NATO use of nuclear AAM's

[JayBee]

Does anyone know what the NATO popsition on the use of nuclear AAMs was?
I am particularly interested in Norway's stance on this issue.

If anyone has any answers on this subject I would be most gratefull.

Jim

[Army of One]

I think the Norwegians only took their F104 Starfighters after they had been made non nuclear capable....I'm sure I read that somewhere......

[Go4fun]

I can only find one reference to one getting developed to the point of test firing one by a NATO country. I just have to wonder how much use it would be in aerial combat. Okay so you take out 2 or 3 instead of one with one shot. It diesn't seem they wouold clear large amounts of airspace you could fly through.

[Steel Penguin]

i can think of Geine and falcon both nuke tipped.

[scooter]

i can think of Geine and falcon both nuke tipped.

Genie was nuclear tipped.  And unguided.  The AIM-26A was the nuclear-tipped Falcon, 26B the conventional.  The Swiss and Swedes used conventional warhead Falcons.

[PR19_Kit]

There's quite a bit about the RAF's ideas about firing Genies from Lightnings in 'Battle Force', and even using nuke BOMBS slingshot into Soviet bomber groups too!

[Go4fun]

The USA developed the 'Diamondback" a version of the AIM-9 Sidewinder with a little less than 1 Kiloton yield. It says they actually got as far as firing one but they never said if a nuclear warhead was used or detonated during the test.

[The Wooksta!]

I did a Lightning F1A in anti-flash white* - do I win £5?



*Never fitted the Genies though - post sortie!

[Thorvic]

I suspect it was limited to USAF, RCAF and RAF where it would be used over the sea to disrupt soviet bomber formations. Its unlikely its use would be sanctioned over mainland Europe for obvious reasons, where as NORAD area and the GUIK gap and possibly North Sea would be deemed acceptable (and also the prime Soviet Bomber routes)

G

[AS.12]

What an excellent question.

I'm aware that there were arrangements for Belgium, Netherlands and Hellenic forces to receive nuclear warheads ( edit: W31 under the pseudonym 'Warhead A' ) for Nike-Hercules SAMs.  This suggests that there were provisions within NADGE for nuclear engagement zones over continental Europe.

Update: apparently the French SAM units 1/520 at Bottingen and 3/520 at Ineringen were equipped with W31-tipped Nike-Hercules in 1964, prior to France's departure from NATO.  Staffed with US nuclear technicians.

Nothing about AAMs yet, but certainly seems that NATO had no qualms about engaging aircraft using nukes; W31 in Nike-Hercules had a yield of 20 kT.

Some interesting info here www.usarmygermany.com/Units/Air%20Defense/French%20Nike%20and%20Hawk.pdf about NATO policies for nuclear air defence, including:

• No German zones or areas were safe from nuclear fire as no restriction was imposed to where the missiles could be exploded.
• Before firing the missile, the Minimum Burst Altitude (MBA) had to be set, which allowed a detonation in flight without (or minimized) nuclear fall-out.
• In an emergency, the W31-tipped Nike-Hercules could be requested to engage ground targets!

So it's sounding to me that Germany was considered a free-fire zone.  No reason nuclear AAMs couldn't have been added to the mix...

Update2: re the original question, Norway was one of the few NATO countries to decline the W31 warhead for its Nike-Hercules.  So I would expect that to read-across to their AAMs.

[Geoff]

Hmm I wonder if the RAF would have fitted nukes to the Canberra fighter. The Genie is obvious, but I like the idea of the Sidewinder/Diamondback on the wingtips and Genie or Falcons under the wings??

[pyro-manic]

If looking at a Canberra fighter, why not a nuclear Red Dean?

Fascinating info there, AS.12 - Germany certainly wouldn't have been a good place to be!

[Go4fun]

A .9 KT Diamondback: For when a regular Sidewinder just doesn't quite say how big a pain in the primary flying instrument set this enemy flier was!
:LOL:

[Geoff]

Mind you with the early tail chase guidance systems if the target broke lock a proximity fused nuke would still have a reasonable chance of killing the target. (Says the guy with no knowledge of what he is going on about)

[AS.12]

Quick note about the Diamondback study: it grew until it had a diameter of 12 inches, 50% more than Sparrow and well over twice that of Sidewinder.  So it's not something that you'd be fitting on the tip-rails!

Edit: Interesting, this Flight article from 1960 http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1960/1960%20-%200585.html ( which followed several years of conjecture about Diamondback ) states that it was confirmed as being the code name for the evolutionary SW-1C developments ( later AIM-9 C / D ) rather than nuclear.  Update: I think Flight made a mistake here, the SW-1C development codes were Irah and Sarah.

Edit2: References to Diamondback being a variant of Sidewinder seem to come from a throwaway line in this book that calls it a "Super Sidewinder", but being many times larger and with a liquid-fuel two-stage rocket I think that's just hyperbole.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SIG08L91YQcC&printsec=frontcover&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=diamondback&f=false  A bit like calling Phoenix a Super Sparrow!