Jan 172018
 

The Soviet Tsar Bomb, dropped in 1961 and with a yield of around 50 megatons (backed down from the design yield of 100 megatons) is acknowledged as the biggest bomb ever tested. But is it the most powerful bomb ever designed, or ever built? I’ve discovered some snippets of evidence that the US *may* have designed, and even built, an even bigger bomb.

Several frustratingly unenlightening reports give bits and pieces of information on a bomb code-named “Flashback.” This device was apparently air-dropped near Johnston Atoll. “Flashback” was designed by Sandia Labs and flown from Kirtland Air Force Base to Oahu, Hawaii and then to Johnston Atoll. There are some Terrible Quality Photos:

The Flashback bomb was so big that it could not quite fit within the confines of the B-52 bomb bay, and required the removal of the bomb bay doors.

Of course, this could have been purely an aerodynamic shape. Or perhaps it was a large conventional bomb, a giant “Daisy Cutter.” Or perhaps it wasn’t an actual bomb as such, but just some sort of science experiment to be dropped from an aircraft. Lots of possibilities. But those possibilities drop away with some of the hints that are provided, such as:

 

This came from an electromagnetic radiation effects report, describing – seemingly – the effect of radio emissions from the B-52 upon the electronics of the Flashback bomb. Since the bomb projected well below the belly, it was subject not only to very cold temperatures but also to intense radio transmissions from the antennae below the B-52 fuselage, so it makes sense they’d test for that. You don’t want the B-52’s communications to cause the bombs fuzing to go screwy. In this particular test, the parachute was not packed within the tail of the Flashback; instead test instruments were fitted there. More tellingly, “All HE (high explosive) and nuclear components were deleted.” Emphasis mine. Additionally, “A simulator was used to replace the warhead.”

You don’t have a warhead in a science package. You don’t have nuclear components in a conventional bomb. and if this was simply an aerodynamic and mass simulator of a proposed bomb… you wouldn’t remove the nuclear materials, because you wouldn’t have installed them in the first place. You don’t fill a mockup full of jet fuel, after all.

Such details as the weight of the unit and the yield of the device are seemingly not given. But they can be guessed at. A report on testing of the tailfin has this:

I’m not quite sure how that load of 36,000 pounds would relate to any actual forces applied to an actual bomb, but it *may* indicate the weight.

Other reports list the sizes and weights of items to be shipped to Oahu (and then to Johnston Atoll) for the test. Some of them are intriguing… what is “EMPTV?” TV certainly means “test vehicle.” But does “EMP” mean Electromagnetic Pulse? If so, does that mean another bomb-like unit, or just a science package, meant to be *hit* with an EMP to see how it reacts? Or is it a specific EMP generator, to be dropped out of an aircraft? Whatever it is, it weighed 14,500 pounds and was around 221 inches long and perhaps 59 or so inches in diameter, and was quite classified (SRD = Secret Restricted Data… “Data concerning the design, manufacture, or utilization of atomic weapons; production of special nuclear material; or use of special nuclear material in the production of energy“).

And there’s 38,000 pounds of “test equipment,” which could be anything:

There was also this:

Here, the “BTV” is the “Big Test Vehicle,” 25,000 pounds, 309 inches long by up to 76 inches in diameter, also classified SRD. Big as this is, though, it’s possibly not the device hanging below the B-52’s belly; the BTV is referenced several times in a way that seems to make it distinct from the Flashback Test Vehicle. But perhaps they are the same thing.

The Flashback Test Vehicle, fortunately, was shown in a fair diagram of a wind tunnel model. Full scale, it was 297 inches long (not counting parachute pack or what appear to be antennae) and was ~96 inches in diameter. This makes it bigger, and presumably heavier, than the BTV. So 36,000 pounds is not unreasonable.

Other ill-described tests show the Flashback as a much smaller unit than the bomb. This, *perhaps,* is merely the “physics package” of the device. This test, illustrated with one of histories worst-quality photos, was carried out in a very cold high altitude chamber, and shows two more mysteries: the “Companion Test Vehicles,” or CTVs, which are unexplained. Speculating wildly, they might have been designed to have the same ballistic properties as the Flashback, so if you drop them from the B-52 along with the Flashback, they’ll fall along with it, following the same trajectory and staying reasonably close. Perhaps thy had cameras. perhaps they had sensors. Perhaps they had transmitters. Who knows.

And there was also the “UTV.” No further data.

Perhaps the Flashback, BTV, EMPTV and UTV were all different sizes of new gigantic bombs…?

Code names generally have no relationship to the subject, but are chosen essentially at random. One would never know that “Copper Canyon” was a program to develop a scramjet SSTO. Similarly, “Operation Paddlewheel” tells nothing. But perhaps, just barely, “Flashback” might have some meaning. Comparing the Flashback to the Tsar Bomb, it it remarkable how similar they are in terms of both size and shape. One might be forgiven for wondering if Flashback was the end result of someone trying to design a Really Big Bomb based on nothing more than a verbal description of the Tsar Bomb, given, perhaps, by a spy or defector. So *perhaps* this project was a “flash back” to the earlier Soviet design. If so, what was the purpose? Was it to give the United States the same insanely pointless capability? Or was it just to find out what the capabilities and limitations the Soviets had gifted or saddled themselves with?

Using the wind tunnel model diagram, I’ve reconstructed the Flashback to scale with the Tsar Bomb:

As can be seen, the Flashback had much the same configuration, but was substantially “fatter.” Impossible to say if that was because the US designers needed the extra diameter to get the same yield (theoretically 100 megatons), or if Sandia Labs went head and designed themselves an even bigger bang. What use is a 200 megaton bomb? Not much. But then, neither is a 100 megaton bomb, especially one so big that the carrier aircraft essentially has to *lumber* to the target all the while carrying the worlds largest bullseye.

As always, if anyone has any further info, I’d love to see it.

PS: I’ve taken the Flashback model and have turned it into 2D CAD diagrams, including scale comparison with the Tsar and showing it stuffed into the B-52’s belly. This diagram will be one of this months rewards for Patrons of the APR Patreon. A simplified version will be included at the $5 level; the full diagram will be in the $8 level rewards package. So if you’d like access… sign up for the APR Patreon.

UPDATE:

It’s good to get a fresh perspective. Sadly, the perspective emailed to me was that the Flashback sure looked like a missile nosecone. So I pulled up the Flashback diagram I made from the wind tunnel model diagrams and put the RV from the Titan II ICBM on top of it. It’s not an exact match, but it’s distressingly close. If it wasn’t for the noticeably larger radius of the Flashbacks nose, I’d say it was spot-on… the outer diameter and angle are incredibly close matches.

So…what would be the point of that? Some sort of science experiment, clearly, rather than a weapons test. But what point would there be in dropping a Titan RV from a B-52? Why dangle it from a chute? Why add the heavy tail & fin assembly?

If it turns out that this was an experiment with the Titan RV, that would be less interesting than the revelation that the US developed a 50 to 100 megaton nuke. But it’s still interesting. Just not *as* interesting.

 Posted by at 8:33 pm
Jan 162018
 

Just stumbled across some *terrible* quality photos from circa 1967 showing a B-52 with its bomb bay doors removed and a bomb stuffed in and partly protruding since it was too big to actually fit within. This was the “Flashback,” best as I can tell, and seems to have been designed as an actual nuke, and perhaps built as an actual nuke. It was apparently tested somewhere near Oahu without the nuclear bits. The reports I have are stunningly unenlightening, but this seems to have been a full-up weight & aerodynamics & instruments/electronics test for a bomb that was just way too damn big. Currently working on putting together diagrams, because why wouldn’t I.

This seems new to me. But is it just something I seem to have missed in my reading, something everybody always knew about?

 Posted by at 9:38 pm
Jan 112018
 

A video of the 27 May 1956 “Yuma” test from Operation Redwing. This was a small “boosted” fission bomb… 5 inch diameter, designed for air defense use (back when nuking formations of Soviet bombers seemed like it was going to be a thing). The process was that a small fission explosion would set off a small fusion booster… not quite a true H-bomb. In an H-bomb, the fission bomb is “merely” the trigger… a several kiloton fission bomb sets off up to many megatons of fusion explosion, with the fusion yield being up to 20 times that of the fission. In a boosted weapon, a sub-kiloton or low-kiloton fission bomb sets off the fusion booster which doesn’t itself amount to a whole lot of “bang,” but it releases a flood of neutrons which makes that fission explosion a whole lot more efficient and powerful. The neutrons released by the initial fission explosion can cause the lithium-6 in the lithium deuteride booster to fission into tritium; the conditions next to the fission blast are hot enough that the tritium will happily fuse with the deuterium, spitting out neutrons which will race back into the fission explosion and cause more of the plutonium to fission. (Done right, a surrounding case of non-fissionable depleted uranium can add to the power of the blast, as the high energy neutrons from the booster are powerful enough to cause U-238 to fission.)

It’s all well and good, but the resulting bang is a little less impressive when the fusion booster doesn’t actually go off. Which is what happened during the Yuma test, resulting in a paltry 0.19 kilotons yield. Data is sketchy, but I’d imagine the goal was to get close to one kiloton out of the device.

 

 Posted by at 6:07 pm
Jan 082018
 

A Turkish semi-auto box-fed 12 gauge shotgun, with the Rock Island Arms brand…

Of course, you may live in a region that does not allow you to buy a semi-auto shotgun. Well, in that case there is an alternative…

 

 Posted by at 1:02 pm
Jan 032018
 

And now it can be seen:

The USAF Has Finally Released a Glowing Film About the A-10 It Tried to Suppress

The article discusses the USAFs numerous attempts to kill the A-10. Realistically, it’s days are numbered. yes, it would be awesoem to have more. Even more yes, it would be great for the Army and Marine Corps to ahve a bunch of their own. But the newest A-10 is decades old, the production lines and tooling are long gone. There won’t be any more. Spare parts are dwindling, expertise is going away.

