America's B61 Family Of Nuclear Bombs (with great video)

First, the absolutely awesome ultra high speed video:

[video=youtube;T9xSrnotXxU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9xSrnotXxU[/video]

Another one I've posted before, ostensibly meant to test nuke safety:

[video=youtube;fvqDj3me37o]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvqDj3me37o[/video]

The outstanding article:

Get To Know America's Long Serving B61 Family Of Nuclear Bombs
The first variant entered service 50 years ago and with a new version in development the B61 will continue to serve for decades to come.
MARCH 15, 2018

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...icas-long-serving-b61-family-of-nuclear-bombs

Tiny exceprts from long article:

The older versions:

The United States first started work on the weapons in 1961 as a result of the need for a new, more aerodynamic nuclear bomb that was better suited for use on then new high-performance jet aircraft, some of which were capable of reaching supersonic speeds.

Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, which the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) oversees today, built the first prototypes, initially known as TX-61s, in 1963. Difficulties during the engineering design phase meant the first B61-0s did not enter full-scale production until five years later.

Over the next decade, U.S. nuclear engineers steadily improved the capability, reliability, and safety of the design. All of the B61s came in two basic flavors, “strategic” versions for larger city-size targets and “tactical” variants for smaller site and even potentially for battlefield use against enemy troop concentrations, with the only real differences being in the available, selectable yields. Since most of the exact information is classified, open sources often disagree, but what follows is based on our best accounting of the information available.







Newer versions:

The B61-12 has been in development since at least 2011 and will be the first in the series to feature a precision guidance capability. They will have a GPS and inertial navigation system (INS)-directed tail kit and strakes along the weapon’s main body similar in form and function to those on conventional Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) bombs.

The weapon’s thermonuclear warhead will reportedly have a maximum yield of approximately 50 kilotons, but personnel on the ground will almost certainly be able to further reduce that using a so-called “dial-a-yield” feature that effectively limits the extent of the nuclear reaction in the "physics package" at the warhead's core when the weapon detonates. Some older B61s have settings as low as 0.3 kilotons – 50 times less powerful than Little Boy, the bomb the United States dropped on Hiroshima, Japan in 1945.

The U.S. military expects to finish production of the B61-12s – which experts believe will total between 400 and 500 bombs – and replacing the existing types by the end of 2024, at which point, this series of bombs will have been in service for more than 55 years.

The B61-12 would make an excellent scale rocket project or, better yet, a KIT (hint-hint). Heck, there was an Estes kit of the Paveway, why not this?:





The most recent operational variant, the B61-11, entered service in 1997 and is the first to dramatically differ in form, as well as function. The U.S. military treats this version as a combination tactical and strategic bomb even though it’s based on the B61-7 and reportedly has a single, maximum yield of approximately 340-400 kilotons.

The bigger difference, though, is that it has a significantly reinforced shell, possibly with a depleted uranium penetrating nose section, a delay fuzing system, and a booster rocket motor in the rear, all so it can break into deeply buried, hardened facilities. There are less than 100 of these bombs in existence, according to publicly available data, and the United States more or less built them with one specific target in mind.

I can't find decent photos of this one:

cool videos!
Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy... maybe its the radiation?
The photos and information was good to read.
Thanks

Winston said:

...and the United States more or less built them with one specific target in mind.

Click to expand...

Which is?

I've been known to work with those (older version)... Except for the location... I could say "Been There... Done That... Glow in The Dark :wink:"

Iran had some nuclear targets buried in mountains. MOAB wasn't able to crack the top off of a mountain. Then a hardened bunker under it. They could drop a 61-12 with under 1.5m CIP down a vent shaft and fry a milspec GPS tac-sat or they could use that hardened rocket B-61... I had some A/F power points on a old PC. Operative word "had". It was free on Google. Somehow the PC instantly got destroyed after download and opening. It had some Iranian bunkers listed. No coordinates. Chunked that PC into a freaking dumpster so it's in a landfill somewhere smashed to bits by a bull dozer I hope.

cvanc said:

Which is?

Click to expand...

Kosvinsky Kamen,a Russian equivalent to NORAD or Raven Rock, according to the linked article.

Reinhard

cvanc said:

Which is?

Click to expand...

From the article's paragraph directly below that:

In 1996, Russia finished work on its Kosvinsky Kamen bunker, part its so-called "continuity of government" plans to protect senior leadership in the event of a nuclear strike or other major emergency. Similar in concept and reportedly similarly—if not better—protected than the U.S. military's Cheyenne Mountain Complex or Site R, also known Raven Rock, the Kremlin built it specifically to be hardened against nuclear weapons going off up above. The B61-11's job was to put even those defenses beyond reach in what would likely already be an apocalyptic scenario.

