Aircraft Carriers

[NARSES2]

Little Boy used an American style box tail, which was wider than the body. Change the tail to a British style ring tail, and shorten it up some (do they really care about ballistics of this bomb?) and it could be made to fit in Mosquito B.IX or B.XVI (or B.IV with bulged bomb bay for that matter).

Had the same thought myself a few times

[rickshaw]

I think they wanted it to go at least in the general direction of where they aimed it but when dropped from altitude you wouldn't want this thing going careering off and missing the target entirely.  I am somewhat surprised at Wuzak's figures of total weight compared to "filling" weight.   Seems like they built it a lot stronger than it really needed to be, unless they were hoping that the bomb walls would help compress the convention explosion and force the "projectile" of fissile material down the tube to the other fissile component.  Something which really wasn't necessary.

I'd think that if they really wanted to, they could have built a lighter version of "Little Boy" but errred on the side of caution, as this was the first operational "gadget" they'd built.   In your Whiffworld, it would be quite OK for a more sensible approach to be taken and a smaller, lighter "Little Boy" Mk.II to be built if it was required.  One that was roughly equivalent to the 4,000lb "Cookie" dimensions.   In real life it took them about 10 years to reach that point (although, I have heard rumours that when the war finished they were planning to build 16in Atomic naval shells) but if needs must...

[scooter]

I think they wanted it to go at least in the general direction of where they aimed it but when dropped from altitude you wouldn't want this thing going careering off and missing the target entirely.  I am somewhat surprised at Wuzak's figures of total weight compared to "filling" weight.   Seems like they built it a lot stronger than it really needed to be, unless they were hoping that the bomb walls would help compress the convention explosion and force the "projectile" of fissile material down the tube to the other fissile component.  Something which really wasn't necessary.

Even then, more than 98% of the fissile material didn't contribute to the final detonation-

When 1 pound (0.45 kg) of uranium-235 undergoes complete fission, the yield is 8 kilotons. The 16 kiloton yield of the Little Boy bomb was therefore produced by the fission no more than 2 pounds (0.91 kg) of uranium-235, out of the 141 pounds (64 kg) in the pit. The remaining 139 pounds (63 kg), 98.5% of the total, contributed nothing to the energy yield[20]
[20]
a b Chapter I: General Principles of Nuclear Explosions (Sections 1.15, 1.20, 1.21), in The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, Compiled and edited by Samuel Glasstone and Philip J. Dolan, Third Edition, on The Trinity Atomic Website

[wuzak]

I am somewhat surprised at Wuzak's figures of total weight compared to "filling" weight.   Seems like they built it a lot stronger than it really needed to be, unless they were hoping that the bomb walls would help compress the convention explosion and force the "projectile" of fissile material down the tube to the other fissile component.  Something which really wasn't necessary.

I think this explains the weight:

When the hollow-front projectile reached the target and slid over the target insert, the assembled super-critical mass of uranium would be completely surrounded by a tamper and neutron reflector of tungsten carbide and steel, both materials having a combined mass of 2,300 kg (5,100 lb). Neutron initiators at the base of the projectile were be activated by the impact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy#Assembly_details

[PR19_Kit]

Talk about thread drift........... 

[rickshaw]

Thanks Wuzak and Scooter.  The diagram is particularly enlightening.  Now, allow me to retire to my Lab and build one.  Shows it's all rather simple really.  Makes me wonder why Saddam Hussein had so many difficulties... 

[wuzak]

Thanks Wuzak and Scooter.  The diagram is particularly enlightening.  Now, allow me to retire to my Lab and build one.  Shows it's all rather simple really.  Makes me wonder why Saddam Hussein had so many difficulties... 

I think the problem is getting the materials pure enough. And in the right quantities.

In any case, I think most moden devices are the implosion type - which probably need a lot more work.

[Captain Canada]

Been thinking about the triple hull....maybe it would be modular ? One side could have a set of heavy lift cranes on one hull ? There could be a kind of dry-dock in between the hulls ? Be easy to replenish at sea if you picked up the entire supply vessel and set it on yourself !

Crazy ? Maybe...but I like the idea of giant sea bases etc....

[kitnut617]

I think they wanted it to go at least in the general direction of where they aimed it but when dropped from altitude you wouldn't want this thing going careering off and missing the target entirely.  I am somewhat surprised at Wuzak's figures of total weight compared to "filling" weight.   Seems like they built it a lot stronger than it really needed to be, unless they were hoping that the bomb walls would help compress the convention explosion and force the "projectile" of fissile material down the tube to the other fissile component.  Something which really wasn't necessary.

I'd think that if they really wanted to, they could have built a lighter version of "Little Boy" but errred on the side of caution, as this was the first operational "gadget" they'd built.   In your Whiffworld, it would be quite OK for a more sensible approach to be taken and a smaller, lighter "Little Boy" Mk.II to be built if it was required.  One that was roughly equivalent to the 4,000lb "Cookie" dimensions.   In real life it took them about 10 years to reach that point (although, I have heard rumours that when the war finished they were planning to build 16in Atomic naval shells) but if needs must...

(apologies for the drift again) Do you have the book 'Ruin from the Air' Brian, it's all about the in's-&-out's of the two bombs used.  But I think I know what my De Havilland DH.101 will be once I get it built.  I'll swipe the Little Boy from my Enola Gay kit ----

[PR19_Kit]

Been thinking about the triple hull....maybe it would be modular ? One side could have a set of heavy lift cranes on one hull ? There could be a kind of dry-dock in between the hulls ? Be easy to replenish at sea if you picked up the entire supply vessel and set it on yourself !

Oi Cap'n, are you daring to talk about aircraft carriers in an Aircraft Carrier's thread? 

[Captain Canada]

What was I thinking !

Anybody see the Hollywood film Fat Man and Little Boy ? Pretty interesting stuff !


There...is that better ?

[jcf]

Been thinking about the triple hull....maybe it would be modular ? One side could have a set of heavy lift cranes on one hull ? There could be a kind of dry-dock in between the hulls ? Be easy to replenish at sea if you picked up the entire supply vessel and set it on yourself !

Crazy ? Maybe...but I like the idea of giant sea bases etc....

Something like the catamaran support vessels proposed for the nuclear Seamaster?


A drainable wet well would be better than attempting to pick up a fully loaded supply
vessel, the cranes would be enormous and you'd put godawful strain on the hull of
the lifted ship.

[jcf]

What was I thinking !

Anybody see the Hollywood film Fat Man and Little Boy ? Pretty interesting stuff !


There...is that better ?

Read Rhodes' The Making of the Atomic Bomb if you want a good history of the A-bomb project. 

[PR19_Kit]

I'm about 1/3 through 'Atomic' by Jim Baggot, where he gives the lowdown on all the atomic weapon projects going on, in the USA, UK and Germany. It's amazing how much they interacted without knowing about each other, to an extent anyway.

[Captain Canada]

Something like the catamaran support vessels proposed for the nuclear Seamaster?

I like the way you skillfully kept with the spirit of the thread drift by incorporating a carrier and a nuke !



But yes, that thing is awesome ! I like the idea. And for sure, a drainable section would be a lot better. Maybe gates like a seaway loch ?