The A-10 needs a replacement, but sadly nothing quite like the A-10 is in the offing. Hilariously, there are those who think the F-35 will do the job. More likely, the actual job of the A-10 of getting down in the weeds will be done by drones. An A-10 can get in low and slow and take a beating; an F-35 probably can’t really get low and slow, and it certainly can’t take a beating. A drone can get low and slow, and who cares if it gets blown out of the sky… it’s a drone.

It would be great if a direct replacement could be manufactured. it might even look like the A-10. But due to the fact that any new aircraft is necessarily going to be designed from the ground up with all-new components, it won’t *be* an A-10.

What would be great is if the US Army told the USAF to go piss up a rope, and the Army embarks on the development of a fixed-wing ground support platform of their own, perhaps in cahoots with the Marines. A modern “A-10” with the same or better capabilities, using modern materials (but still metals rather than composites, since metals are more flak-tolerant), modern electronics, modern engines. Heck, design it to be “optionally manned,” with a two-man version flying in the midst of a swarm of unmanned hunter-killers.

 

 

 Posted by at 10:37 pm
Dec 212017
 

It wasn’t that many months ago when we were told that due to Donald Trumps incompetence,  the Unitest State had lost its place as “leader of the free world,” and now Angela Merkel of Germany was going to show us all how it’s done. But… in order to be a leader, you have to have *power.* And one of the most important ways for a nation to project power is with a navy. Whenever there’s a major hurricane or a tsunami, sooner or later a US Navy carrier battle group will show up to provide humanitarian and logistics support. Whenever Iran or China or the Somalis gets sporty with their naval piracy, the US Navy shows up to put a stop to it (or at least to *tell* them to stop). So… Germany. There was only ever one German aircraft carrier, and it was never completed nor did it see service; it was mostly built, but was ultimately used by the Soviets as target practice. Germany did have a number of battleships and battlecruisers, but by far Germanys biggest impact on naval power was with submarines. Seems like it might be a little challenging to rule the waves with little more than subs, but I suppose it can be done. So, how is the German submarine fleet doing these days?

Germany’s Entire Submarine Fleet Is Out of Commission

Das boot ist kaputt: German navy has zero working subs

Germany a whopping *SIX* submarines, none of which are functional. None of which even are nuclear powered or carry ballistic missiles.

Germany’s decrease in spending has had broad consequences across its entire military. Of the country’s 244 Leopard II tanks, only 95 are ready for action. In 2014, only 42 out of 109 Typhoon fighter jets were fully operational. Of the country’s 14 new A-400M Grizzly transport aircraft, sometimes none are available. And in 2015, when Germany debated sending Tornado strike jets to Syria, it was revealed that only 29 out 66 Tornados were airworthy. Given such low readiness rates, it’s not surprising the submarine force is also in a bind.

Good luck using that fleet of clunkers to control the ongoing invasion of Europe, Ms. Merkel. Good luck using them to convince Putin to not invade, conquer and annex Eastern Europe. I look forward to seeing how that military powerhouse is used to broker peace in the middle east or to foster contentment in the South China Sea, or keep things going smoothly as Russia and Norway and Canada fight over Arctic resources.

 

 Posted by at 8:08 pm
Dec 142017
 

The Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne was without a doubt the niftiest helicopter ever to *almost* make it into production. but, alas, it was ahead of its time… more precisely, ahead of the available technology.

The gunner sat in a seat that could spin 360 degrees (like the gunner in the Gunstar… and if you don’t get the reference, you’ve a geekiness deficiency). The Cheyenne had a pusher prop for very high speed for a helicopter, and small wings to generate lift and offload the rotor at speed. Lockheed had considerable faith in the future of that propulsion concept and incorporated it into designs for civilian passenger transport helicopters such as the CL-1026 9described in US VTOL Projects issue #01).

 Posted by at 6:30 pm
Dec 062017
 

House OKs GOP bill expanding gun owners’ rights

Marriage licenses and drivers licenses are issued by individual states, but recognized by all. Marriages and driving are *not* explicitly called out as rights in the Constitution… but bearing arms is. And perversely, up until now states have often *not* recognized the concealed carry licenses issued by other states. This may be about to change, at long friggen’ last.

But some politicians never let an opportunity to slander millions of law abiding citizens pass by unremarked. Example: Rep. Elizabeth Esty, D-Conn., called the bill an attempt to “allow dangerous criminals to walk around with hidden guns anywhere and at any time.” I wonder if it might be possible to sue her for slandering law abiding concealed carry license holders, who she has just said are “dangerous criminals.”

 Posted by at 10:41 pm