The US Navy's Nuclear Weapons - World Naval Ships Forums Archive (Page 2)

Naval History by Country :

ROYAL
NAVY

US
NAVY

GERMAN
NAVY

FRENCH
NAVY

*VIEW ALL OF OUR CURRENT ART SPECIAL OFFERS ON ONE PAGE HERE*
NAVAL ART	AVIATION ART	MILITARY ART	SPORT ART

ALWAYS GREAT OFFERS :

20% FURTHER PRICE REDUCTIONS ON HUNDREDS OF LIMITED EDITION ART PRINTS

BUY ONE GET ONE HALF PRICE ON THOUSANDS OF PAINTINGS AND PRINTS

FOR MORE OFFERS SIGN UP TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER

The US Navy's Nuclear Weapons - World Naval Ships Forums Archive (Page 2)

The US Navy's Nuclear Weapons (Page 2)

Posts 51 to 75

Invincible: That being the case, when I finish this little project through the Trident program, I'll send you the composite of the whole article. Been set back a bit on finishing it, but it will get done. I kind of surprised myself in that it turned out to be a bit bigger than I had in mind when I started :eek: But since the nuclear weapons program has been an integral, and very little discussed, part of the operations of the US Navy, I thought that this forum would be the perfect place for a little bit of the story for the record. I'm sure your people at the museum are aware of the work of Chuck Hansen, who produced the book "U.S. Nuclear Weapons: The Secret History" (Orion Books, 1988) and they may want to look into coldwarDOTcom's "Swords of Armageddon" by the same author, available only in a very expensive CD ROM from the website (it's some 2500 pages of material). There is a considerable amount of material in the latter regarding US-UK cooperation in the weapons program that may be of interest to your experts (please extend my regards to them). From what I've read, the documents on that CD are "the source" for weapons-grade information. Richard Rhodes (Dark Sun) claimed it was his primary go-to reference for that book and his Pulitzer-Prize winning previous effort "The Making of the Atomic Bomb." There is so much drivel, hype and scare mongering among the public bloggers "experts" and others out there that the real history of nuclear weapons and how they function, like that of Pearl Harbor, has been buried under myths and hyperbole for too long. TV movies with the "terrorist nuclear weapon" I find almost amusing if they weren't so misleading, particularly the attempts to make it seem that they are some sort of virtually unstoppable threat. The "stolen American or Russian weapon" scenario is usually portrayed as the scariest -- I don't know about Russian weapons, but since they aren't stupid, I assume there weapons are like ours and are extremely uncooperative with being tampered with. Iran building their own is a different story, and far more dangerous. That being the case, my hope is that our government doesn't get terminally stupid about maintaining the necessary arsenal to deal with this potential. I would be really interested in being available to your experts there should they ever need a hand from across a couple of oceans and a continent..:) Regards,

[SIZE="3"]Here is the 9th and final part to this thread on the US navy's nuclear weapons which covers the submarine-launched ballistic missiles and their warheads. [/SIZE][B][SIZE="4"]The Nuclear Weapons of the United States Navy – Part IX: Ballistic Missiles[/SIZE][/B] [SIZE="3"][FONT="Arial"]The US Navy was quick to notice the potential for marrying missile technology and nuclear warheads with submarines; initial planning for such weapons systems was underway by 1946 – the obvious advantage of a "stealthy" delivery vehicle capable of getting close to enemy territory undetected before launching nuclear weapons was not lost on the navy's planners. Focused at first on the easiest attainable goal, the "cruise missile," the eventual development of far more sophisticated ballistic missiles remained only on the drawing boards during most of this period, due to the high level of technical difficulties involved in getting a reliable ballistic missile into a small submarine frame with minimal danger to the launching submarine. Technical and scientific advances were needed before this program could come to fruition. The concept of marrying a ballistic missile with a submarine was originally based on the plans of the German navy to develop a submersible "barge" capable of carrying V-2s under tow by a submarine. This would have been an extremely complex situation, but at least would have separated the submarine from the dangerous liquid-fueled rockets themselves. The US pursued similar programs on the drawing board, but nothing came of it while the cruise missile program was being developed, first with the "Loon" version of the German V-1, 351 Army-produced JB-2 versions being purchased by the navy and designated as the LTV-N-2 for deployment on two specially modified fleet submarines, the USS Cusk and Carbonero. Cusk fired the first Loon missile in February of 1947 and the missile age began for the US submarine force (with of course, a tip of the hat to the WWII exploits of the USS Barb under her innovative captain, Commander Eugene Fluckey, who conducted shore bombardments of Japanese coastal towns using a 5" unguided rocket launching rail modified from those used in various landing craft). The Loon was carried in a two-up pressure-proof cylindrical hanger mounted abaft the submarine's sail. The submarines were equipped with a 50' launching rail and all the needed fuel facilities and checkout/launch equipment. The Loon's main drawback for operational submarines was the necessity for the submarine to remain on the surface while the missile was removed from its container, set up on the launching rails, fueled and prepped for launch. Additionally, the missile was controlled by command radio guidance, which required the launching submarine to track the missile and provide guidance (which could be passed off to another submarine) while submerged at periscope depth with a radar mast deployed. Both of these factors greatly reduced the submarine's ability to remain undetected. The Loon had an effective range of about 135 miles, and was never deployed with a nuclear warhead. Design work on a warhead for the Loon was begun, but cancelled with the advent of the more advanced Regulus missile. Despite its drawbacks, the Loon was capable of demonstrating that missile-equipped submarines posed a real threat both to land and sea targets. During fleet exercises in 1948, three Loon missiles were launched at an "enemy" task force. None of the missiles were shot down even though the task force was aware missiles would be launched, and were also aware of the general location of the launching submarines. With the potential for the Loon to have been carrying a nuclear warhead, the lesson was obvious. The Regulus program developed a much better cruise missile that did carry nuclear warheads (both nuclear and thermonuclear – see the previous section on guided missiles) which was carried on the modified fleet submarines USS Tunny and Barbero, as well as the purpose-built USS Grayback and Growler and the nuclear USS Halibut. Regulus also required the launching submarine to be on the surface, and then at periscope depth to provide tracking and command guidance to the missile (which, like Loon, could be passed off to other submarines – while only the five submarines carried Regulus, many fleet boats carried the necessary command guidance and tracking equipment needed to assume control of a Regulus and guide the missile to a target.) During this period, the navy's interest in developing ballistic missiles for submarines lagged, the main reason for this being the necessity at the time for any such missile to be liquid-fueled, something the navy opposed tooth and nail. This was especially the case after the navy conducted special tests at White Sands Missile Range in 1948 to test the "missile accident" scenario in Operation Pushover. The operation was simply designed to see what would happen if a liquid-fueled missile were to collapse or topple over during launch in a shipboard environment. The damage caused by the fully-fueled V-2 test missile was devastating, showing clearly that no submarine could survive that kind of accident. With this ammunition in hand, the navy resisted any and all attempts to base ballistic missiles at sea, although they were more or less forced to cooperate with the US Army's Jupiter program with an eye to