gewing Posted December 22, 2007 Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads Good point' date=' but I'm working up some stuff for an Ogre conversion and standard ammo appears to be tac nuke shells... I'm just trying to figure out where to go in terms of Damage and DEF before I start working out other mechanics.[/quote'] For some reason I was just thinking of the nuclear HAND GRENADES and small shells (possibly even "bullets") that were proposed at some time. IIRC they would use Californium or one of the other odd man made elements. I seem to recall estimates that weapons equivalent to 200 kg of dynamite were theoretically possible, and could have been fired from sub 30mm guns. IIRC the half life was such that they needed to be rebuilt every couple weeks or so... OTOH, there was the warhead for the Davy Crockett and the Genie Air to air rocket, also the atomic Falcon missile. iirc it could be scaled down to as little as 10 tons of dynamite, but was effectively a neutron bomb, and enhanced radiation weapon. The radiation had a larger danger area than the blast effect under most conditions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmadanNaBriona Posted December 22, 2007 Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads The Itsy bitsy tac-nuke shot from the GEV's snout Down rolled the Ogre to wipe the GEV out. Up came the fireball the turned the night to day. And the itsy bitsy GEV bits went all their seperate ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gewing Posted December 22, 2007 Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads The Itsy bitsy tac-nuke shot from the GEV's snout Down rolled the Ogre to wipe the GEV out. Up came the fireball the turned the night to day. And the itsy bitsy GEV bits went all their seperate ways. I knew before I tried that I could not rep you again yet... I was thinking about 1970s era fighters armed with cannons firing extra high velocity rounds. Say 30 mm guns firing saboted 20mm micro nukes. say 1000 rpm, firing 200kg HE eqivalent shells at 5000 fps. there might be a more rapid fire conventional gun for anti-aircraft, but this would be for ground attack primarily. and its abilities for anti-ship use... Oh where, oh where did that little tank go, o where oh where can it be, I only hit it with three rounds, oh there it is in the tree! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L. Marcus Posted December 22, 2007 Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads . . . And then there was Gewing's sig, as cream on the cake . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmadanNaBriona Posted December 22, 2007 Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads I knew before I tried that I could not rep you again yet... I was thinking about 1970s era fighters armed with cannons firing extra high velocity rounds. Say 30 mm guns firing saboted 20mm micro nukes. say 1000 rpm, firing 200kg HE eqivalent shells at 5000 fps. there might be a more rapid fire conventional gun for anti-aircraft, but this would be for ground attack primarily. and its abilities for anti-ship use... Oh where, oh where did that little tank go, o where oh where can it be, I only hit it with three rounds, oh there it is in the tree! Getting some good lullabies for the boy goin' here, I'm thinking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gewing Posted December 22, 2007 Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads . . . And then there was Gewing's sig' date=' as cream on the cake . . . [/quote'] Getting some good lullabies for the boy goin' here' date=' I'm thinking [/quote'] You guys actually made me not just chuckle, but SNORT!!! edit maybe I should change my sig IF at first you don't succeed, get a bigger hammer IF you still don't succeed, get the High Explosives! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyrath Posted December 22, 2007 Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads For some reason I was just thinking of the nuclear HAND GRENADES and small shells (possibly even "bullets") that were proposed at some time. IIRC they would use Californium or one of the other odd man made elements. Correct. Californium-253. This appeared in the classic Traveller RPG under the name "collapsing rounds." Two subcritical pellets in a rifle bullet. When the bullet hits something, the bullet collapses, forcing the pellets together, resulting in a small nuclear explosion. The ammo has to be stored in a science-fictional device called a damper box. Californium-253 has the incredibly short half life of 18 days (instead of thousands of years). The damper box magically prevents nuclear decay, preventing the ammo from turning into inert elements. In the anime GunBuster, when battle is imminent, the warship's nuclear foundries start manufacturing Californium-253 for the mecha's nuclear weapons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted December 22, 2007 Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads Your wish is my command. From http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3w.html#scan Executive summary: Off the shelf hardware can do a full sky scan in about 4 hours. Hardware about 8 to 10 years in the future could do full sky scan and compare with the prior scan, in a package that was milspec and rad-hardened. Therefore it will be a trivial task for hardware that is 50 to 100 years in the future. Thanks, now I undestand why... Correct. Californium-253. This appeared in the classic Traveller RPG under the name "collapsing rounds." Two subcritical pellets in a rifle bullet. When the bullet hits something, the bullet collapses, forcing the pellets together, resulting in a small nuclear explosion. The ammo has to be stored in a science-fictional device called a damper box. Californium-253 has the incredibly short half life of 18 days (instead of thousands of years). The damper box magically prevents nuclear decay, preventing the ammo from turning into inert elements. In the anime GunBuster, when battle is imminent, the warship's nuclear foundries start manufacturing Californium-253 for the mecha's nuclear weapons. Wouldn't it be possible with another, more stable, element or isotop, like plutonium 239? Because the way I see it, if the subcritical pellets don't decay to fast, it might be possible to build such a device right now, the damper box being only a simple lead shell with a hollow gap between the to pellets, as lead will deform itself after hitting an armored surface... Also, I heard about somethinh, once, but never could confirme it by credible lecture. I heard the russian government had developped a hand portable "nuclear suitcase". It would have a low yield, but would be perfect for undercover ops. Does that thing exist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorPse Posted December 22, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads Hmmm.... I seem to remember the Soviets really building some suitcase nukes, but then, that might be left over Cold War nuttiness and not actual fact. Speaking of which, I'm a little bored, when are we going to have Cold War II? Unless, you know, you think we're already having it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyrath Posted December 22, 2007 Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads Wouldn't it be possible with another' date=' more stable, element or isotop, like plutonium 239? Because the way I see it, if the subcritical pellets don't decay to fast, it might be possible to build such a device right now[/quote'] Well, sadly no. If you use a more stable isotope like Plutonium-239, the required critical mass is around ten kilograms. This would be a sphere about 9.9 centimeters in diameter, which is far too large to fit in a rifle bullet. The fact that Californium-253 is so wildly unstable is also what makes its critical mass so tiny. (Actually, now that I actually try finding some figures, its says that it will need just a shade under one kilogram, in a final sphere about 2 cm in diameter, which is also a tad large for a rifle bullet. Oh, well). Also, I heard about somethinh, once, but never could confirme it by credible lecture. I heard the russian government had developped a hand portable "nuclear suitcase". It would have a low yield, but would be perfect for undercover ops. Does that thing exist? It appears that those that know for sure are not talking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_bomb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyrath Posted December 22, 2007 Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads Speaking of which' date=' I'm a little bored, when are we going to have Cold War II? Unless, you know, you think we're already having it.[/quote'] Just wait until Putin consolidates power, and the Cold War will be back in business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted December 22, 2007 Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads Just wait until Putin consolidates power' date=' and the Cold War will be back in business.[/quote'] I think we're already in it. It is now though a three blocs cold war: US, Russia, China. Arms race, space race, puppet third world states fighting for their puppet masters in order to have them control over ressources... Sounds like a cold war to me. Also, thank you again Nyrath for your unfailing knowledge...! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristopher Posted December 22, 2007 Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads Yes' date=' it's a pity that the Second Law of Thermodynamics forbids 100% efficiency. Or rather, we've found nothing so far that allows it. You can quote the laws of thermodynamics until you're blue in the face, I already know them. Never mind that I was largely being humorous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristopher Posted December 22, 2007 Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads Agreed. But that implies that everybody trying to transport Earth analogies into space will have their assumptions knocked on their derrières. Such as people postulating space fighters' date=' like X-Wings or Vipers. Or ships using stealth.[/quote'] Those who assume to know what the future will look like, to know where technology is going and what it will make the world look like, are also destined to be knocked on their butts. See also, atomic-powered flying cars, rayguns, jetpacks, and any book written about the year 2000 in 1970 or earlier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gewing Posted December 22, 2007 Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads Well, sadly no. If you use a more stable isotope like Plutonium-239, the required critical mass is around ten kilograms. This would be a sphere about 9.9 centimeters in diameter, which is far too large to fit in a rifle bullet. The fact that Californium-253 is so wildly unstable is also what makes its critical mass so tiny. (Actually, now that I actually try finding some figures, its says that it will need just a shade under one kilogram, in a final sphere about 2 cm in