US to retire B83-1 thermonuclear bomb

In case anyone noticed, the Pentagon's new national defense strategy document calls for retiring the B83-1 free-fall thermonuclear bomb for active service:
english.almayadeen.net...
www.theguardian.com...

Since the retirement of the B53 bomb (the last example of which was dismantled in 2011) in the late 1990s, the B83 has been the only operational free-fall thermonuclear bomb, with a yield of 1 to 2 megatons. If the B83-1 is retired from service, the USAF will be left without any operational megaton-yield nuclear bombs.

a reply to: Potlatch

Something tells me if they are retiring this then airforce has better bombs already in service. Maybe not even bombs as much as air launched cruise missiles. Its not like you really want to get close to the detonation or any air defenses around a target anyway. Everything is standoff these days.

Perhaps replaced by orbital weapon systems

originally posted by: Potlatch
In case anyone noticed, the Pentagon's new national defense strategy document calls for retiring the B83-1 free-fall thermonuclear bomb for active service:
english.almayadeen.net...
www.theguardian.com...

Since the retirement of the B53 bomb (the last example of which was dismantled in 2011) in the late 1990s, the B83 has been the only operational free-fall thermonuclear bomb, with a yield of 1 to 2 megatons. If the B83-1 is retired from service, the USAF will be left without any operational megaton-yield nuclear bombs.

They don’t need megaton-yield weapons any more because delivery accuracy has improved so much with GPS, SAR, etc.

If the B83-1 is retired from service, the USAF will be left without any operational megaton-yield nuclear bombs.

Why7 ?
That's what the cruise was designed for .

Well if they really wanted to they could take a dozen Davy Crocketts and put that into a cluster bomb. Detonate the cluster bomb at 30,000 feet and the Crocketts explode at 100 feet. And considering Davy Crocketts are 1950s technology I wonder how much smaller they could be today?

a reply to: ntech

Apparently the size of the phisical bomb is determined by the minimum size at which you can achieve a critical mass.

en.wikipedia.org...#:~:text=Extremely%20small%20(as%20small%20as,only%200.19%20kiloton%20(the%20Swift

a reply to: Potlatch

baby sat both for a couple years,

a reply to: andy06shake

they also had dial a yield / variable yield.

Variable yield, or dial-a-yield, is an option available on most modern nuclear weapons. It allows the operator to specify a weapon's yield, or explosive power, allowing a single design to be used in different situations. For example, the Mod-10 B61 bomb had selectable explosive yields of 0.3, 5, 10 or 80 kilotons, depending on how the ground crew set a dial inside the casing when it was loaded onto an aircraft. Variable yield technology has existed since at least the late 1950s. Examples of variable yield weapons include the B61 nuclear bomb family, B83, B43, W80, W85, and WE177A warheads.

Variable yield

America's nuclear program is now decades behind Russia and China. We were still using floppy disks up till 2019 to store targeting data...
Source

It's not surprising we are having to dust off 50 year old weapons to saber rattle with. Wouldn't expect anything less from this senile administration.

a reply to: JAY1980

Did the last administration not have the extract same weapons available to saber rattle?

Have to wonder why they did not address the problem in any sort of realistic manner, or the previous administration that came before them?

I think bombs, war, violence, destruction should be retired forever on the entire planet Earth; but that will not happen has long as their is evil on Earth...and there is plenty of it.,

Anger management, common sense, we need more of . It is so sad how humanity keeps attacking humanity.

a reply to: Potlatch

Here’s the story on the B83 retirement:

“As of 2013 the Pentagon saw the B83 nuclear bomb as a "relic of the Cold War," believing that deploying a megaton-yield gravity bomb, the highest level nuclear weapon left in the U.S. inventory, to Europe was "inconceivable" at this point. …The B61 Mod 12 upgrade is being pursued as a forward-deployed tactical/strategic nuclear weapon to protect NATO and Asian allies since it can be used from dual-capable fighter aircraft, as well as planned to arm the F-35 and B-21 Raider, and its lower yield options make it more flexible with less collateral effects.
….
In January 2014, former Air Force Chief of Staff Norton A. Schwartz stated that the Mod 12 nuclear bomb upgrade would have enhanced accuracy and a lower yield with less fallout compared to previous versions of the weapon. Accuracy has not been a guarantee for air-dropped nuclear weapons, so consequently large warheads were needed to effectively impact a target; the Mod 11 nuclear earth-penetrator is accurate to 110–170 meters from the desired detonation location, so it requires a 400-kiloton warhead. The Mod 12 is accurate to 30 meters from a target and only requires a 50-kiloton warhead. Schwartz believes that greater accuracy would both improve the weapon and create a different target set it can be useful against. An example is the higher-yield Mod 11's role of attacking underground bunkers that need a ground burst to create a crater and destroy it through the shockwave. A 50-kiloton yield detonating on the ground produces a crater with a radius of 30–68 meters, depending on the density of the surface, effectively putting the bunker within the circular error probability.
…..
Despite claims the Mod 12 has an earth penetrating capability, the weapon does not have the reinforced structure like that of the Mod 11, which is required to function as an earth penetrating weapon. The Mod 11 will be retained in service for the ground penetrating mission.