developing a submarine that would carry three liquid-fueled Jupiters in and extended sail launch capsule similar to the Soviet's K-129 boats. This was more the result of this program being the only one available at the time that would produce a missile small enough to be contained within a submarine. Fortunately for the navy, several factors came together that would allow for the rapid development and deployment of Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles (IRBMs) from a nuclear submarine (which would be designated as "SLBMs" for Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile regardless of the missile's range). The program would eventually evolve to where the submarines would carry the long range "big brother" version, the Trident II D-5 Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) now currently the only ballistic missile in the navy's inventory. The prime scientific and engineering advancement that allowed the navy to seriously consider ballistic missiles for submarines was the development of large, powerful and very reliable solid-fuel rocket motors and sustainers, followed by the development of inertial guidance systems for missiles that did not depend on radio transmissions and radar tracking during the course of the missile's flight. Additionally, the nuclear weapons labs were on the verge of producing high-yield, low-weight thermonuclear warheads ideal for mounting on a missile. With these developments coming out of the labs, the navy was quick to drop out of the Jupiter program and pursue the goal of a submarine-launched ballistic missile of its own design. The driving force behind this development was the appointment of Admiral Arliegh Burke as the Chief of Naval Operations. A brilliant leader, administrator and war-fighter, Admiral Burke was without a doubt the most competent Admiral since Nimitz, and he was as committed to seeing the ballistic missile program become a major navy contribution to national defense as he was in seeing the navy into the nuclear powered age. One of his first steps was to put a stop to the intra-service bickering between the navy's Bureau of Aeronautics and Bureau of Ordnance over who would control ballistic missile development – he took the responsibility away from both bureaucracies by placing the program entirely within a "Special Projects Office" answerable only to the CNO and secretary of the navy. Admiral Burke assigned Rear Admiral W.F. Rayborn to head this office. Rayborn was a genius when it came to getting the job done, and with the weight of the CNO behind him, was able to put a nuclear submarine to sea on patrol with nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles by 1960, at first the relatively short-ranged Polaris which would be followed by ever more capable missiles in the Poseidon and Trident programs. Four nuclear submarine classes would eventually be produced to carry ballistic missiles, beginning with the George Washington class, the first boat of which completed in December of 1959. The George Washington fired its first missile in July of 1960 and departed on the first deterrent patrol on 15 November 1960. The early SSBNs were built by modifying and existing Skipjack class nuclear boat with a 130' center section added to hold the 16 missile tubes and the launch and control equipment. Later submarines were purpose-built to this design. The deterrent patrols of SSBNs continue to this day and now represent a major portion of the United States' remaining nuclear capability. Briefly, the four ballistic missile submarine classes were: [B]George Washington Class (SSBN-598)[/B] L: 381' 8", Beam: 33', Draft: 26' 8", Surface Displ.: 5959 tons, Sub. Displ.: 6709 tons, Sur. Spd.: 16 kts, Sub. Speed: 21 kts, 16 missile tubes. [B]Ethan Allan Class (SSBN-608)[/B] L: 410' 5", Beam: 33', Draft: 27' 6", Surf. Displ.: 6946 tons, Sub. Displ.: 7884 tons. Sur. Spd.: 16 kts, Sub. Speed: 21 kts, 16 missile tubes. [B]Lafayette Class (SSBN-616)[/B] L: 425', Beam: 33", Draft: 27' 10", Surf. Displ.: 7325 tons, Sub. Displ.: 8251 tons, Sur. Spd.: 16 kts, Sub. Speed 21 kts, 16 missile tubes. [B]Ohio Class (SSBN-726)*[/B] L: 560', Beam: 42', Draft: 36'3", Surf. Displ.: 16,764 tons, Sub. Displ.: 18,750 tons. Sur. Spd.: 18 kts, Sub. Speed around 25 kts, 24 missile tubes. * The first four Ohio class SSBNs have been converted to SSGNs; the tubes for the Trident missiles being modified to carry multiple-round Tomahawk missile canisters and also special vehicles and equipment for special forces (SEAL) operations. These modified boats can carry up to 154 Tomahawks. The six ballistic missiles developed by the US Navy and carried on deterrent patrols were the Polaris A-1, 2 and 3 (UGM-27), the Poseidon C-3 (UGM-73A) and the Trident I C-4 (UGM-96A) and Trident II D-5 (UGM-133A). [B]Polaris A-1[/B] The Polaris A-1 was the first in the submarine-launched ballistic missile series and the world's first deployed long-range missile with solid-propellant rocket motors. Developed by Lockheed (as were all US – made SLBMs), the Polaris featured a SINS- based (Ship's Inertial Navigation System) guidance program and the missile was developed for undersea launch, which provided far more safety for the launching submarine. The developmental program for the Polaris was relatively quick and surprisingly trouble-free compared to some other programs. First