Nuclear Weapons (aka 'Instant Sunshine')

[TsrJoe]

...a few snippets of possible inspiration for the 'Instant Sunshine' theme..please add and augment as necessary ...
Please note ...the moniker 'like' is intended here as a possible visual descriptor not an indication of dimensional shape or potential yield
Tactical Weapon capable aircraft and stores (provisional/speculative listing): 
U.K. (R.N.)

• Scimitar F.1 --TMB
• Buccaneer -- TMB, WE.177B/C
• Nimrod -- Mk.57, WE.177A
• Sea King -- WE.177A
• Wasp -- WE.177A
• Sea Harrier FRS.1 -- WE.177B/C

U.K. (R.A.F.)

• Canberra -- TMB, MK.7, Mk.57, MK.28, MK.43
• Phantom FGR.2 -- MK.28, MK.43, MK.57, WE.177A/B
• Harrier GR.1 (T.2?) -- WE.177A/B
• Buccaneer -- TMB, MK.43, WE.177A/C
• Tornado GR.1 -- WE.177A/B, MK.61, SCALP
• Jaguar GR.1 -- WE.177A/B
• Hunter F.6 -- TMB (speculative)
• Lightning -- AIR-2 Genie (speculative)

France

• Vatour -- (IRL it was used for ballistic shape drops only) Mk.7 or AN-52?
• Mirage IIIE -- AN.52
• Mirage IVA/P -- AN.11, AN.22, ASMP
• Jaguar A -- AN.52
• Etendard -- AN.52
• Super Etendard -- AN.52, ASMP
• Mirage 2000 -- ASMP
• Rafale -- ASMP

NATO

• F-104 Starfighter -- MK.28, MK.43, MK.61
• F-4 Phantom -- Mk.28, MK.61
• F-16 Falcon -- MK.28, MK.61
• Tornado GR.1 -- MK.61

South Africa

• Buccaneer S.2 -- TMB or Mk.28 like? (speculative)

Israel

• Vatour -- TMB or Mk.28 like? (speculative)
• A-4 Skyhawk -- TMB or Mk.28 like? (speculative)
  
• F-4 Phantom -- TMB or Mk.28 or Mk.61 like? (speculative)
• F.15E/I Eagle -- TMB or Mk.28 or Mk.61 like? (speculative)

India

• Canberra B.2 -- TMB or MK.28 like ? (speculative)

Pakistan

• Q.5 -- TMB like? (speculative)

Sweden

• Lansen -- MK.57 or Mk.61 like
• A.36 -- MK.61 like

Australia

• Canberra -- TMB or MK.28 like? (speculative)

Argentina

• Canberra -- TMB or MK.28 like? (speculative)

Brazil

• TMB or MK.28 like? (speculative)

Japan

• Phantom -- MK.28 or Mk.43 like? (speculative)

Nuclear Weapons

• TMB (Target Marker Bomb aka 'Red Beard') RN and RAF bomb
• WE.177 RN and RAF bomb
• AIR-2 Genie (nuclear air to air rocket
• Mk.7 (USAF/USN/NATO bomb)
• Mk.1 BOAR (Mk.7 fitted with rocket motor, limited use with the U.S. Navy)
• Mk.28/B28 (USAF/USN/NATO bomb)
• Mk.43/B43 (USAF/USN/NATO bomb)
• Mk.57/B57 (USAF/USN/NATO bomb)
• Mk.61/B61 (USAF/USN/NATO bomb)
• AN.11/AN.22 (French bomb)
• AN.52 (French bomb)
• ASMP (French air to surface missile)

[elmayerle]

I  won't be there, but I've been thinking of a RAF "Eagle FG.1" (GE-powered variant of the F-15E for the RAF) with a couple WE.177's and/or a B61 or two.  Been thinking of putting it in desert pink as a contingency aircraft in case Saddam had possessed the bomb and used it.  Nose art I'm thinking of is a "sunbathing beauty" with the words "Bring Me Sunshine".

[elmayerle]

Sweden
Lansen '61 like'
A.36 '61 like'

That's not speculative??? I didn't know that swedish planes was able to carry nucear weapons, even NATO's nuke...

And I even don't know the A-36. Is that a bomber variant of the J-35??

