and they did do some, eg on the tail mechanisms etc. I hope this clears up this confusion. Brian.Burnell 17:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Retirement date
There is no known verifiable source to identify when each version was retired. All that is known is that the Navy (who only used WE.177A) retired its by 1992. The RAF had both the C and C models, and both these were retired by 1998. In what sequence is unknown. Source Strategic Defence Review. Brian.Burnell 14:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

WE.177A In-Service date
It had previously been thought that the in-service date was 1971 or 1972 when it appears the RAF took first delivery, although the AWE Timeline at does not mention an in-service date for WE.177A, but only for the B variant. There had been reports that the Navy took delivery of their WE.177As before the RAF, and a recently declassified file in the archives confirms that. Public Record Office file DEFE 24/389 E42 Annex, Appendix 1 dated June 1969 Item 1. states verbatim
 * "Although politically sensitive, the NDB [WE.177A] which is NOW BEING ISSUED TO THE FLEET is considered a tactical weapon. Its employment is based on tactical considerations alone, once initial political release has been given."

Note the words 'now being issued' NOT 'planned to be issued' or any other variant. The file reports the issue as a FACT, as of that date. Brian.Burnell 13:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Design of project tie
I think the use of a hydrogen and two nitrogen atoms is rather curious. I am aware that nitrogen oxygen mediated fusion reactions occur in the sun but artificial fusion does not involve nitrogen. I would have expected the symbol to consist of hydrogen isotopes. Can anyone explain the design of the tie? --ManInStone 11:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The atomic numbers are 177. --ManInStone 11:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed citations
The recently removed citations had been uploaded for a considerable length of time, with no response from those editors asked to verify their sources. The citations should IMHO be restored until the assertions made can be verified. This is after all, an encyclopaedia, and encyclopaedic standards should be maintained to meet criteria for classification as a reliable source.

There is so much wrong about this article it's hard to know what most merits attention; so perhaps the best place to start is with an example from the very beginning. The first two sentences made up of a mere fifty words, make three assertions, with two citations requiring sources.

The opening phases were: "In May 1960 Prime Minister Macmillan signed an agreement with President Eisenhower to purchase 144 AGM-48 Skybolt missiles for their V-bomber force. Along with the missiles, the UK would receive the design of the Skybolt's W59 warhead citation needed, which was much smaller and lighter than even the smallest UK designs of the era. citation needed

Three assertions there. Only the first is true.

1. The WE.177 Improved Kiloton Bomb project began in 1959, before the Skybolt agreement. Lots of sources can be referenced in support of that. Several, both primary and secondary can be found here:

2.  Along with the missiles, the UK would recieve the design of the Skybolt's W-59 warhead, ....  Untrue. The Americans didn't select the W-59 warhead for Skybolt until 1962, after considering various others, including W-28, W-47, W-43, W-49, W-50, W-56. The reason the Americans delayed selection was that they were awaiting results of the Dominic atmospheric nuclear tests when all these warheads were tested. W.59 was tested at Dominic Questa, Alma, Rinconada and Sunset. All these references have been freely available on the web for several years now. So how could the W-59 warhead possibly be copied for WE.177 from WE.177's start in 1959? A physical impossibility. Except for the Time Lord perhaps? All the other warheads except the W-28 that were considered for Skybolt were also tested in the Dominic series of 1962. They had not been designed and tested until then because until then an Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty circa 1959 was in place until first broken by the Russians in 1962 and then by the Americans later that year in the events that preceded the Cuban Missile Crisis. All that has been in the public domain for years and with lots of source material available. So the Skybolt warhead wasn't selected until after the results of the 1962 tests, by which time the WE.177 project was well underway since 1959, with a British warhead selected and under development. Lots of primary and secondary source material here:

3.  ... which was smaller and lighter than even the smallest and lightest UK designs of the era.   Untrue. the writer cannot possibly produce references for this, and hasn't, despite the citation request being online for a very long time. A source cannot be produced because it isn't true. Because the W-59 was not the smallest and lightest warhead. Ulysses, a UK design was as small and lighter and could be available sooner. See here from a published source that reproduces photo reproductions of declassified documents from official archives:

After deconstructing just the first two sentences totalling 50 words, the scale of the task in dealing with the untruths and misconceptions highlighted by the deleted citations in the whole page is obvious.

It appears to me that the editor who added those citation requests, all ignored, had a suspicion or knowledge that the claims were unproven and unprovable. IMHO he/she was probably right and until there is a full-blooded rewrite of the whole page his citations should remain as a means of drawing to the attention of readers, that these claims are not in fact referenced, or capable of being referenced.