flight-tested from Cape Canaveral on 20 April 1959, sea-going tests were conducted from the USS Observation Island on 27 August of the same year. By 20 July of the following year, the USS George Washington successfully launched two Polaris A-1s to a range of about 1150 miles. On 15 November 1960, the George Washington departed on her first patrol with 16 armed missiles on board. On 6 May 1962, during Operation Frigate Bird, the USS Ethan Allan launched a Polaris A-1 from near Christmas Island to Bikini Atoll where the nuclear warhead detonated, the only fully live test of a submarine launched ballistic missile ever conducted. The Polaris A-1 was operational with the US navy from 15 November 1960 to 14 October 1965 when the last submarine carrying the missile returned to port (the USS Abraham Lincoln). Weight: 28,000 lbs Length: 28' Diameter: 4' 6" Propellant: 2-stage solid-fuel rocket motors Range: 1380 nm Warhead: 1 W-47/ Y1. The W-47 was 47" long, 18" in diameter and weighed between 717-733 lbs depending on yield (Y1 = 600 kt; Y2 = 1.2 MT). About 1360 W-47s were produced, with around 300 in service at any one time. [B]Polaris A-2[/B] The navy's original intention in developing the Polaris missile was to have one that would have a range of around 1500 nm, which had not been achieved in the initial Polaris A-1 deployment. The upgraded A-2 Polaris addressed this problem and had a range of around 1700 miles in addition to being an improved missile overall with a new lightweight fiberglass casing instead of thin-gauge steel. Testing of this missile began in 1960 with the first deployment of A-2s at sea beginning in June of 1962. Only five Ethan Allan class and 8 Lafayette class boats carried the A-2 Polaris, which was replaced in the inventory quicker than expected due to the accelerated development of the A-3 version of Polaris mandated by President Kennedy. The A-2 Polaris was operational with the fleet from June 1962 to about November of 1964. Weight: 32,500 lbs. Length: 31' Diameter: 4' 6" Propellant: 2-stage solid-fuel rocket motors. Range: 1730 nm Warhead: 1 W-47/Y2, 1.2 MT. (See above for dimensions.) [B]Polaris A-3[/B] The Polaris A-3 was the last of the Polaris family, and was developed in response to the rapid advances being made in missile technology in the early 1960s, advances that would not be easily retrofitted to the existing Polaris A-2 missile. The A-3 version of Polaris had a range of 2880 nm, exceeding that of the Air Force Thor ICBM. This increase in range was due primarily to re-designed missile casings using fiberglass instead of steel and to developing a new lighter-weight guidance package in addition to the other weight-saving improvements generated for this missile. The Polaris A-3 was the navy's first multiple-warhead weapon, carrying three W-58 warheads in a Mk 2 Multiple Re-entry Vehicle (MRV). This allowed a weapon to "shotgun" a soft target which overcame problems of accuracy and also made it very difficult to intercept incoming warheads – an ABM missile would only be able to intercept one warhead target. With this missile, the Polaris equipped submarines made a significant jump in delivery capability from 16 warheads to 48. The three-warhead system also allowed for creating damage on a scale equivalent to the megaton warhead on the Thor Missile using smaller and less powerful warheads in a bracketing pattern. The Polaris A-3 was fitted to 18 US submarines – 5 George Washingtons, 5 Ethan Allans and 8 Lafayette class. Additionally, the Polaris A-3 was deployed on 4 Resolution class British ballistic missile submarines. These A-3s were produced in America and were then mated to a British-developed nuclear warhead. Polaris A-3s were active with the US navy from 1964 to 1981 and in the Royal Navy until May of 1996. Weight: 35,700 lbs. Length: 32' Diameter: 4' 6" Propellant: 2-stage solid fuel rocket motors Range: 2880 nm Warhead: 3 MRV W-58, 200kt. The W-58 warhead was 15.6" in diameter and about 40" long, weighing about 257 lbs. 1400 warheads were produced for the Polaris program. [B]Poseidon C-3[/B] The Poseidon successor to the Polaris program was a much larger missile than any of the Polaris versions and was also the first strategic missile to carry Multiple Independently Targeted Re-entry Vehicles (MIRV). The larger diameter of the C-3 was possible because it was found that the existing Polaris missile tubes would function safely with the original liners removed – it had been found that the original very severe shock-mitigation requirements imposed in the early days of the Polaris program could be safely reduced. Up to 14 warheads could be fitted to the Poseidon missile, but normal deployment was 10 warheads per missile in order to maintain the range of the A-3. (Decoys could also be included in the warhead delivery vehicles.) The fitting of the MIRV package to this missile meant that each ballistic missile submarine fitted with Poseidon carried 160 warheads that could be delivered over a very large attack "footprint" and with much greater accuracy, the Circular Error Probability (CEP) being around 1500 ft. (With all 32 Lafayette class submarines equipped with Poseidon, this meant the navy could have had 4560 warheads available with this system alone not taking into account the fact that not all submarines would be deployed at any one time.) Poseidon testing began in August of 