Request Nuclear weapon

The name is Class B61-12 power 241 kilotons. REFER---->https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb

The B61 has been deployed by a variety of U.S. military aircraft. Aircraft cleared for its use have included the FB-111A, B-1 Lancer, B-2 Spirit, B-52 Stratofortress; F-101 Voodoo, F-100 D & F Super Sabre, F-104 Starfighter, F/A-18 Hornet, F-111 Aardvark and F-4 Phantom II fighter bombers; A-4 Skyhawk, A-6 Intruder and A-7 Corsair II attack aircraft; F-15E Strike Eagle and F-16 Falcon; British, German and Italian Panavia Tornado IDS aircraft. USAFE and all NATO dual role aircraft can carry B61s.

The B61 can fit inside the F-22 Raptor's weapons bays and will also be carried by the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II.

BOMB TEST

BOMB EXPLOSION EFFECT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMS_nnlBdWc

EXPLOSION EFFECT 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-FimlTyYnA

EXPLOSION EFFECT 3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_UysoXA6aY

 

The name is Class B61-12 power 241 kilotons. REFER---->https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb

 

The B61 has been deployed by a variety of U.S. military aircraft. Aircraft cleared for its use have included the FB-111A, B-1 Lancer, B-2 Spirit, B-52 Stratofortress; F-101 Voodoo, F-100 D & F Super Sabre, F-104 Starfighter, F/A-18 Hornet, F-111 Aardvark and F-4 Phantom II fighter bombers; A-4 Skyhawk, A-6 Intruder and A-7 Corsair II attack aircraft; F-15E Strike Eagle and F-16 Falcon; British, German and Italian Panavia Tornado IDS aircraft. USAFE and all NATO dual role aircraft can carry B61s.

 

The B61 can fit inside the F-22 Raptor's weapons bays and will also be carried by the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II.

 

 

BOMB TEST

BOMB EXPLOSION EFFECT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMS_nnlBdWc

EXPLOSION EFFECT 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-FimlTyYnA

EXPLOSION EFFECT 3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_UysoXA6aY

The MiG-21 does have the RN-24 and RN-28, but I don't think they'll give us any others.

In the F/A-18C Hornet FAQ Wags specifically says nukes won't be available for the Hornet and I can't see them adding nukes to the older airframes. Given that nuclear explosions aren't modeled in the game (the RN-24 and RN-28 just have the effects of large conventional bombs) it would take a lot of work on ED's part to add that aspect to the game, and I think Wags' unqualified closed response probably sums up ED's lack of motivation to do so.

Personally I can see some merit in it, and showing just how difficult and dangerous it is to get nukes to the target and apply them without hitting your own personnel could provide some insight re the practical difficulties of using these weapons beyond the ethics of it.

All that said, good luck, I hope you get them :)

Reason ..... To simulate the destruction of a city or a large military base or an airport there is no ethics in the simulated war the word ethics does not exist because it is only a simulation ... rather there is the Word Logic and Dynamics of how things are destroyed. REMEMBER WAR AND WAR there is no ethics.

Stealth planes now nukes? :p

Nobody said anything about ethics. We already have nukes on the MiG-21, as mentioned above. Rather, there's not much motivation to develop them further. Seriously, what's there to it? It's kind of entertaining the first time or two you drop one (my brother dropped a nuclear SCUD on us in Arma by accident once) but after that... there's just not much to it.

If a nuke is stealth and it detonates...how would anyone know?

i think they don't give this weapons because its affect to the field is very hard to simulate.

a single bomb can level an entire city. multiple bombs may cause whole map cities to be destroyed. how can you do this in a sim?

we talk about + or - about 400 kilotons that destroy about 1/4 of a city and then a small nuclear bomb transportable on airplanes ..... their capacity and enter and penetrate the ground and destroy underground bunkers generating a crater of 30 meters and with a diameter of destruction of 100 meters then we speak of a 30x100.

the bomb can be changed from 10 -:- 400 kt acurate precision

B61 INFORMATION.

Nukes are a bit pointless in DCS.

They'll be always disabled on MP servers for obvious reasons, and even in SP, outside of the occasional novelty of the big boom, they offer nothing for missions as it's simply a fly over and drop mission. It's not exactly as if you need to hunt for a target and/or be precise.

in a theater like the Syria, the Lebanon or Afghanistan where there are the ISIS militia hiding in the underground bunkers. THIS WEAPON AND USEFUL.

link free 3D models https://free3d.com/3d-model/bomb-b61-4660.html

-1

This weapon, together with biological and chemical weapons is military completely pointless until you are out for total destruction. Apart from the silly ideas of some old men in the SAC there won't be some kind of limited war with this stuff. In caves of Afghanistan it won't achieve anything more than the MOAB, thermobaric bombs or small diameter bombs. Do you expect you could use such a weapon in Syria with Israel just standing beside and watching? No nuclear armed country will tolerate the use of these weapons in their neighborhood.

These weapons were always build as deterrence and won't fulfill any other military use since you poison the whole area of use.

Not interested.

The really marginal and almost anecdotic use of the one available in the Mig-21Bis by the community clearly shows there is not really much interest and feasibility in the use of such weapons in the DCS arena.

The performance and framerate drop in most computers if such device is detonated in a large city or military buildup area in the actual DCS scenarios would make playability a real issue.

There are a million of things I want to see implemented in DCS before such type of ordnance.

And honnestly, lets not get confortable „playing“ with nukes. I am old enough to have been in the military during the last decade of the Cold War and I believe we should not get „too casual“ playing with nukes.

Nukes are a bit pointless in DCS.

 

 

They'll be always disabled on MP servers for obvious reasons, and even in SP, outside of the occasional novelty of the big boom, they offer nothing for missions as it's simply and fly over and drop mission. It's not exactly as if you need to hunt for a target and/or be precise.

''Yuri! You missed!''

''But, I still blew it up!''

''It doesn't matter, take a little pride in your work!''

@Furia

Yeah, because everybody has a nuclear handgun in their dad's closet and it's super important we don't treat them like toys. Nukes don't kill people, people with nukes kill people! @@ No nukes, but you're totally ok with carpet bombing, landmines, and cluster munitions in your games, right? =)

Whole lot of PVO interceptors in or planned for this game for this confused morality about nukes in a videogame. Like do the devs think it promotes nuke lust and some DCS junkie is gonna recreate the film Broken Arrow? If anything simulated nuclear warfare e.g. CMANO gives you the heebie jeebies and drives home that 'not to play' is the winning move. It's basically impossible to glorify or defend nuclear war in any form of media, with doomsday films you had Threads which was clearly anti-nuke but By Dawn's Early Light which had a patriotic vibe the message was about the futility. If you're anti-nuke it would be conducive to put them in DCS proper, raise the hackles and educate people.

i dont think the people who really want nukes actually care a whit about either nuclear ethics or combat aviation.

but they'll say anything if it gets them their way lmao

I'm anti-war in general. I'd like to get a glimpse of what it would actually be like partly for insight, part morbid curiosity.

And nukes wouldn't be high up on my list. If I had a magic lamp the first rub would be archaic low-level photorecon flights or something anoraky like an ELINT multicrew plane.

it makes a cool setpiece.

you'd never use it in MP though, especially if it has any sort of standoff. too powerful.

might be nice to have in a campaign though. also makes neat video fodder.

pretending that there is some sort of moral prohibition about building pixel nukes btw is pretty ridiculous. by the same token we're all apparently murderers because we've knocked over a bunch of pixel men with pixel mk82s from our pixel aircraft nukes are realistic for some aircraft, those aircraft should have them for muh realism, might as well make the weapons themselves realistic too. the current mig21 bombs are just "MK84x100000" which is pretty lame.

once the map eventually gets filled in, nukes will allow us to play some pretty spooky east v. west 1980 WWIII scenarios that nukes would probably feature in, it's a nice narrative element and people being unnecessarily dismissive is pretty stupid.

Why not? From a video game perspective, nukes are prevalent and fun to use. From a simulator perspective, nukes are in the real world, carried by our favorite planes, so are fair game.

It’s true the engine isn’t built for it though. Perhaps one day....

It's a video game. There are no ethical dilemmas with adding nukes. I'm in favor as it adds an additional gameplay perspective for those who choose to use it.

+1 for a modern nuke with decent effects. I too don’t understand why this conversation turned into an ethical discussion, its a freaking war game. A nuke would be fun and add a very distinct aspect to missions. I alsways do intercept missions where a rogue country or pilot attempts to strike an airbase with a nuke, but the mig 21 bomb sucks bigtime.

tactical nuclear employment would have been a reality in the cold war period if ww3 became a thing. NATO and USSR alike were prepared to use such weapons in combat.

LABS avionics system for various tactical Century series fighters ( and preceding F86F block 35 and F86H) was meant specifically for Nuclear toss bombing. Some designs like the F105 thunderchief were from their inception designed in mind for the purpose Low level nuclear bomb delivery, and only became used as a secodnary conventional bombing role in Vietnam war.

I can understand not have the motivation to do so out of lack of current available technological effects, It wouldnt be impossible and was even done via modding in other older sims, and its effects far more realistic than ones offered for the RN24 and RN28 for the Mig21

First of all, nuclear weapons are lawful weapons unlike chemical and biological which are both banned by international treaties. Game play, the big strategic nukes would be no fun, the smaller tactical might be interesting, especially since it's believed that Russia would use them in any war with NATO over the Baltic's.

Are they moral? Well, the 1950's strategy of MAD and targeting cities with multi-megaton weapons was only an extension of how World War II was fought where all sides targeted cities, the only difference of the H-bomb was an economy of force where one aircraft could do the job of a thousand. Today's accurate weapons allow counter-force strategies that can eliminate the need to target cities as a primary strategy. Still, strat weapons are boring and bad for game play.

All that said, if there was a Europe theater with a Baltic campaign, allowing tactical nukes like the B61 family could make for some really interesting "Alone and unafraid" missions for Vipers and Mud Hens.

NANO NUKE BOMB B61 test

BOMB ESPLOSION

First of all, the last video is NOT a B61. The last atmospheric nuclear test in the US happened before the B61 was designed and built. No live B61 has ever been dropped from a plane.

Second: what are you trying to prove with this post? That you know how to use google image search and youtube?

A nuclear weapon in DCS is absolutely useless in my opinion. How about implementing ICBMs in DCS? Then we all push the launch-button and have "game over" within 25 minutes. :noexpression: