Talk:WE.177

message: This article should have a picture of the kind of plane which would have dropped these bombs.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.180.230 (talk) 03:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Would this one do?  Or did you mean 'aeroplane' - different device entirely? DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: By the way guys

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Use as Depth Charge 

message: Has anyone else heard of this device being rainbow coded as 'Green Parrot'? I dimly recall overhearing service conversations about a Green Parrot as a child in the context of the Falklands War and being told that it was a bomb when I asked. This maybe an ass pull - I was very young at the time - and I may misremember, but could this have been a reference to the RN WE.177s?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.242.7 (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Rainbow_Codes#Non-Rainbow_codes I would suspect the item in question was the Soviet era air delivered anti–personnel mine.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.34.57 (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

text: The Rainbow Code for WE.177 was Red Flag although that may have only been used during early development.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rainbow Code 

message: 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.
:::Question to above IP - email me and I will provide you with my real identity, I will then get in touch with you and if you are not a crank provide you with the identity of someone I know who lives in aldermaston (he is a cambridge fizzy-cyst but not actually to do with bombs or whatever) then we can discuss things... Egg Centric 22:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Follow the link from the comment on 'Blue disc' and it will reveal my relationship with the whole project. 86.169.33.6 (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is complete Rubbish 

message: 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)
thread_title: Inconsistent data

message: 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)
thread_title: In-the-field

message: 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)
thread_title: Retirement date

message: 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  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)
thread_title: WE.177A In-Service date

message: 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)
thread_title: Design of project tie

message: The recently removed citations had been uploaded for a considerable length of time, with no response from those editors asked to verify their sources. The citations should IMHO be restored until the assertions made can be verified. This is after all, an encyclopaedia, and encyclopaedic standards should be maintained to meet criteria for classification as a reliable source.
There is so much wrong about this article it's hard to know what most merits attention; so perhaps the best place to start is with an example from the very beginning. The first two sentences made up of a mere fifty words, make three assertions, with two citations requiring sources.
The opening phases were:
"In May 1960 Prime Minister Macmillan signed an agreement with President Eisenhower to purchase 144 AGM-48 Skybolt missiles for their V-bomber force. Along with the missiles, the UK would receive the design of the Skybolt's W59 warhead citation needed, which was much smaller and lighter than even the smallest UK designs of the era. citation needed
Three assertions there. Only the first is true.
1. The WE.177 Improved Kiloton Bomb project began in 1959, before the Skybolt agreement. Lots of sources can be referenced in support of that. Several, both primary and secondary can be found here: 
2.  Along with the missiles, the UK would recieve the design of the Skybolt's W-59 warhead,  ....  Untrue. The Americans didn't select the W-59 warhead for Skybolt until 1962, after considering various others, including W-28, W-47, W-43, W-49, W-50, W-56. The reason the Americans delayed selection was that they were awaiting results of the Dominic atmospheric nuclear tests when all these warheads were tested. W.59 was tested at Dominic Questa, Alma, Rinconada and Sunset. All these references have been freely available on the web for several years now. So how could the W-59 warhead possibly be copied for WE.177 from WE.177's start in 1959? A physical impossibility. Except for the Time Lord perhaps? All the other warheads except the W-28 that were considered for Skybolt were also tested in the Dominic series of 1962. They had not been designed and tested until then because until then an Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty circa 1959 was in place until first broken by the Russians in 1962 and then by the Americans later that year in the events that preceded the Cuban Missile Crisis. All that has been in the public domain for years and with lots of source material available. So the Skybolt warhead wasn't selected until after the results of the 1962 tests, by which time the WE.177 project was well underway since 1959, with a British warhead selected and under development. Lots of primary and secondary source material here: 
3.  ... which was smaller and lighter than even the smallest and lightest UK designs of the era.   Untrue. the writer cannot possibly produce references for this, and hasn't, despite the citation request being online for a very long time. A source cannot be produced because it isn't true. Because the W-59 was not the smallest and lightest warhead. Ulysses, a UK design was as small and lighter and could be available sooner. See here from a published source that reproduces photo reproductions of declassified documents from official archives: 
After deconstructing just the first two sentences totalling 50 words, the scale of the task in dealing with the untruths and misconceptions highlighted by the deleted citations in the whole page is obvious.
It appears to me that the editor who added those citation requests, all ignored, had a suspicion or knowledge that the claims were unproven and unprovable. IMHO he/she was probably right and until there is a full-blooded rewrite of the whole page his citations should remain as a means of drawing to the attention of readers, that these claims are not in fact referenced, or capable of being referenced.
::And those editors who added this erroneous material originally, and then compounded their errors by failing to provide their sources when asked are not doing Wikipedia any favours. It stands or falls by its accuracy and its encyclopaedic standard of content. Beneath this text in the edit box is a short message that cannot be repeated often enough. It reads: Encyclopaedic content must be verifiable. 81.156.89.116 (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed citations

message: The article says under "retirement":
:Following retirement, a number of WE.177 training rounds were donated to museums in the United Kingdom, and one was donated to the National Atomic Museum in Albuquerque, New Mexico, where it can be viewed alongside similar American weapons. Another is at RAF Hendon.
I think a list of known sites of training rounds could be included.  I have seen these displayed at:
:Manchester (UK) Imperial War Museum
:Orford Ness (UK)
I think I may also have seen training rounds at:
:Duxford (UK) air museum
:Secret bunker museum (UK)
can anyone update this list further please?
90.205.123.105 (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Both green and white were used for live rounds (white originally, green later).  Training rounds (which is what all the weapons that you see are) were coloured Oxford blue.  The ones on display have presumably been repainted to match live rounds (but the word 'training' still appears on the side).  The white cross over the ejectable parts of the weapon have also been retained to indicate that no such ejection can occur. 109.145.21.107 (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Retirement

message: I'd just like to add that another error in this article is that the RAF Harrier fleet was never a carrier of this weapon. 
The RN Sea Harriers were designated FRS as 'Fighter/Reconnaissance/Strike', Strike being the parlance for Nuclear weapons. Although the RAF seemed to ignore this designation with Tornado and Jaguar, calling them GR for Ground Attack/Recce, even though Strike capable platforms. 
I served in the RAF on both Harrier GR3 and Tornado GR1/4; I know which ones carried what.
:Changed that, thanks. The RAF Harrier (OR.345) were specified to be able to carry WE.177 but never deployed with it. Nifty table here. Rwendland (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RAF Harrier weapon usage incorrect 

message: I feel the article would benefit from a discussion of the engineering physics of the warhead.  Was the core made of uranium or plutonium or both?  What was the tamper made of? What was the primary neutron source? Was it tritium boosted?  What was its efficiency? Did it use Lithium?  How many explosive detonation points were there?  What were the conventional explosives?  What were the safety mechanisms?  What maintenance did they require?  Were the designs based on American bombs? How were the bomb settings set and what were the options? 194.176.105.135 (talk) 12:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warhead physics 

message: The artice says at the beginning: "All types were parachute retarded".  I think this should actually read: "All types were optionally parachute retarded".  90.221.252.156 (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parachute 

message: There are ejection ports at the nose the side and the rear.  I imagine that the rear ports are for a parachute and the front ones may cover proximity fuses.  Can anyone confirm their uses and what the side ports are for please?  2A02:C7D:A8BF:4100:9C74:D175:10AB:B39D (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Often a source of confusion.  The only explosive ejectable parts were the parachute from the rear (only used in retarded modes) and the two round caps that covered the velocity sensing unit's erectable fences.  There were no ejectable parts on the front of the weapon.  The presence of the ejector symbol on either side of the nose is because all aircraft fittable weapons must be marked with ejector symbols on either side of the nose and tail (along with actually over any ejectable part).  Some people have used the presence of the ejector symbol on the nose as evidence that the radome is explosively ejectable.  Although it was originally designed to be so, it was not on operational rounds as the radome along with the radar fuze behind it was designed to double up as a shock absorber when the round was delivered in a ground impact mode allowing the war head to remain intact long enough to detonate.  --Elektrik Fanne 13:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The Nose cone was "ejectable" in that it was the radar proximity fuse.  When the weapon was being used as a depth charge, the Nose cone was indeed ejected.  This exposed ports which allowed the free flow of water into a barometric measuring device which was in the fusing chain. Jim Whitaker (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ejection ports 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on WE.177. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110927115430/http://www.century20war.co.uk/page11.html to http://www.century20war.co.uk/page11.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Excuse me, I'm not fluent in English, but I believe that data tables include incorrect spelled word "Retarded" instead of "Retired".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.188.121.222 (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "Retarded" means "slowed down" (or "held back", perhaps); in this case it means the bombs were slowed down by a parachute, to give the plane that delivered them time to escape. It's correct the way it is. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 17:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a long time since I visited this page.The weapon was retarded for the Laydown Land delivery. The parachute slowed the weapon down so the warhead survived impact. It was a time delay unit which allowed the aircraft to escape.XJ784 (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Retarded