1968 and by March of 1971 Poseidon began deterrent patrols. The Poseidon missile was back-fitted to 31 of the Lafayette class submarines. The Poseidon missile was unfortunately beset with some serious flaws that became apparent in 1972 after several operational suitability tests had resulted in failed launches. According to The U.S. Nuclear Arsenal, p. 44, these failures were due to "…quality control problems in its small electronic parts, poor gimbal assemblies, a faulty firing unit and flaws in the submarine/missile connecting flexible cables." A program was put in place to rectify these problems and retrofit the existing Poseidons in the fleet as rapidly as possible. The last improved Poseidon entered the fleet in 1978. The navy was also not very happy with the range of the Poseidon – originally planned to be around 4330 nm, the missile ended up with the same range as the preceding Polaris A-3 because of the heavier warhead package. This made the launching submarine more vulnerable to anti-submarine activities due to the necessity of being closer to the target during launch. This problem was addressed only by the development of the follow-on Trident missile. The last Poseidon was withdrawn from fleet service in October of 1991. Weight: 64,000 lbs Length: 34' Diameter: 6' 2" Propellant: 2-stage solid fuel rocket motors Range: 2880 nm Warhead: 10 (normal) to 14 367 lb. W-68 warheads of 50 kt yield each. (Accurate dimensions for this warhead have never been publically announced.) About 5250 warheads were built, and 3200 underwent upgrading to replace deteriorating explosives. This was the largest production run of a nuclear warhead in the US weapons program. [B]Trident I C-4[/B] The Trident program evolved out of the navy's perceived need for much better range for the submarine-launched ballistic missiles which would greatly increase the survivability of the nuclear ballistic missile subs in a wartime scenario. Based on the Department of Defense STRAT-X study of the late 1960s, the Trident program was initially for developing a missile with a 6000 nm range, but this proved unrealistic with existing technology and submarines, so the navy instead went with a two-stage program with the interim Trident C-4 attaining a 4600 nm range while development continued on the much-advanced Trident D-5. Trident missiles were back-fitted to 12 of the existing ballistic missile submarines and to the first eight of the much larger Ohio class submarines. The C-4 was also MIRV-equipped, with eight independently targeted reentry vehicles. First test flown in March of 1974 the missile became active with the fleet in October of 1979. The last Trident I C-4 was withdrawn from service in December of 2003. Weight: 73,000 lbs. Length: 34' Diameter: 6' 2" Propellant: 3-stage solid fuel rocket motors. Range: 4600 nm Warhead: 8 MIRV W-76 warheads, 100kt each. Dimensions for this 212 lb warhead have not been released. About 3000 warheads were manufactured for the Trident C-4 and D-5 missiles. [B]Trident II D-5[/B] Last of the submarine launched ballistic missiles, and the only one still in service, the Trident D-5 was intended as the very long range version of this family of missiles. Due to an increased warhead package, the D-5 as deployed did not achieve the planned 6000 nm range, the actual range being similar to the Trident C-4 although the missile does have much increased accuracy. The Trident D-5 was intended to carry the W-88 warhead, but the production of this warhead was cancelled in 1992 after serious safety concerns surfaced at the plant manufacturing the plutonium pits for the weapon. These problems resulted in the permanent closure of the Rocky Flats facility, and the Trident D-5 was then equipped with the same W-76 warhead of the earlier missile. As a result, there are two warhead packages for the D-5, a MK 5 reentry vehicle carrying the W-88 warhead and the Mk 4 reentry vehicle carrying the W-76 warhead. Accuracy of the D-5 is legendary, with a CEP from 4600 nm away of about 500 ft. The Trident D-5 became operational in March of 1990 and currently equips all the Ohio class ballistic missile submarines. The Trident D-5 is also deployed on the Royal Navy's ballistic missiles submarines, beginning with the Vanguard class' first patrol in 1994. The D-5 was first tested in January of 1987 and attained operational capability with the fleet in March of 1990. The D-5 equips all the Ohio class ballistic missile submarines currently in service, and it is the last nuclear weapon constantly deployed by the US Navy. Weight: 130,000 lbs. Length: 44' Diameter: 6' 11" Propulsion: 3-stage solid fuel rocket motors. Range: 4600 nm Warhead: 8 MIRV W-76 (see the entry for the Trident C-4) or 8 MIRV W-88 warheads of 475 kt each. The W-88 is 68.9" long and 21.8" in diameter, weighing about 800 lbs. About 400 W-88s were manufactured before production ceased.[/FONT][/SIZE] This concludes the thread on the nuclear weapons deployed by the United States Navy -- 16 bombs, 5 ASW weapons, 1 unguided rocket, 4 guided missiles and 6 ballisitic missiles, some 32 weapons in all. Deployed with the fleet from the late 1940s to now, none have ever had to be used in combat. That's a fairly peaceful record all told, and their mere presence in the inventory influenced the forces of evil and chaos at every turn of history's pages since the end of WWII.