 * And those editors who added this erroneous material originally, and then compounded their errors by failing to provide their sources when asked are not doing Wikipedia any favours. It stands or falls by its accuracy and its encyclopaedic standard of content. Beneath this text in the edit box is a short message that cannot be repeated often enough. It reads: Encyclopaedic content must be verifiable. 81.156.89.116 (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Retirement
The article says under "retirement":


 * Following retirement, a number of WE.177 training rounds were donated to museums in the United Kingdom, and one was donated to the National Atomic Museum in Albuquerque, New Mexico, where it can be viewed alongside similar American weapons. Another is at RAF Hendon.

I think a list of known sites of training rounds could be included. I have seen these displayed at:


 * Manchester (UK) Imperial War Museum
 * Orford Ness (UK)

I think I may also have seen training rounds at:


 * Duxford (UK) air museum
 * Secret bunker museum (UK)

can anyone update this list further please?

90.205.123.105 (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't update your list but I have seen green coloured rounds at all of the above listed sites except Orford Ness which has a white one. 94.5.82.95 (talk) 11:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Both green and white were used for live rounds (white originally, green later). Training rounds (which is what all the weapons that you see are) were coloured Oxford blue.  The ones on display have presumably been repainted to match live rounds (but the word 'training' still appears on the side).  The white cross over the ejectable parts of the weapon have also been retained to indicate that no such ejection can occur. 109.145.21.107 (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Blue disk
Anyone actually know what the situation is with that? For quite some time the image caption has stated that it's most likely a museum inventory tag; however take a look at the image description page - you'll see that a wikipedia editor of good repute states otherwise. I've removed the commentary for the time being but perhaps we ought to actually, y'know, work it out... Egg  Centri  c  22:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

sorry, I mean see what reliable sources say yada yada


 * I have added a commentary to the image talk page detailing the points by which I know that very little of what is in the picture is actually genuine. Briefly, the white plastic tools are part of a genuine key set along with the stainless steel discs.  Nothing else is genuine, not even the keys.  The blue disc and the hexagonal tag behind it are not part of the key set and have been added subsequently for unknown reasons.  If the key set was genuine this would have been impossible as the key rings were welded closed.  As for supporting references?  These keys were a highly classified component of a highly classified weapon system, so useable references are unlikely to be found. 86.169.33.6 (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The "Hexagonal Tag". It's untrue to describe it as a tag. It had a different function as a handle for the hexagonal Allen key that is seen clearly welded to it. It was kept with the key to operate the various settings on the Ground Control Unit. Without that Allen key the weapon was useless. Furthermore, its function is demonstrated in this BBC | film clip shown on BBC2 Newsnight.
 * I cannot speak about the blue tag, - it may be a later addition.
 * However, the genuineness or otherwise of the key can easily be verified by inserting it into the weapon identified by the serial number on the key itself. The weapon filmed for the BBC report was a training round located at the | Bristol Aero Collection at Kemble Airfield, and the key certainly fitted the weapon and was genuine, as shown in the film. Similarly with the hexagonal Allen key. Since I was the person filmed for the demonstration I can vouch personally for that.
 * Your talk of it being part of a "highly classified weapon system" were once true, but no longer. All the data on this website and others and books elsewhere is long since declassified and in the public domain. Declassified official records abound in various locations, and available to any researcher with proof of ID, including foreign ones. So you are utterly wrong to claim that usable references cannot be found. Although I do understand the reluctance of former Servicemen to accept that fact. The Cold War is over. Weapons found in museums are no longer secret weapons, - they are by definition, merely museum artifacts, - history. 2.222.226.169 (talk) 02:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * So when was the last time that you saw a live round in a museum? 86.157.171.34 (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm pleased to report that no one has ever seen a live round in any museum; nor are they ever likely to. A better description would be a former operational round. There are two of those that I'm aware of. One is at the | Boscombe Down Aviation Collection, and the other is in the Historical Collection at the | Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston. Sadly, that museum is inside the security perimeter at AWE and not open to the public; although access is possible by special invitation. 94.14.132.138 (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

RAF Harrier weapon usage incorrect
I'd just like to add that another error in this article is that the RAF Harrier fleet was never a carrier of this weapon. The RN Sea Harriers were designated FRS as 'Fighter/Reconnaissance/Strike', Strike being the parlance for Nuclear weapons. Although the RAF seemed to ignore this designation with Tornado and Jaguar, calling them GR for Ground Attack/Recce, even though Strike capable platforms. I served in the RAF on both Harrier GR3 and Tornado GR1/4; I know which ones carried what.


 * Changed that, thanks. The RAF Harrier (OR.345) were specified to be able to carry WE.177 but never deployed with it. Nifty table here. Rwendland (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Warhead physics
I feel the article would benefit from a discussion of the engineering physics of the warhead. Was the core made of uranium or plutonium or both? What was the tamper made of? What was the primary neutron source? Was it tritium boosted? What was its efficiency? Did it use Lithium? How many explosive detonation points were there? What were the conventional explosives? What were the safety mechanisms? What maintenance did they require? Were the designs based on American bombs? How were the bomb settings set and what were the options? 194.176.105.135 (talk) 12:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes this article on a nuclear bomb COULD benefit from a ton of highly classified data, you're right!94.175.244.252 (talk) 08:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Weapon classification
The article contains a claim that the designation 'MC (medium capacity)' refers to a weapon in the kiloton range and "HC (high capacity)" refers to a weapon in the megaton range. A reference is definately required to confirm that nuclear weapons are classified any differently from regular ordnance. The terms 'Medium Capacity' and 'High Capacity' have no connection with the amount of explosive power any particular weapon has.

The designations appertain to the ratio of the weight of the active explosive content relative to the overall weight of the weapon. For example the wartime RAF weapon known as the 'cookie' was a "Bomb, High Capacity, 4000lb" whereas the significantly more powerful 'grand slam' was a "Bomb, Medium Capacity, 22,000lb". The 'Medium Capacity' bomb designation applies to any bomb where the weight of the explosive content contributes not more than 50% of the total bomb weight. Any bomb where the weight of the explosive contributes more than 50% of the total weight is designated as 'High Capacity'.

In the case of these weapons, the weight of the plutonium core assembly plus fusion secondary (for the 'B' and 'C' variants) is less than 50% of the total weight of the bombs and thus they are all designated as a 'Medium Capacity' bomb for that reason alone. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * But you're OK with a nuclear weapon being labelled as "HE" (High Explosive)?
 * The HC / MC distinction, just like the HE term, was a somewhat crude bit of secret squirrel security through obscurity. Whitehall thought that the Russkis would never realise they were nuclear weapons if they were labelled with conventional terminology? "MC" doesn't mean anything in this case as it did for conventional weapons, it's a whole new series of nomenclature. it could have been made to mean anything, and kiloton / megaton range is entirely plausible. If a bit childish. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Parachute
The artice says at the beginning: "All types were parachute retarded". I think this should actually read: "All types were optionally parachute retarded". 90.221.252.156 (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Ejection ports
There are ejection ports at the nose the side and the rear. I imagine that the rear ports are for a parachute and the front ones may cover proximity fuses. Can anyone confirm their uses and what the side ports are for please? 2A02:C7D:A8BF:4100:9C74:D175:10AB:B39D (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Often a source of confusion. The only explosive ejectable parts were the parachute from the rear (only used in retarded modes) and the two round caps that covered the velocity sensing unit's erectable fences.  There were no ejectable parts on the front of the weapon.  The presence of the ejector symbol on either side of the nose is because all aircraft fittable weapons must be marked with ejector symbols on either side of the nose and tail (along with actually over any ejectable part).  Some people have used the presence of the ejector symbol on the nose as evidence that the radome is explosively ejectable.  Although it was originally designed to be so, it was not on operational rounds as the radome along with the radar fuze behind it was designed to double up as a shock absorber when the round was delivered in a ground impact mode allowing the war head to remain intact long enough to detonate.   -- Elektrik Fanne   13:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The Nose cone was "ejectable" in that it was the radar proximity fuse. When the weapon was being used as a depth charge, the Nose cone was indeed ejected.  This exposed ports which allowed the free flow of water into a barometric measuring device which was in the fusing chain. Jim Whitaker (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on WE.177. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110927115430/http://www.century20war.co.uk/page11.html to http://www.century20war.co.uk/page11.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Retarded
Excuse me, I'm not fluent in English, but I believe that data tables include incorrect spelled word "Retarded" instead of "Retired". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.188.121.222 (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * "Retarded" means "slowed down" (or "held back", perhaps); in this case it means the bombs were slowed down by a parachute, to give the plane that delivered them time to escape. It's correct the way it is. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 17:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It is a long time since I visited this page.The weapon was retarded for the Laydown Land delivery. The parachute slowed the weapon down so the warhead survived impact. It was a time delay unit which allowed the aircraft to escape.XJ784 (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

"Red Flag (nuclear weapon)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Flag_(nuclear_weapon)&redirect=no Red Flag (nuclear weapon)] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)