diameter, which is also a tad large for a rifle bullet. Oh, well). It appears that those that know for sure are not talking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_bomb Well, I was going from memory... I suppose a 35mm or 40mm gun could be used... The reason I want the very high velocity of a discarding sabot round is that the shooter should not want to be anywhere near these, and it would make long range targetting easier. I wonder if there would be a practical way to make an armor piercing version of that round. I would think that if you mounted the "payload" in the tail section of a long rod penetrator, it probably would not go off on its own. If you mount it in the front, it would go off on the surface, and the penetrator would probably do nothing practical. Maybe if you put it closer to the middle of a projectile you could make it so that enough mass moves forward to compress it and trigger the reaction. As to the 18 day half life, well, if these are not "general issue" rounds, perhaps you just manufacture them, then transport them via supersonic transport to the area of operations, and deploy them as fast as possible. Rotate shells every 10-15 days? Imagine how effective such a warhead would be on an agile sidewinder type missile. peace through superior firepower? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Posted December 22, 2007 Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads why does it have to be a sphere when a cone or cylinder is the shape of most bullets also an nuke going off as a skin to skin will do a good job unless you need a deep penatration Well, I was going from memory... I suppose a 35mm or 40mm gun could be used... The reason I want the very high velocity of a discarding sabot round is that the shooter should not want to be anywhere near these, and it would make long range targetting easier. I wonder if there would be a practical way to make an armor piercing version of that round. I would think that if you mounted the "payload" in the tail section of a long rod penetrator, it probably would not go off on its own. If you mount it in the front, it would go off on the surface, and the penetrator would probably do nothing practical. Maybe if you put it closer to the middle of a projectile you could make it so that enough mass moves forward to compress it and trigger the reaction. As to the 18 day half life, well, if these are not "general issue" rounds, perhaps you just manufacture them, then transport them via supersonic transport to the area of operations, and deploy them as fast as possible. Rotate shells every 10-15 days? Imagine how effective such a warhead would be on an agile sidewinder type missile. peace through superior firepower? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gewing Posted December 22, 2007 Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads why does it have to be a sphere when a cone or cylinder is the shape of most bullets also an nuke going off as a skin to skin will do a good job unless you need a deep penatration valid point, I was just thinking that a sphere would probably have advantages. It would be interesting to see what the effect on armor and such of that amount of force on a small area would be. Probably not as good at penetrating armor as a long rod penetrator, but then there is the radiation... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theltemes Posted January 2, 2008 Report Share Posted January 2, 2008 Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads why does it have to be a sphere when a cone or cylinder is the shape of most bullets also an nuke going off as a skin to skin will do a good job unless you need a deep penatration A sphere minimizes the surface area of the mass, resulting in decreased number of escaping neutrons, hence minimizing the critical mass needed. A classic problem in nuclear engineering - determining the required mass for criticality: Geometric Buckling = Material Buckling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorPse Posted January 4, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2008 Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads A sphere minimizes the surface area of the mass, resulting in decreased number of escaping neutrons, hence minimizing the critical mass needed. A classic problem in nuclear engineering - determining the required mass for criticality: Geometric Buckling = Material Buckling Cool... thanks for the info... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost-angel Posted January 4, 2008 Report Share Posted January 4, 2008 Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads So I just read this thread. First, since it was never picked back up - 1 MT warhead is written up in the Equipment Guide - a book worth the price for all the other stuff in it too. Second, I learned a whole bunch about space stuff. Third, most of what I learned negates why I play Space Opera so it will be ignored. Except the part about what happens when you nuke a ship in space, because even I (with my lasers and stealth ships) can't believe in shockwaves in space. Fourth, nothing do to with anything but I found the Fight album War Of Words on CD finally (at a price I was willing to pay) and am happy about that. Fifth, Nyrath, dude you're awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyrath Posted January 5, 2008 Report Share Posted January 5, 2008 Re: Tac-nukes vs. Nuclear Warheads Fifth' date=' Nyrath, dude you're awesome.[/quote'] Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.