Nope, the A.36 was an unbuilt design.  As a quick description, think of a Hawker P.1121 with a delta wing and a F-16-style inlet.  You can run a Google sort for further information, but here's the main source: http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/text/saabcanc/

[Matt Wiser]

Add SRAM-T to the mix: this was a tactical version of the SRAM II, which was for the B-52, B-1B, and B-2, before being cancelled in early '92. SRAM-T had a range of 60 miles, several warhead options from 10 Kt up to 150 Kt. Intended for the F-15E. It was being considered by the RAF for the Tornado and might have been issued to the Luftwaffe and AMI for their Tornadoes under the dual-key arrangements that cover the free-fall bombs. The Navy was hoping for the B-90 nuclear depth/strike bomb. This would've replaced the B-57 in ASW/strike roles, and would have armed the SH-60s, P-3s, Nimrod, and Atlantic for ASW, while it would have armed the A-6E/F, A-12, AV-8B, F/A-18 for Navy/Marine strike and the AF would also have had aircraft certified to carry the weapon (F-15E, F-16, and handled certification for NATO Tornado aircraft). Also axed in '92. Yield variable from sub-Kt up to 20 Kt.

[Geoff_B]

Yeap the RAF was seriously considering the SRAM-II or the SRAM-T as a standoff missile to replace the WE177 in the tactical role. When this was cancelled efforts were then made for a joint venture with France for a longer ranged stealthier version of the Air-Sol-Moyenne Portée (ASMP) supersonic missile called the Air-Sol Longue Portee (ASLP). However with the end of the cold war, all Tactical nuclear weapons were discarded and their replacement programs cancelled.

Ironically now as we start to consider replacement of the Tridents in the Strategic role we are looking again at some low yeild smart bombs to take out targets such as terrorist hideaways or specific buildings & places rather than whole cities and their civilian populations.

Not sure with SCALP as we seem to have used the concepts developed for ASLP but specifically highlighted its not Nuclear to comply with Nuclear Arms control.

Geoff B

[Matt Wiser]

Nuclear depth charges were delivered in the USN by either ASROC (from surface ships; 5-10 Kt yield), SUBROC (Permit to early Los Angeles-class SSNs; up to 200 Kt), helos (SH-3, SH-60B; B-57 depth/strike bomb; 10-20 Kt yield), or aircraft (S-2, S-3, P-2, P-3, P-5; Mark 90 Betty depth charge-yield 30 Kt, Mark 34 Lulu depth charge-yield 10 Kt, B-57, and the planned B-90 depth/strike bomb-yield up to 200 Kt) Preferred delivery by either standoff weapon (ASROC, SUBROC, or the cancelled Sea Lance), or by air, either helo or fixed-wing. Anyone know if the RN ever considered ASROC or SUBROC? They did use the Ikara if I'm not mistaken.

[TsrJoe]

another for the listing...Japan...

...during the 1960's, Japan secretly studied the development of nuclear weapons...17 June 1974, Prime Minister Tsutomu Hata quoted...'Japan has the capability to posess nuclear weapons'...'means of delivery'...

as expected this remark caused widespread concern in the media at that time !

Hmmm..a JSDAF. F.4EJ Phantom with a nuke...cool

and from Geoff (Thorvik), according to ref. spirit in the skies on the Phantom, the F.4E could carry 'B28EX, B28RE, B43-0, B43-1, B57 and B61', and 'all US F-4's were built with a nuclear capability, including recon versions'

lots more modelling potential there...

happy modelling, cheers, joe    

[P1127]

another for the listing...Japan...

...during the 1960's, Japan secretly studied the development of nuclear weapons...17 June 1974, Prime Minister Tsutomu Hata quoted...'Japan has the capability to posess nuclear weapons'...'means of delivery'...

See the work of Clive Cussler and Tom Clancy, who wrote similar novels bsed on that premise.

Wasn't the inner pylon on the USAF F-4s a different shape to allow for the electronics that Nukes required.

Og, and can anybody find me a pic of a Sea Harrier with WE177?

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Wasn't the inner pylon on the USAF F-4s a different shape to allow for the electronics that Nukes required?

Dave,

Normal carriage for the majority of the nuclear bomb shapes would have been on the center line stores pylon.  The difference between the pylon used on the Navy F-4 and the pylon used on the USAF F-4 is that the Navy pylon was originally designed to carry and launch the AIM-7 Sparrow.  This was later modified with an adapter to allow carriage of a TER on that pylon.  The USAF pylon was designed from the start to drop ordnance directly from the pylon or from a TER.  Both pylons were also modified to incorporate a pair of launch rails for the AIM-9 Sidewinder which allowed the aircraft to carry bombs and missiles on the same pylon.  This however was dependent on the type of ordnance that was mounted on the pylon since some weapons would have conflicted with the Sidewinders in which case they were not carried for that sortie.  

[noxioux]

Regarding Japan:

There's a body of evidence, but not conclusive evidence, that suggests Japan may have been closer to an A-bomb that Germany was in 1945 (some claim they fired a test shot off what's now North Korea (supposedly the development site was in that territory) between the first and second A-bomb strikes on the Home Islands).  How about an operational G8N1 or G10N1 for a strike on the continental US?

I know there's at least one book out there about it, but the title and author excape me at the moment.

Which would've put Japan in the same boat as Germany--not having a bomber big enough to carry the weapon for deliver.  Did they have any plans or projects for a large strategic bomber?  I guess if you think about it, with the Japanese military mentality of the time, it would've made more sense to load it into some kind of modified Kaiten.  But how about an extremely stripped down, hot-rodded Betty with floats, broken down and loaded onto one of their submarines?  The Kaiten is admittedly much more plausible.  A nice little float into SF Bay or maybe Seattle, and a detonation at the surface would've done the job.  But the Betty idea is kinda interesting.

I noticed a distinct lack of Soviet stuff here.  Has anyone thought of taking one of those gorgeous 1/48 B-29's and turning it into a T-4 with an open bay and a weaponized "Joe-1" tucked in there?  Wouldn't be too hard to do, and that would be an impressive finished model.  I'd do it, but I'm already up to my nipples in unfinished projects.

Also, I've always been fond of the Tu-22 Blinder.  I'm kinda bummed there's no 1/48 kit, but one of those in a nice BMF with an open bomb bay and some kind of nasty Soviet free-fall nuke would be handsome.

Fighters are certainly interesting nuke carriers, but they don't have that distinctive sort of viciousness that a purpose-built nuclear bomber has.  Like the Vulcan, and the B-1, or the B-58, etc. . .  Of course, you're just as nuked with a fighter as a bomber, but the psychological presence of an F-16 or F-15 just isn't the same.

[P1127]

Some nice pics of 'special weapons' here

http://photobucket.com/albums/v20/jinxx1/N...lear%20devices/

including WE177 - I'd love to get a better look at those Tornado pictures!

[Matt Wiser]

Don't forget the B-71: a bomber version of the SR-71 Blackbird. Kelly Johnson had the plans, and they were submitted to the AF, for an aircraft with four B-43 class
gravity bombs and a 6-round launcher for the SRAM missile. The MiG-25 was meant to counter the B-70 and this aircraft. F-12s for escort (with nuke-armed AIM-47s) to clear the way and the B-71s for the penetration and strike. There were drop tests of a B-43 shape with ablative coating (from a B-58) to see how the heat at Mach 3.2 would affect the bomb as it fell to its detonation altitude. (Why the F-12s? Simple. Not only escort, but to kill any Soviet bombers they encounter on the way, and then kill Foxbats and Tu-128 Fiddlers as you penetrate Soviet Airspace)Two versions of the AIM-47, one conventional and one nuclear. Yield unknown, as the nuclear warhead was cancelled, along with the rest of the F-12/AIM-47 program. The AIM-54 was considered for a nuclear warhead, but nothng was proceeded with.

[elmayerle]

Matt, I believe, from what I've read, that the four gravity bombs, or SRAMS in some versions, and the rotary launcher were alternate weapons bay arrangements and weren't used together.  I'd be glad to be proved wrong, though.

[Matt Wiser]

Wings or Airpower about a year or so ago had the drawings of a B-71: two B-43 class bombs on each side of the cockpit, and behind the WSO was the SRAM launcher.

[elmayerle]

Ah, I've also seen one with four SRAMs and one with just the rotary launcher.  I guess they looked at all the possibilities.  I can see F-12s with a mix of AIM-47Bs adn AGM-76Bs  (AGM-76 is an air-to-ground derivative of the AIM-47) clearing the way for the B-71s and such.