-30- Well done, Don. Bill

As usual...Don's standard is a testimony to his skill,...knowledge and thoroughness...Well written once again.... Bravo Zulu..Regards Brian

Very kind comments, gentlemen, thanks Bill and Brian!

Great stuff, though I notice you mention Terrier morphed into Standard and it was actually Tartar that turned into the Standard series. I was very interested to read that the Mk 91 bomb could go through over 100 feet of earth and 22 feet of concrete; this is a lot better then what has been claimed for the modern B-61-11. I assume that’s related to the use of a very rugged gun type device as the nuclear component?

Hi Rob, welcome to the forum! I think it was the rugged device and a very heavy armored steel nose that did the trick. And as with many weapons "stats" there can be a difference between claims and reality -- I am also going back and checking the source where I got that info. The MK 91 was a bit before my time, so I never saw one "opened up," although all the weapons were on display at the training schools I attended. And you are correct in that it was the Tartar that morphed. An oversight I appreciate you mentioning, and I have corrected that in my post as I was just revising these posts into a single document for use elsewhere, so thanks!

Don, Many congratulations on your 9th and final part. An excellent piece of work. This forum is certainly enhanced by having such fascinating and authoritative material produced by an expert. Many thanks !! Invincible

Most kind comments, Invincible, thank you very much! Regards,

Very interesting reading Don, thanks for taking the time to share. AL

Some nuclear weapons photographs to round out this thread. Since the Sandia Lab disposed of many surplus training weapons and "shapes" to various museums over the past few years, quality photographs of most weapons can now be found that are great improvements over many that have been published in the past.
Attachments :

The rest of the bombs.
Attachments :

The Anti-submarine weapons. (The MK 57 and Mk 105 bombs could also be used as depth charges.)
Attachments :

The missiles round out the photograph posts.
Attachments :

[QUOTE=Don Boyer;10019397]The missiles round out the photograph posts.[/QUOTE] Don, Really smashing pictures - do you happen to have any good Polaris A-3 missile pictures at launch that we could use in our museum to illustrate the story of the British deterrent?

Invincible -- I will check. If I remember when I researched this, for some reason the A-3 was the one missile where the fewest photos popped up in Google Images; with the bombs it was the MK 28 EX. I have a lot of others, though. If I find any, will PM them to you. Regards,

[quote=INVINCIBLE;10022949]Don, Really smashing pictures - do you happen to have any good Polaris A-3 missile pictures at launch that we could use in our museum to illustrate the story of the British deterrent?[/quote] Hi I seem to remember that there are pictures of Polaris in this gallery linked below. Post 52 and probably others too. [URL]http://www.worldnavalships.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1723309&highlight=polaris#post1723309[/URL] The thread is full of rocket photographs. Also I have many good photo's of Polaris that when I can lay my hands on them I will add to the thread above.

Thanks for that Terry, appreciate the search and deploy mission! :) ...and, in response to a PM from a well known forum member and former Marine from the midwest, who shall remain nameless, I was only mentioning what can be found on Google, not that my posts [U]used [/U]those photos! :eek: MY photos are either mine or "obtained from official sources," -- mostly from the collections of museum curators and the like, so THERE! :) Regards all,

Don, Thank you for providing a lot of information on a subject that hasn't had much published about it. I wonder if you'd please clarify something you stated in one of your posts? You wrote: "Terrier missile installations were aboard three aircraft carriers (the USS Kitty Hawk and her two sisters, which did not carry the nuclear version)..." Are you saying nuclear Terriers were aboard the Kitty Hawk only, or not aboard any of the Kitty Hawk-class ships? Also, do you have a consolidated, updated version of the story, minus the posts from forum members, that I could have for my files? I collect patches from nuclear missile-equipped units and your article would be a valuable addition to the library I have that documents the history of the units and their emblems. I should admit that before reading your series of articles, I had assumed that all three of the Kitty Hawk-class carriers could fire the nuclear version of the Terrier, so I acquired Terrier patches from the three ships that I guess are now outside the scope of my collection. Your article prompted further reading on the Web and I also discovered that the five Kidd-class destroyers were not nuclear capable either, even though they were equipped with ASROCs. I wonder what other assumptions I've made that are inaccurate??? Thanks again for providing this info, and I'm looking forward to your answer! ~Greg

The FOUR Kidd-class destroyers were not nuclear-capable because they had been built for Iran, therefore they had no nuclear-weapon-rated storage facilities. They were nearly complete when the Islamic Revolution overthrew the US-friendly government. The USN then purchased them from the shipyard.

Greg: As usual, Black Bat's excellent research has covered the Kidd class. None of the three Terrier-equipped carriers to my knowledge carried the nuclear version of the Terrier as far as I can tell. Of course, they COULD have, if called on to do so, but apparently did not as a matter of course or navy policy of the time. I do have a consolidated version (that I haven't given a final edit to yet) of the entire set of posts if you would like them -- send me a PM with your email and I will forward it to you. Regards,

...and one last photograph for this section that I have not visited in awhile. A tip of the hat to BB242 for reminding me of the website this came off of, which has the 1968 WestPac Cruise Book for the USS Bon Homme Richard. Yours truly, second from left, first row. Good God! That was 44 years ago! :) Regards,
Attachments :

Hi Don, Kudos for a wonderfully informative series of articles regarding US Navy nuclear weapons. They were very helpfull to me in updating an NNSA historical NW data base. I hope you will not be offended if I suggest a small typo correction to the very complete and comprehensive table attached to your very first post...line item 22 identifies the 16" shell for the Iowa class battleship guns as the Mk33/W-33. As discussed in your articles, this weapon was the Mk[B][I]2[/I][/B]3/W-[B][I]2[/I][/B]3. Line item 32 correctly identifies the W-33 as the first of the Army's 8" artillary fired atomic projectiles (AFAP). Thanks again for assembling a very fine historical reference.

Mebleck: Thanks for the kind comments, and the corrections have been made to my original table. Might I enquire what the NNSA project is all about? I plan to upgrade this section with newer information as time goes by, and I am always interested in what else is going on in the nuclear weapons history field. Regards

Hi Don, Sure...on the premise that a picture is worth a thousand words, I'm assembling an historical image data base that will include the weapons themselves, delivery systems, current facilities (DoD and NNSA), atmospheric tests, and significant nuclear weapon accidents. Your articles were very helpful in identifying the various US naval aircraft that have been certified for nuclear weapon delivery, and with which weapons they were compatible. I'm beginning with unclassified images, and may eventually port the data-base to an appropriate classified system in order to include such things as weapon cutaway images. Thanks again for an informative read.

Previous Posts

Everything we obtain for this site is shown on the site, we do not have any more photos, crew lists or further information on any of the ships.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE. ALL IMAGES DISPLAYED ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW, AND ARE OWNED BY CRANSTON FINE ARTS OR THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS. NO REPRODUCTION OR COPYING ALLOWED ON OTHER WEBSITES, BOOKS OR ARTICLES WITHOUT PRIOR AGREEMENT.

Contact Details
Shipping Info
Terms and Conditions
Cookie Policy
Privacy Policy

Sign Up To Our Newsletter!

Stay up to date with all our latest offers, deals and events as well as new releases and exclusive subscriber content!

This website is owned by Cranston Fine Arts. Torwood House, Torwoodhill Road, Rhu, Helensburgh, Scotland, G848LE

Contact: Tel: (+44) (0) 1436 820269. Email: cranstonorders -at- outlook.com

Return to Home Page