The quest for the ultimate nuclear delivery system (1945 - 1965)

A

Archibald

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
6 June 2006
Messages
11,930
Reaction score
13,705
I atempted to make a short list of the many and varied systems imagined to deliver atomic bombs on the Soviets.

It is pretty mind-blowing, the many systems imagined, developed, and abandonned during such a short span of time.

My list so far

B-29 / B-50 piston engine bomber
B-36 intercontinental piston engine bomber
B-47 / B-52 intercontinental jet, Mach 1 (Chrome Dome)
B-58 intercontinental jet, Mach 2
B-70 intercontinental jet, Mach 3

A-1 Savage nuclear bomber on carrier
A-3 Skywarrior nuclear bomber on carrier
A-5 Vigilante nuclear bomber on carrier
P-6M Seamaster nuclear bomber flying boat
Regulus / Regulus II naval cruise missile
Polaris SLBM - solid-fuel missile in submarine

WS-125A / CAMAL intercontinental jet, nuclear
Vought SLAM intercontinental nuclear cruise missile
Project ROVER nuclear ICBM
Project ORION nuclear pulse spaceborne battleship

Snark / Matador intercontinental cruise missile, subsonic
Navaho intercontinental cruise missile, mach 3

Skybolt IRBM on bomber aircraft
FOBS Orbital bombardement system

Thor, Jupiter IRBM on foreign allies countries
Atlas-F / Titan I ICBM, kerolox
Titan II ICBM, storable props
Minuteman ICBM, solid fuel, silo

MX Peacekeeper ICBM, solid fuel, second generation
+(WS-120A & MX basing options: airliners, cargo aircraft, airships, granite mountains, polar ice caps, flying boats, railway, helicopters, trucks...)
 
And which one (somewhat) prevailed in the end ?

Solid-fuel missiles into nuclear submarines roaming the ocean depths. SLBM.

Even today, hard if not impossible to better this concept...
 
The first 'Russian' bomber seen as a threat to the US was a Russian copy of the B-29. This would have made it easy for US fighter pilots to spot. There was some concern about what the Russians had gotten from Germany and other occupied areas. Also, a fair fight was never the goal. So, every idea that seemed to offer an advantage was proposed. When the Korean War started, the US revived its ground observer corps. The speed of reporting unknown aircraft and surface vessels to various reporting centers was utmost. CIRVIS, or Communication Instructions for Reporting Vital Intelligence Sightings, was also adopted in Canada, along with a ground observer corps.
 
So, every idea that seemed to offer an advantage was proposed.
Click to expand...

You nailed it perfectly.

I forgot to mention the SR.183 & LUNEX USAF lunar bases (1958 & 1961) which aparently were to be MISSILE bases ! o_O o_O

Among the batshit crazy "basing" concepts, my favorites are GOLDEN ARROW and ICE WORM.

"How about hollowing a Sierra Nevada granite mountain into the ultimate super-hardened silo: it could resist a 1500 psi overpressure !"

"Nah, let's put instead truncated Minuteman missiles under Greenland polar cap, inside ice tunnels ! It is far easier to dig ice than granite, after all."

Yeah, sure, dude.
 
Sorry to be picky;-
Add Convair B60 which made it to flight test

Remove MX which really came after 65.

The timescale is staggering for such a diverse array of projects/deployments. In these enlightened times almost anyone of these projects would take twenty years and consume such a large percentage of the industrial base you would be lucky to run more than two in parallel. And this was in addition to the bucket of instant sunshine development which itself was a eye watering effort/technical achievement in a short time. There’s got to be some lessons for doing things quickly and efficiently.

I wonder what this lot cost?
 
In a speech given to a gathering of newspaper editors, President Eisenhower expressed his dismay at these efforts. How the genius of our scientists was being wasted. Right before he left office, he gave a televised speech warning about the "military-industrial complex," and against a general abuse of power. I have seen a 400+ page study outlining the launch of B-58s under a nuclear war scenario. They would have only minutes to leave their hardened shelters and become airborne. The generally accepted window was about 15 minutes. In order to succeed, pilots would have to be rotated around the clock.

The expansion and new construction of underground bases was well underway by the end of World War II. In Japan, one underground installation survived an atomic bomb due to distance and depth. The US and the Russians, had these facts. It seems a few are unwilling to accept the idea that coming up with new ways to outmaneuver your enemy is a good idea. Or, why not just constrain your scientists and other technical personnel from even proposing anything beyond what may be seen as reasonable, then or now?

New ideas do not come from minor improvements of old developments. In the case of the Cold War, it was very profitable. In fact, maintaining a constant state of readiness and developing new weapons and other equipment, meant a guaranteed profit for those who could demonstrate competence in building the next aircraft or missile.

Military planners in the US would meet with a particular government committee to tell them about the "bomber gap," followed by the "missile gap." The assumption was made that the Russians were producing at least as much, and possibly more, advanced military equipment as the US. The risk of assuming otherwise could not be taken.

I think that instead of looking at cost, one should look at national survival. What would you pay to defend your homeland from an enemy who had as much technical skill, if not more, than your own country? I have read one credible report that stated the published military budget for a given fiscal year in the 1950s was only part of the story. Additional monies were hidden in a 'farm bill' or other civilian program.
 
Zoo Tycoon said:
Sorry to be picky;-
Add Convair B60 which made it to flight test

Remove MX which really came after 65.

The timescale is staggering for such a diverse array of projects/deployments. In these enlightened times almost anyone of these projects would take twenty years and consume such a large percentage of the industrial base you would be lucky to run more than two in parallel. And this was in addition to the bucket of instant sunshine development which itself was a eye watering effort/technical achievement in a short time. There’s got to be some lessons for doing things quickly and efficiently.

I wonder what this lot cost?
Click to expand...

Well according to the book "atomic audit" - 8 trillion dollars from Manhattan to the turn of the Century.

8000 billion dollars. o_O o_O o_O o_O o_O o_O o_O o_O o_O o_O
 
Zoo Tycoon said:
Sorry to be picky;-
Add Convair B60 which made it to flight test

Remove MX which really came after 65.

The timescale is staggering for such a diverse array of projects/deployments. In these enlightened times almost anyone of these projects would take twenty years and consume such a large percentage of the industrial base you would be lucky to run more than two in parallel. And this was in addition to the bucket of instant sunshine development which itself was a eye watering effort/technical achievement in a short time. There’s got to be some lessons for doing things quickly and efficiently.

I wonder what this lot cost?
Click to expand...

I added MX because the basing issues started long before 1978 - right from 1964 with WS-120A and GOLDEN ARROW.

McNamara blocked preliminary studies of both WS-120A & AMSA, later MX& B-1, as long as he could.

Fact was Polaris and Minuteman was probably plenty enough.

When one thinks about it, both France and GB on the long term only kept SLBM and screwed nearly everything else - strategic bombers and ground silos.
Right from the end of Cold War France screwed
- free fall tactical nukes (AN-52)
- Pluton and Hadès tactical missiles
- Plateau d'Albion IRBMs
- a large part of the airborne component (number of ASMP was cut to the bone, Mirage IV were screwed for good in 1996)

Right from 2000, it was 95% SLBM, 5% ASMP and nothing else.

On the British side the WE177 went away by 1998, leaving only the subs. Land-based IRBMs, strategic bombers, cruise missiles died with the 60's or so.

Had America done the same, it would have been "Polaris" and "41 for Freedom" right from 1967.
But USAF Generals would have had kittens ! so MX and B-1 were allowed to proceed later on...
 
edwest said:
In a speech given to a gathering of newspaper editors, President Eisenhower expressed his dismay at these efforts. How the genius of our scientists was being wasted.
Click to expand...
Except that it wasn't. The scientific work that went into developing weaponry had definite civilian applications. Nuclear reactors for naval ship and subs -> nuclear reactors for civilian vessels and powerplants. ICBMs - space launch systems. Advanced aerodynamics, materials, engines -> new and better airliners. Nuclear weapons -> civilian engineering with nukes ("Plowshare"), civilian on-demand gigawatt power generation, Orion, space colonization, space industrialization. The work done was not the waste. The waste came from not actually implementing the science and tech that was produced. We could have colonized Mars by now. We *should* have colonized Mars by now. The military/industrial complex gave us the technology to do it *decades* ago.
 
Who launched the first satellite? Who was the first man in space? America was not moving ahead, Russia was. After the last Apollo mission, who decided to wind down not just the space program but other advanced programs? On a practical level, going to Mars should have happened but then what? How to get food and water to the people there? Oh yes, liquid water as water ice just below the surface in some areas or liquid water about a mile down. Say that it's possible to grow crops. Then what? Sit underground in shelters because of the low surface temperatures? Doing what?

The moon is a better place for mining and getting power from the sun. It is a more hostile environment but supplies can be sent by launching 100 supply ships daily. And that level of resupply puts the moon in a better position than Mars for moving forward with the job of colonization, mining and learning how to do things in terms of building suitable habitats.

I lived through the 1960s and could not get enough books about astronauts and rockets. However, I somehow believed that Mars was not that bad. That we could live there one day. But even if cities were built, man remains man, and he will bring his personal problems with him.

I am a follower of materials science and very aware of previous work. On Earth, right now, the next "leap" in technology is electric, driverless cars with million mile batteries. Elon Musk has a partner in Shanghai that is ready to go into production right now. But the current circumstances will prevent this until the situation is more economically favorable. The thing holding back solar is lack of light at night. Wind by a lack of wind at any given time. The introduction of large-scale energy storage will change that and allow for greater adoption. Having this new type of battery will help advance space technology as well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
edwest said:
Who launched the first satellite? Who was the first man in space? America was not moving ahead, Russia was.
Click to expand...

Russia launched satellites and men atop rockets designed as ICBM,s so *their* military/industrial complex was certainly creating dual-use technologies. The first US satellite and human space launchers were similarly derived from military systems. As to the US not moving ahead... hard to see how us going from "no satellites" to "lots of satellites," from piston engine airliners to jumbo jets, from no nukes to a good fraction of the US grid powered by them, was not "moving ahead."

edwest said:
man remains man, and he will bring his personal problems with him.
Click to expand...
That's right... we're *awesome.* Even our problems end up improving the world. Mans impulse to war will give us the tools to explore, colonize and conquer the universe. The nicest, friendliest, fluffiest bunny you ever met will never hope to dream to attempt to approach anything remotely like that. It won't be kumbaya that spreads life to other worlds. It'll be the "see you on Titan, chump" attitude that does it.
 
Last edited:
Sober, creative minds create, not idiots with guns. A book by Ian Hogg told the story of the discovery of the American bazooka. It was a hobbyist who developed it not some fancy R&D enterprise. The US military had put the word out that a weapon was needed to deal with tanks that could be carried by one or two men. Mr. Hogg related how a few other candidates ahead of the inventor tried and failed. While he waited at the test site, someone suggested a bent wire be attached as a simple sight. When he fired, he struck the target. The officer in charge personally fired the remaining three rounds, striking the target each time. He ordered it into production on the spot.

Drunken cowboys will not inherent Mars. Those few will die from their craziness.

NASA was using the same type of boosters - military issue. At the time, that was not pointed out. Now it is for those willing to look.

NASA's Secret Relationships with the Defense and Intelligence Agencies

NASA's Secret Relationships with the Defense and Intelligence Agencies
nsarchive2.gwu.edu
 
edwest said:
Sober, creative minds create, not idiots with guns.
Click to expand...
Non sequitur. We're not talking about the John Brown Gun Club or Redneck Revolt or the NFAC, we're talking about the sober, creative minds that worked in the military/industrial complex that created many of the technologies the civilian world works on today... such as that ARPAnet net thing you're using at this very moment.
 
DARPA. What a concept. Colonies will be populated by carefully screened persons, not cowboys. I'm very aware of the civilian applications of military/space technologies, like Tang, the orange drink of the astronauts. In any case, there was a debate then about whether space exploration was worth the cost. Someone had to pay for national defense during the Cold War. I was there for most of it. Those unpleasant thoughts of nuclear warheads falling nearby did not prevent us from thoroughly enjoying ourselves.

It seems to me that once the military builds something better than ARPAnet, one version is offered to the private sector, along with other military technologies once they become obsolete. The ability to buy terabytes of memory for under 100 dollars gives a clue that the military is using larger, more powerful memories in a similar small package.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have to say, this thread has gone off the rails, on a crazy train... faster than Ozzy Osbourne (and I'm not talking about bats, Robin !) :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
As a general rule and not pointing fingers at anyone, a pacifist on a defence oriented site strikes me as a bit odd. The military after all, have a huge say in what happens in big research projects
 
Dear members, please try to avoid personal comments and focus in the subject.
 
edwest said:
In a speech given to a gathering of newspaper editors, President Eisenhower expressed his dismay at these efforts. How the genius of our scientists was being wasted. Right before he left office, he gave a televised speech warning about the "military-industrial complex," and against a general abuse of power. I have seen a 400+ page study outlining the launch of B-58s under a nuclear war scenario.
Click to expand...
Emphasising cost, the fact and reality that the exorbitant time, effort and cost of developing the B-58 Hustler - 'the supersonic bomber that SAC had to have!', only for it to be phased out of Operational Service all but 10-years latter by the other expensive and 'irrefutably needed' General Dynamics FB-111A.

Oh, P.S. I almost forgot, as to an additional "nuclear delivery system 1945-1965 - what about the M-28 or M-29 Davy Crockett nuclear weapon system.

Regards
Pioneer
 
Last edited:
I forgot two more "miracle technologies" - boron and hydrogen fuels...
 
Pioneer said:
edwest said:
In a speech given to a gathering of newspaper editors, President Eisenhower expressed his dismay at these efforts. How the genius of our scientists was being wasted. Right before he left office, he gave a televised speech warning about the "military-industrial complex," and against a general abuse of power. I have seen a 400+ page study outlining the launch of B-58s under a nuclear war scenario.
Click to expand...
Emphasising cost, the fact and reality that the exorbitant time, effort and cost of developing the B-58 Hustler - 'the supersonic bomber that SAC had to have!', only for it to be phased out of Operational Service all but 10-years latter by the other expensive and 'irrefutably needed' General Dynamics FB-111A.

Oh, P.S. I almost forgot, as to an additional "nuclear delivery system 1945-1965 - what about the M-28 or M-29 Davy Crockett nuclear weapon system.

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...


What was the United States doing before the detonation of the first Russian atom bomb in 1949? It was winding down from the war, with industry shifting from wartime to civilian-oriented production. Supposedly, there was no money but as far as national defense, research and development was moving as rapidly as possible. According to the formerly Restricted report, Guided Missiles and Pilotless Aircraft by H.L. Dryden, W.H. Pickering, H.S. Tsien and G.B. Schubauer, the United States was very impressed with the results of V-1 and V-2 bombardment. "Our military leaders are fully aware now of the necessity of pushing development of guided missiles, and almost frantic efforts are being made to compress within a few months developments which ordinarily take years." From page one of Part I, "Present State of the Guided Missile Art, 23 April 1945." The publication date is given as May, 1946, and it was not issued by the USAAF but by Headquarters Air Materiel Command, at Wright Field.

What was the filling weight of the Fat Man and Little Boy atomic bombs? Could a V-1 or V-2 carry this weight? Absolutely. But, instead of starting a war with the Soviet bloc, the US developed all required assets and kept design and development going on what some would call 'waste of time and money' projects. Whose time? Whose money? No one here. And the public in the US, along with the Russians, could have no idea about what was actually going on.

The B-36 had ten engines and was a relatively slow, large radar target. The B-58 would be available to dart in from various directions. The document I viewed provided no details about bases, just construction details which were detailed but not very. The Davy Crockett was a practical deterrent since ground and air assets were required. If the Russians decided to move tanks against Western Europe then they had an obstacle to contend with. I spent most of the 1980s at libraries that carried specialized military publications that gave scenario after scenario about what might happen if the Russians tried to seize more land. And until 1949, I think it was not lost on Russian leadership that any adventure would be rapidly stopped in its tracks.

A few months after Russia detonated "Joe I," the Chinese Civil War was over. The fighting between the Nationalists and the Communists ended with the Communists seizing power, and the Nationalists fled to Taiwan, an issue between China and the US to this day.

The W54 warhead could do more than enough damage, but as tests in the US with military personnel placed at dangerously close locations showed, there were to be no real winners in terms of land gained even if something this small was used. So the US, along with our Allies, prepared for defense and for war. I have yet to see any report about a W54 warhead being carried by an aircraft since it would have been quite ideal.
 
"What was the filling weight of the Fat Man and Little Boy atomic bombs? Could a V-1 or V-2 carry this weight? Absolutely."

Absolutely not.
 
One thing that can make threads like this interesting and frustrating is there are near infinite “what ifs” to ponder related to the economics of defense/technology spending.

Economics being the study of how choice affects the allocation of scarce resources. Plus you’re comparing what actually happened to what could have happened under different allocation scenarios. This can be extremely well informed but is ultimately guesswork and speculation.

“If we spent 10% less on defense since the end of the Cold War we’d have/not have what today?”

I’m not smart enough to answer that question.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom