Talk:WE.177

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Tornado

Isn't the plural of the proper noun "Tornado" properly spelled "Tornados"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.178.76 (talk) 16:37, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Design history

Does anyone know if the WE177 physics package was based on the American Mark 28 bomb? --ManInStone 13:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use as Depth Charge

The article states that it was "used by the Royal Navy as a nuclear depth charge". Is this appropriate to say, even though none were ever actually utilized in this manner?

I think the phrase "used by ..." is purely a literary device meaning that the Navy had the devices available for use. No nuclear depth charge of any description has ever been used operationally by the Royal Navy.
It depends what you mean by "used". For example "Were nuclear weapons USED to prevent nuclear war even though no angry shot was fired during the cold war?"--ManInStone 13:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article is complete Rubbish

The article contains a number of errors. Although I have the correct information, unless I can find that information on publicly available resources, I am unable to correct the article as I have no way of knowing the current classification of this correct information. (Anonymous comment by 20.133.0.14)

To provide a clue: A thermonuclear (fusion) bomb having twice the yield of a fision bomb wouldn't be nearly twice as heavy, it would in fact be much lighter. It is therefore reasonable to conjecture that either both were fision or both were fusion weapons.
I would assume someone with close personal knowledge of a nuclear weapons program would know how to spell "fusion".
My spelling, though good, isn't always 100% perfect. You could always have corrected it.
Searching around various sources, it is clear how little information has been released on these weapons. Some of the misinformation comes from people who operated the weapons on RAF bases. Nearly every source carries different information. I even believe I have located the COPYRIGHTED source from which the article itself was clearly plagiarised (there is nothing to beat errors to betray plagiarism). Some sources state that the weapons are fission weapons, some fussion. Some state that the weapons were of American design, some claim entirely British. At least one source claimed that the information on the weapons is now public knowledge - clearly not. Several sources include photographs of museum exhibits of what is clearly not a WE177 weapon (they are the wrong colour for a start). I worked closely on the WE177 project at its height and, as I said before, if I can verify the correct information from a publicly available source or can verify that the information is no longer classified, I will produce a correct article. (Note IP address changed from 21.133.0.14).
UPDATE: The more I investigate, the more I gather that the relevant information does not appear to have been released as such. I can only assume that much that has been published is guesswork. I note that the article has acquired some additional information since the above comment was added - much of it inaccurate.

[edit] Production Numbers

What was the total production run of the variants and when were they made?

That information is (or was) TOP SECRET.

[edit] Inconsistent data

The data in the text regarding model suffix, weight, and yield does not agree with the data in the table. What's more, there are at least two transpositions, so that it is not possible to determine the correct matchups upon inspection. --Blainster 10:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC).

[edit] A reliable and factual update

May 2006. Much of this article is factually inaccurate. As are the comments on the talk page. This is not a criticism of the authors, merely that time moves on, more official documents are declassified, more research is done correcting earlier speculation used to fill gaps in factual knowledge that cannot be supported by hard evidence. The article does need to be rewritten. and perhaps I will do that later, time permitting. Meanwhile, here are some comments starting at the top.

'Used by' is better replaced by 'deployed by' since no UK armed service has ever 'used' a nuclear weapon. The most useful comments are those that suggest that most contributions are largely guesswork, or based on unsubstantiated data from elsewhere.

WE.177B was a thermonuclear bomb of 950lbs weight and 450kt yield. Not variable. It was the first to be deployed circa 1966 for use as a strategic laydown bomb to enable the Vulcan force to continue in service until Polaris became operational, following the cancellation of Skybolt. This bomb was retained in service until the 1990's for use with Vulcan successor aircraft. It comprised two parts, a fission primary, known as KATIE, and a fusion secondary known as SIMON. RAF stock is believed to number 53 (speculation). All were retired by August 1998.

Katie was developed from a British designed boosted fission weapon that evolved from CLEO, earlier Super Octopus, and tested in Nevada at Pampas and Tendrac UGTs. Although intended for the cancelled Skybolt, it was also intended for use in a 'family' of other weapons, including the British version of Polaris. The original US primary for these weapons used HE that did not meet British safety standards and was replaced with a British design. The SIMON secondary had a similar history, being a UK variant of the US W-59 secondary intended for RE.179, the Skybolt warhead. With Skybolt cancellation both were adapted for use in Polaris and the WE.177 series.

KATIE was originally conceived as the 'Improved Kiloton Bomb' a replacement for RED BEARD, but with the cancellation of Skybolt was put onto the back burner until the WE.177B bomb and the Polaris warheads were completed, explaining why WE.177B was deployed first, followed by Polaris, followed by WE.177A.

Katie was adapted to become KATIE A and WE.177A was deployed 1971. It used an adaptation of KATIE re-engineered to fit a shorter and lighter casing and was known as KATIE A. It was a boosted fission bomb for use against tactical surface targets by RAF and Royal Navy fixed-wing aircraft, and in an anti-sub role as an NDB. It weighed 600lbs and yielded approx 10kt. Not variable except in the NDB role. As a NDB (nuclear depth bomb) it was deployed on Royal Navy surface vessels for use with embarked helicopters. For this role it also had hydrostatic fusing and a variable yield facility of 0.5kt for use in shallow coastal waters or to safeguard nearby shipping. For deep oceanic waters it could use the full 10kt yield below 130ft (40m). There is, as yet no hard evidence of numbers deployed. The Navy stock of approx 20 for fixed-wing use was transferred to the RAF with the Bucanneer aircraft, the Navy retaining 43 for ASW helicopters. These 43 were retired by 1992. The RAF stock believed to be approx 150 was retired by Aug 1998. In the mid-1970's, some were 'converted' for use as a primary with a 200kt thermonuclear bomb known as WE.177C. Quantities are unknown but believed to be approx 48-60 'conversions'.

WE.177C was a 200kt thermonuclear laydown bomb deployed only by RAF Germany for use on tactical aircraft. It comprised two parts. The primary was a 'converted' KATIE A. The secondary was known as REGGIE. This secondary was removed from the Polaris warhead ET.317 when ET.317 was replaced by the Chevaline warhead. Polaris A3T had three ET.317 warheads. Chevaline had only two of a different design. The primaries of the retired ET.317 warheads were scrapped. The secondaries not required (one third) for re-use in the Chevaline warhead were re-used in WE.177C, matched with converted KATIE A 'conversions' as primaries in a bomb casing identical to WE.177B, ballasted to match WE.177B ballistic properties. It remained in service until the mid-1990's. There is hard evidence that a boatload of Polaris ET.317 warheads numbered 48 plus 12 spares for use in the servicing/re-supply chain. 32 plus 8 spares numbering 40 of those secondaries were re-used in Chevaline, leaving 20 of these to be re-used as WE.177C. We can speculate that with three boatloads to re-use, WE.177C numbers might range from 48 to 60. For those with an interest in politics, this is a neat illustration of how the then Prime Minister Harold Wilson was able to reconcile his election promises of 'no new nuclear weapons' with the actualitié. Astute readers will focus on the word 'new'.

Almost all the above is supported by hard evidence in declassified official documents in the National Archives, some declassified as recently as Jan 2006. There is so much inaccurate speculative data on the web on nuclear issues that I have learned not to contribute to it by adding my own speculation, except where it is clearly identified as such.

I too worked very briefly on the ballistic casing for the WE.177 series in 1959, or a very similar weapon. The requirements of secrecy then means I can never be completely certain. I have also drawn heavily on the work done by fellow researchers, especially Dr Richard Moore and Chris Gibson. B.Burnell.

The article is now much better. It would seem that the author of the current work has (wisely) refrained from adding information that he (or she?)has not been able to verify. I can report that there are still one or two factual inaccuracies, but they are of such a minor nature, that they do not detract from the informative nature of the article. As previously promised, if I can verify the correct information from a publicly accesible source, I will correct the article.
As the author referred to and signing off as Brian Burnell, I am most definitely male, and after a recent look 'down there' I can confirm that.
Aplogies if I caused offence - it was not intentional.

[edit] Page move to WE.177?

Apparently the offical name/designation of the weapon is WE.177 (with a full-stop/period), so unless anyone objects or can think of a good reason not, to I'll have a go at moving the page sometime within the next few days. Ian Dunster 10:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC).

Done. Ian Dunster 18:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The MOD apparently added the period to all its project codes sometime in the late 80's or early 90's. In the period 1970 to late 1980 it was definately WE177 (without the period). The standard project code at that time consisted of 2 letters followed by 3 numbers.
If I can figure out how to upload photographs anonomously, I might upload a photograph of the official project tie. All projects had an official tie that people associated with the project could wear. WE177 was refused one for many years until someone figured out a way of working the project code into the pattern without it being apparent unles you knew what had been done. 86.134.121.61 16:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Unless there are very good reasons for needing to be anonymous i.e. as protection from obsessives, or a public official who's employment would be at risk, it is never a good idea to upload photographs; especially photographs, anonymously. Wikipedia has policies on copyright verification that are there for a good reason; and are a protection against the site being sued for copyright violation. In my experience; and having an old-fashioned view of these things; contributions signed with the author's name are regarded as more reliable and verifyable than contributions that are anonymous. Although others might take a different view. Brian.Burnell 17:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I have good reasons to remain anonymous. If anonymous photos are discouraged then I will naturally bow to the policy. The proposed photograph does not yet exist. I was proposing to take a photograph of my own personal project tie (now do you understand why I am able to comment on the factual accuracy - and why I am unable to publish corrections?) 86.132.201.65 20:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
You can be as anonymous as you want to be - just open an account (which will allow you to upload photos) and then choose a username. This name can be anything you want (within reason!), such as Fred Nurke or something similar. If you are bothered about the IP address being traceable then use an Internet Cafe or a PC away from your usual surroundings.
The use of a username is more to do with allowing an editor's contributions to be assigned to one particular user, which then allows a picture of the editors credibility and responsibility to be built-up and known throughout Wikipedia - it's for accountability really, you don't need to use a real name, just the same one when you edit.
As a last resort, you can e-mail me the photo and I'll do any processing needed and upload it myself, stating in the image tag that the picture was uploaded by me and supplied by a person who wishes to remain anonymous - use the E-mail this user link on my user page. Ian Dunster 14:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer, but I have now sorted it. I B Wright 12:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
OK - good picture! - I have added the image to the Necktie page and also added your explanation of the tie's motif to the image page itself, for anyone who comes across the image from somewhere else. Ian Dunster 12:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In-the-field

This term has a specific military usage; and that is why it was used here; although I recognize that it may not meet with the approval of language purists, as many other examples of specialist jargon fail to do. It has the great advantage of meaning exactly what it says on the tin. It doesn't mean that the user didn't undertake any servicing tasks; and they did do some, eg on the tail mechanisms etc. I hope this clears up this confusion. Brian.Burnell 17:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Retirement date

There is no known verifiable source to identify when each version was retired. All that is known is that the Navy (who only used WE.177A) retired its by 1992. The RAF had both the C and C models, and both these were retired by 1998. In what sequence is unknown. Source Strategic Defence Review. Brian.Burnell 14:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WE.177A In-Service date

It had previously been thought that the in-service date was 1971 or 1972 when it appears the RAF took first delivery, although the AWE Timeline at [1] does not mention an in-service date for WE.177A, but only for the B variant. There had been reports that the Navy took delivery of their WE.177As before the RAF, and a recently declassified file in the archives confirms that. Public Record Office file DEFE 24/389 E42 Annex, Appendix 1 dated June 1969 Item 1. states verbatim

"Although politically sensitive, the NDB [WE.177A] which is NOW BEING ISSUED TO THE FLEET is considered a tactical weapon. Its employment is based on tactical considerations alone, once initial political release has been given."

Note the words 'now being issued' NOT 'planned to be issued' or any other variant. The file reports the issue as a FACT, as of that date. Brian.Burnell 13:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Design of project tie

I think the use of a hydrogen and two nitrogen atoms is rather curious. I am aware that nitrogen oxygen mediated fusion reactions occur in the sun but artificial fusion does not involve nitrogen. I would have expected the symbol to consist of hydrogen isotopes. Can anyone explain the design of the tie? --ManInStone 11:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The atomic numbers are 177. --ManInStone 11:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)