Comments by "Frank DeMaris" (@kemarisite) on "The Drydock - Episode 037" video.

How about the Brits trying to sink their own Habakuk using Tallboys?
2
@OmarSlloum Say that again in a few centuries if it actually becomes relevant. 1 degree or so isn't going to make a difference to this thing.
1
Water is a good neutron moderator, boric acid in the ice would be even better, and the thickness of the ice and density of water would still be useful for shielding from gamma rays. The heat and blast are still just as much of any issue for modern steel warships as they would be for Habbakuk.
1
@andrewszigeti2174 If we're going to imagine that, I'll note that there is no kill like overkill regardless of the carrier you're targeting.
1
@andrewszigeti2174 And have you considered in your analysis how much larger the Habbakuk's air group would be? When the F-14 was in service, the carrier air wing included a squadron of those in addition to several squadrons of F-18s, now it includes four squadrons of F-18s of various types. The larger Habbakuk air group would presumably include several times that number of fighters with which to intercept the Backfire raid, and presumably enough Hawkeyes to maintain several in an array along the likely threat axis rather than just one with escorts orbiting a couple hundred miles out. Also, I have to wonder about the issue of fratricide among the missiles once the leading ones start detonating. We are, after all, talking about an inbound wave of 400-500 missiles with tactical nuclear warheads. This is not a warhead that needs a contact fuse to be effective, so how much will the first detonation at, to pull a number out of thin air, 10 meters out effect other missiles further back that haven't reach their detonation condition yet? Between heat, blast, and fast neutron effects I can think of a number of things that might produce squibs or even no fission at all.
1