Before the B61-11, the United States planned to use a much less elegant approach when it came to nuclear bunker busting, relying on aging B53 bombs, a design dating back to 1958 for this purpose. These 12-foot long, 4-foot wide, nearly 9,000 pound weapons would have used the sheer explosive power of their 9 megaton yield to create massive craters and crush underground targets. The U.S. government also explored using a modified B83-1, with its 1.2 megaton yield, for the role before deciding on the modified B61.

However, since I really doubt that the ability exists to penetrate Russian air defenses to drop a gravity bomb on that claimed intended target, I'd guess that the B61-11 is meant to destroy deeply buried hardened bunkers in countries which don't have Russian levels of air defense.

This thing is a little old, LIKE THE B-52. Oh, new jet engines will make it cool again.

The B61, known before 1968 as the TX-61, was designed in 1963. It was designed and built by the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. It began from a program for a lightweight, streamlined weapon launched in 1961. Production engineering began in 1965, with full production beginning in 1968 following a series of development problems.

So why are they doing this testing now?

It had to be perfected back in the 1960's, when it was released. Did they forget something?

If there is honeycomb aluminum in the nose to dampen the force of a LAYDOWN MODE deployment, could that have changed?

I think it is all a waste of time. They cannot even test warheads with a real blast anymore, due to dumb treaties. Underground should still be permitted. They cannot predict reliably the aging effect on the pits. These tired old bombs may not even go off these days. About as reliable as the missile defense hit to kill boondoggles.

Let's get some new small weapons that are more likely to be used. Smoke 'em if you got 'em! :dark:

No, but that B-61-12 is a tad freaky because it's variable yield. On lowest yield they can skirt treaties of use or whatnot. And it's guided. They can take the strategic nuclear weapon and change its role to a tactical fighter NATO deployable asset. I'm guess it's an extreme measure in the tool box that could get used for a save world from rogue insert nation X trying to threaten a US ally with a nuclear weapon. Insert random end of world starting nuclear event by a bad actor nation trying to disrupt stuff and realize a counter threat type device to diffuse situation. That PowerPoint was around time of B-2 armament upgrades and at that time they could not have an effective bunker buster for these deepened hardened complex bunkers built below normal paveway guided bunker buster penetration. The B-61-12 fit while a MOAB or other big massive conventional bomb wouldn't. They had conventional specialized weapons in design pipeline years ago for B-2. They were not ready at that time while the -61 converted was. Seen the casing only of silver bullet or mockup at a Army aviation museum next to a F-16 pylon and vulcan. It could possible go on F-15E which would increase SAM surviving and attack options over a B-52 for example. Military had this phase of fighter deployable nuclear weapons. Fighters are really good at flanking SAM batteries and terrain masking. You can even embed fighter groups with Suppression Enemy Air Defense loadouts to tactically neutralize radar or IR SAM sites near a desired position on a micro managed localized level. Harm/Maverick/Gbu-12. More forward kinetic energy for evasive maneuvering plus counter measures through airframe agility. Still don't know how a -61-12 fits in the grand scheme of things.

I think with a high degree of difficulty the US could saturate a bunch of Russian SAM network with likely committing 1/4-1/3 of national Airforce assets depending on layering and types and terrain of SAM and quantity. Key Intel would be a must plus air superiority. Forget it if fighter cover. Throw so much iron something hits because they fired every missile all the batteries had and here's a finite time to reload. Russian SAMS have gotten a lot better over the decades. I think there are rising nuclear powers that both US and Russia have tools to smash certain scenarios to prevent a nuclear war between peaceful super power countries from a bad distrusted nation randomly trying to construct or lobb a nuke somewhere. I just don't think there is any reasonable reason for US or Russia to start lobbing nukes strategically at one another like how in sixties mom had stories of crawling under desks with air raid sirens.

Winston said:

From the article's paragraph directly below that:

In 1996, Russia finished work on its Kosvinsky Kamen bunker, part its so-called "continuity of government" plans to protect senior leadership in the event of a nuclear strike or other major emergency. Similar in concept and reportedly similarly—if not better—protected than the U.S. military's Cheyenne Mountain Complex or Site R, also known Raven Rock, the Kremlin built it specifically to be hardened against nuclear weapons going off up above. The B61-11's job was to put even those defenses beyond reach in what would likely already be an apocalyptic scenario.

Before the B61-11, the United States planned to use a much less elegant approach when it came to nuclear bunker busting, relying on aging B53 bombs, a design dating back to 1958 for this purpose. These 12-foot long, 4-foot wide, nearly 9,000 pound weapons would have used the sheer explosive power of their 9 megaton yield to create massive craters and crush underground targets. The U.S. government also explored using a modified B83-1, with its 1.2 megaton yield, for the role before deciding on the modified B61.

However, since I really doubt that the ability exists to penetrate Russian air defenses to drop a gravity bomb on that claimed intended target, I'd guess that the B61-11 is meant to destroy deeply buried hardened bunkers in countries which don't have Russian levels of air defense.

Click to expand...

Thinking about the wargame scenario here, if the Soviet leadership has had time to retreat to Raven Rock, then most of the above ground assets on either side are probably pretty well nuked to dust. They probably wouldn't have to worry about air defenses too much at that point. Of course, most of humanity is gone by then anyway, so it maybe doesn't really matter who gets the last shot in.

But internal carry in the F-35 and F-22 will be by far the most useful application of this.

F-15E Strike Eagle First Jet Cleared To Employ Air Force's New B61-12 Nuclear Bombs
The B61-12 is the latest in the B61 series, the longest-serving American nuclear bomb, and they will be worth more than their weight in gold.
JUNE 8, 2020

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...-to-carry-air-forces-new-b61-12-nuclear-bombs
The U.S. Air Force's F-15E Strike Eagle has become the first aircraft type certified to deliver the United States' B61-12 nuclear gravity bomb following a series of tests over the Tonopah Test Range in March. The War Zone was first to report that month on a sighting of an F-15E carrying an inert B61-12 at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada, which oversees the sprawling Nevada Test and Training Range, inside which the Tonopah Test Range is situated. This particular F-15E was certainly among those involved in this testing of America's latest nuclear bomb, each of which will cost more than their weight in gold, literally.

The low altitude test flight, which involved an F-15E releasing the bomb at an altitude of around 1,000 feet while flying near Mach 1 over the Tonopah Test Range, took place on Mar. 12. Sandia says the weapon hit the desert floor 35 seconds after release.

Past variants of the B61 series could be equipped with a tail assembly containing a parachute to slow the bomb's fall, giving the aircraft that dropped it time to escape the blast. Aircraft could also drop bombs equipped with a parachute, or some other form of retarding device, such as a ballute, in a so-called "laydown" mode, where the denotation occurs after a set time delay after it hits the ground. You can read more about these release profiles in this past War Zone piece.

However, the B61-12 features a new tail assembly with a GPS precision guidance system. It's not clear how this might impact the new version's available low-level release profile options.

The B61-12 has been in development since at least 2011 and is technically a refurbishment and consolidation of four existing variants, the B61-3, -4, -7, and -10. The U.S. military has also indicated that the new variant could eventually replace the specialized B61-11 bunker-buster version, though it's unclear how it would be able to provide the same capabilities against deeply buried targets.





Recent test:



A previous test:



Nicely done video of the complete process:

If I was going to have to drop a gravity nuke then I’d greatly prefer the speed of an F-15 to get me as far out of Dodge as possible.

Thanks for sharing the videos. It's kind of humorous to see them tout the accuracy within millimeters for a Nuke!! Got to watch the 2nd stage of Trident II sub launch go down the 10 mile back in 87. I thought I'd seen fast until you see the water brake activate, plume out 10 miles away before the sound of the rocket gets to you, and you're standing 300yds from the initiation point! Life a a fighter mechanic took on a whole new Whoa factor when you saw a Silver Bullet (B61) slung under the body of the F-15E so for them to say the E model qualified to carry the -12, well, its been qualified to carry the Bullet since the E rolled off the assembly line in 88 and we took stood up the first of four squadrons.

BBowmaster said:

If I was going to have to drop a gravity nuke then I’d greatly prefer the speed of an F-15 to get me as far out of Dodge as possible.

Click to expand...

Parachute (Kevlar ribbon parachutes to handle supersonic velocities) or ballute retardation slows decent for surface bursts (laydown mode). Toss mode is also used to avoid damage to delivery aircraft. Both the F-22 and F-35 are plenty fast enough and add the essential stealth required against a sophisticated opponent and allow internal carry essential for stealth until just before the drop. The F-15 is not stealth and has no internal bomb bay.