The A-10 Could Have Become a Nuclear Strike Plane — War Is Boring — Medium

Despite what the Pentagon and senior Air Force leaders might say, the A-10 Warthog is far from “single-purpose airplane.” But dropping nuclear bombs might be one of the things the low- and sl0w-flying attackers actually can’t do. But the Air Force once briefly considered the idea. In December 1975, Secretary of Defense Bill Clements wanted…

Despite what the Pentagon and senior Air Force leaders might say, the A-10 Warthog is far from “single-purpose airplane.” But dropping nuclear bombs might be one of the things the low- and sl0w-flying attackers actually can’t do.

But the Air Force once briefly considered the idea.

In December 1975, Secretary of Defense Bill Clements wanted to know how much it would cost to modify F-15 and F-16 fighter jets so they could carry atomic weapons. Two months later, the Air Force sent back data on what it would take to upgrade those two types of aircraft—or the A-10—with nukes.

“For your information, we have also provided similar cost data on the A-10 aircraft,” states an unclassified memo War Is Boring obtained from the Air Force Historical Research Agency. “The estimated cost to make 275 A-10s nuclear-capable is $15.9 million.”

via The A-10 Could Have Become a Nuclear Strike Plane — War Is Boring — Medium.

The author consults with an unnamed Air Force officer and they come to the conclusion that the A-10 simply wouldn’t be able to escape the blast of the weapon.

Which is disappointing. Apparently, neither the author or the unnamed Air Force officer know jack about nukes, or how a quick look at google can provide relevant information.

All three weapons discussed, the B43, B57, and B61 (there’s no dashes in a nuke bomb designation, btw) either have “dial a yield” or come in variants with differing yields. Quite a few of them have variants that yield as little or even less than the bomb used at Hiroshima.

Given that the A-1 Skyraider was fully capable of delivering a low yield weapon and escaping, the A-10 would certainly be capable as well.

Further, they apparently have no idea what a “lay down” delivery mode is.

The main reason to not equip the A-10 would likely be that the aircrews simply did not have time to prepare and qualify for the mission. Time spent certifying a unit for the nuclear role (which was a very time consuming process, and had to be repeated over and over) was time not spent on training for the unit’s primary mission.

 

Tags:

  1. geoff

    Well, the A-1Skyraider lofted the nukes toward the target, rather than dropping them in a classic bomb run. And even so, apparently the pilots thought their chances of survival were poor.

    But I’m kind of surprised that we were considering tactical nuclear platforms at all in 1975.

    Like

  2. xbradtc

    Virtually all tac air lofted their nukes. Or did a laydown. Plus, nukes often used parachutes to prolong the time of flight.

    The tactical nuke mission (by the way, in NATO terms, it’s “Strike” whereas a conventional mission is “attack”) was a very big deal throughout the 70s and the 80s.

    Like

  3. Shaun Evertson

    Sandblower.

    Like

  4. timactual

    I think the gratuitous data for the A-10 was just some staff folks idea of a joke, or maybe just being bored. After all, lots of aircraft, even a C-130, can carry a nuclear bomb, but it just ain’t practical.

    Like

  5. captainned

    Hence planes like the SEPECAT Jaguar.

    Like

  6. Jeff Gauch

    Any airplane can carry a nuclear bomb. Once.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Tarl

    In December 1975, Secretary of Defense Bill Clements

    SecDef who? Rumsfeld was on vacation and janitor Bill was sitting in his command chair?

    Like

  8. xbradtc

    Yeah, he was the Deputy.

    Like

Leave a comment