The Mod 12 Life Extension Program continued in 2018 and on 29 June 2018 two successful non-nuclear system qualification flight tests at Tonopah Test Range were reported. In October 2018, the Mod 12 guided tail-kit assembly received Milestone C approval to enter the production phase; the TKA went through the traditional test program in under 11 months, achieving a 100% success rate for all 31 bomb drops.

Politico reported in October 2022 that the US military planned to accelerate the deployment of the Mod 12 in Europe.This drew criticism from the Russian foreign minister Alexander Grushko, who accused the US government of "reducing the nuclear threshold" with the weapon's increased accuracy.”

From:

en.wikipedia.org...

In summary, the B83-1 is a relic of the Cold War. It was designed to have a yield of greater than a megaton because bombers were not very accurate back then and you had to make the explosion bigger to guarantee destroying the target even if you missed by a few hundred meters. Also, first generation nuclear warheads were extremely expensive to maintain. After the end of the Cold War, we didn’t need and couldn’t afford weapons like the B83-1. With modern navigation systems and active guidance on the bomb, you can get the miss distance down to around 30 meters or less, so you don’t need as big a boom. Even so, the B61-12 which is replacing the B83-1 has a dial-a-yield warhead that can deliver a boom from less than 1 kiloton up to 50 kiloton. It started development under the Obama administration, continued under Trump and is now being deployed under Biden. The Russians hate it because they can’t really compete with it.

a reply to: 1947boomer

Sounds reasonable. I wonder if they will be dismantled or just put underground for spare parts and in case of destroyed GPS satellites. That would be reasonable too. Ukraine is using analog to move around trains. That's exactly the kind of stuff you do in a war. Digging out T-55 tanks. Digging out coal again. Using Mosin rifles and Maxim machine guns...

a reply to: JAY1980

Using floppy disks had absolutely nothing to do with the weapons themselves. And by using those old systems the risk of cyberattack was slightly above zero.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: ntech

Apparently the size of the phisical bomb is determined by the minimum size at which you can achieve a critical mass.

en.wikipedia.org...#:~:text=Extremely%20small%20(as%20small%20as,only%200.19%20kiloton%20(the%20Swift

Criticality relates to fissionable neutron population, so the idea that there is a specific critical mass makes many assumptions. Temperature, density, reflectors/tampers and other physical conditions, all factor in.

For example, imagine an environment that was generally subcritical, but only slightly so, you'd only have to add a little bit more to 'tip things over the edge'.

And there are actinides that only require 1/19th of the mass of Uranium 235, to become critical.

So, there is great variability in what could be called a 'supercritical mass'.

Besides that, everyone has now heard of atomic weapons, so they are probably out-dated by other weapons that you never hear about, like antimatter or baryonic ones.

a reply to: chr0naut

I don't think we have antimatter weaponry yet chr0naut considering how expensive it is to produce, even in minuscule amounts, never mind the storage concern involved.

They can produce the same to similar yields with conventional weaponry and thermobarics as they can using the tactical sorts of battlefield nukes.

Never heard of "baryonic" weaponry but i take it that would be a particle beam of some sorts?

Maybe off topic but there was actually a back pack carried Nuclear device tested and in use back in the 60's, I know a man that trained with it B 61 was an over the shoulder deployed unguided device, and like the Genie air to air rocket , was passed by with technology. Tomahawk, Posesiden, or Minuteman were leaps ahead in capability. A device delivered to a port in a container on a ship or even a delivery van is more capable these days I would think if there are anti ballistic assets in place. But valuable to have a tiny A-4 off a carrier able to take out a city as a deterrent.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: JAY1980

Did the last administration not have the extract same weapons available to saber rattle?

Have to wonder why they did not address the problem in any sort of realistic manner, or the previous administration that came before them?

The Long Range Strike Bomber program and SSBN-X program that have resulted in ongoing development of the B-21 Raider and Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine were initiated under Barack Obama's watch. The Reliable Replacement Warhead program was initiated by US Congress in 2004 to produce a new generation of nuclear warheads and bombs, and a design by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory based its W89 warhead was chosen as the winner of the RRW contest, but by 2008 Congress zeroed out funding for the RRW program, and the Obama administration in 2009 canceled the RRW program.

During Trump's divisive presidency, the USAF declared Northrop Grumman the winner of the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) contract to develop a replacement for the Minuteman, and the winning Northrop Grumman design has been designated the LGM-182 (aka LGM-35) Sentinel, which will carry the W87 warhead.

Link:
en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: chr0naut

I don't think we have antimatter weaponry yet chr0naut considering how expensive it is to produce, even in minuscule amounts, never mind the storage concern involved.

They can produce the same to similar yields with conventional weaponry and thermobarics as they can using the tactical sorts of battlefield nukes.

Never heard of "baryonic" weaponry but i take it that would be a particle beam of some sorts?

I suppose baryonics could be particle beam weapons, but think the biggest atomic energy release, and then multiply it by orders of magnitude.

Basically, nearly all of the mass would be converted to energy (well, the separation into individual quarks), not just a release of binding force.

I have no specific idea how it would be achieved, and yet it is implicated in processes that occurred in the big-bang, and our current standard model says it must have happened to get here, so it is highly likely that such weapons are possible.

... And the Manhattan Project was fabulously expensive, too.