sferrin said:
Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. They're not even in the same class. It'd be like saying the reason they got rid of the F-111 was to make sure the B-2 got built.
Maybe not as far fetched as you think. Look up Thirsty Saber/ Thirsty Warrior to see some of what could be done with the basic AGM-129 design.
The smaller the space for a warhead the more expensive it becomes? Are you serious?
Deadly. The payload budget available to missiles and bombs is usually constrained, even more so in recent years during the time it was fashionable to include sensors and guidance system components as part of the payload rather than integrate them into the missile body, reducing the amount of space/mass available for the actual warhead, not to mention other potential payload items such as decoys.
This means that warhead components, including the explosive filler in most conventional warheads, needs to be ever more compact, which in turn leads to increased design, production and maintenance costs. As a general rule of thumb, the more 'energetic' an explosive filler is, the more expensive it is. Octol, which is used in both conventional and nuclear weapons, is a good example. However just because you have a lighter and/or more powerful explosive filler doesn't automatically mean that you will be able to have a smaller warhead, for example, the geometry of a particular shaped charge or charges in a warhead may require more space.
Now, to complicate matters a bit further, lately there has more research into less energetic explosive fillers, for use in weapons intended to reduce collateral damage. Unfortunately, the charges using these fillers tend to be bulkier and heavier than those using higher yield explosives, requiring a bigger payload budget. Hence, part of my remark about smaller warheads being less flexible.
