Talk:W21
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
Does a 'dead end' like the XW21 merit coverage? edit
Possibly.
The competition between bomb designs, designers, and laboratories was intense and passionate in the 1950s.
The rapid development of delivery systems and the rapid development of weapons designs led to many programs which were 'dead ends'.
The TX-13/XW13 programs were an answer to the problem of high-yield weapons for bombers and missiles until hydrogen weapons were developed. The program ended as it became clear there was no mission for the bomb.
The first hydrogen bombs deployed by the US were impossibly large for all but the B-36, and far too heavy to be considered for missile use.
The move towards smaller weapons at first pursued two lines of development.
The 'Shrimp' device, tested as Castle Bravo, was a scaled down Mk-17/24 (Runt Device) utilizing enriched Lithium. This device was developed into the Mk-21 bomb and XW21. All Mk-21 bombs were converted to Mk-36 bombs.
The "Zombie" device, tested as Castle Nectar, was a much more radical design. Utilizing Lithium deuteride and tritium, the Zombi required less compression than the Runt and Shrimp devices, and being significantly smaller and lighter than the 'Shrimp' was a far better candidate for use by both bombers and missiles.
The reason the XW-21 persisted in development for four years after the much more useful XW-15 and eventual W-39 were also under development at the same laboratory remains obscure.
That it remained under development for three years after the successful test of the Zombi device is a fine example of the mentality of the times.
I originated the W21 page to answer the question 'what about the missing numbers'.
This did not meet with approval so I have expanded it to add context and content.
Were I to express the opinion that the W21 was a classic case of 'don't give up the program' waste it would be deemed wrong too.
I hope that the amount of information and 'context' provided will satisfy the need to know what happened to the missing numbers and lead a savvy reader to the inevitable conclusion concerning the W21 and why it was a dead end. Mark Lincoln (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)