Hawker Hunter and Special Weapons

[foxvc10]

Looking through a Hunter Modifcation chart I found reference to a mod for 4 aircraft then a further 3 to:

"Make Provision for Carriage of Special Store on Inboard Pylon".


Mod 1219 LTC item 6156 dated 18/12/64. qty 4 FGA9 aircraft
Mod 1276 LTC item 6300 dated 5/12/66. qty 3 T8 aircraft

Anyone have any further info? Ive never heard of Hunters being so equipped, although thinking about it it would seem a fairly reasonable assumption.

[Lima Juliet]

Maybe the 'Golf Bomb'?

http://www.rhodesianservices.org/user/image/golfbomb.doc

I don't believe that RED BEARD or WE177 were ever fitted, but that would be my only other guess? I know that RED BEARD was fitted to the single seat Scimitar.

LJ :ok:

[WH904]

Read Beard would be too big to carry under a Hunter's wing and WE.177 seems a bit late for the Hunter. Besides, there was no nuclear role for our Hunters. I would think it more likely to apply to chemical weapons, surely?

[Bigpants]

Did Boscombe have a Hunter with a spray pod under the wing to simulate chemical weapon drop?

[baffman]

Did Boscombe have a Hunter with a spray pod under the wing to simulate chemical weapon drop?
Yes. Seen by me on ex in 1978.

[Al R]

.. depressing that I can't remember what I had for breakfast, but this is still clear as a bell. 30 seconds or so in.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ip7l4GoW4V4

[WH904]

XE601 is the Hunter you refer to. Back on the air show scene until fairly recently but now (tragically) gone to France.

A&AEE operated it for a long time although I believe that it actually belonged to Porton Down for much of it's time at Boscombe Down. It certainly carried a wing pod that sprayed water for chemical simulation during exercises, but I believe it also flew tests connected with dispersion effects, as did Canberra WV787 before being used as an icing spray tanker.

Perhaps the mod details refer to the chemical dispersion tank/s that could be carried by the Hunter?

[Roadster280]

Even your average rock will learn something after watching something a couple of thousand times

True, but harsh.

What is a Special Weapon then? I had thought it to be synonymous with buckets of sunshine, but the replies above seem to indicate it could be chemical or even just non-ordinary (i.e. special). Does Special Weapon==nuclear or not?

[foxvc10]

Saw the chemical hunter a few times "operationally". The tanks where modified drop tanks and in the standard drop tank position I.e outer. Modification clearly states inner pylon. I'm thinking possibly trials aircraft for the 177 or, with the T8, trainers for the Bucc fleet?

[Pontius Navigator]

What is a Special Weapon then? I had thought it to be synonymous with buckets of sunshine, but the replies above seem to indicate it could be chemical or even just non-ordinary (i.e. special). Does Special Weapon==nuclear or not?

To answer your last question, yes it does. Yet another euphemism. On the Nimrod the controller was a SWEC - Special Weapons Enabling Controller IIRC.

Hated it.

Friend of mine was Air Commodore Nuclear Weapons at SHAPE. When NW sort of declined in importance, but to keep his job, it metamorphoses in to Air Cdre WMD :)

[Wensleydale]

When No 8 Sqn operated the Venom in Aden, they produced a wing tank that could be dropped for downed aircrew - I believe that it contained a rifle and survival kit. I do not know if this was continued when they converted to the Hunter, but could the mod be connected with this use?

[WH904]

As far as I'm aware, there is absolutely no connection between the Hunter and atomic weapons. The RAF's aircraft certainly didn't carry any, nor did the Buccaneer trainers (they were instrument trainers). True, "Special Weapon" did usually refer to a nuclear device but I suspect that in this case it refers to some sort of chemical weapon tank. It might also refer to a napalm tank.

[Pontius Navigator]

It might also refer to a napalm tank.

Nasty stuff napalm. I have it on good authority the RAF did not use napalm.

Naptha impregnated petroleum jelly or some such but not napalm :)

[Davef68]

Saw the chemical hunter a few times "operationally". The tanks where modified drop tanks and in the standard drop tank position I.e outer. Modification clearly states inner pylon. I'm thinking possibly trials aircraft for the 177 or, with the T8, trainers for the Bucc fleet?

The dispersant tanks were fitted on the inner pylons - the later marks of Hunter could carry fuel tanks on both pylons.

Photos: Hawker Hunter FGA9 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK---Air/Hawker-Hunter-FGA9/1470192/L/&sid=ddd9f06251e530617e742f84a5916633)

Photos: Hawker Hunter FGA9 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK---Air/Hawker-Hunter-FGA9/1390821/L/&sid=ddd9f06251e530617e742f84a5916633)

I suspect the tanks were custom built - they are certainly different from standard Hunter inner wing tanks

Photos: Hawker Hunter FGA9 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK---Air/Hawker-Hunter-FGA9/1323552/&sid=ddd9f06251e530617e742f84a5916633)

The dates for the mod though would fit in with WE177 development - there was a plan at one point to have both the P1154 and the Harrier so equipped. Perhaps a fit for trials aircraft?

[WH904]

The tanks on XE601 were certainly custom built but I don't know if a "standard" tank was ever designed - maybe the specs mentioned refer to this? I haven't heard of any such tanks been fitted to outer pylons though, in fact I've never heard of any other Hunter being used in this role apart from 601.

Pontious, that's interesting you say that about napalm as I've heard various contradictory stories from other people, claiming that there was a napalm capability, even though it was officially denied. Or as you say, maybe it was just a case of using something similar? Either way, I think the "special" must have been either chemical or napalm, not nuclear. The notion of strapping a Read Beard under a Hunter is nonsensical and even if WE.177 wasn't too late in the story (which I think it must have been), there was no role for the Hunter, and the aircraft would have been pretty useless for nuclear delivery in any case. More to the point, there wasn't even any need for such a capability as there were more than enough suitable platforms (Scimitar, Canberra, TSR2, Vulcan, Buccaneer, Jaguar, Phantom, Tornado).

[foxvc10]

Looking on further through the chart a further Mod - 1314 and LTC item 6418 dated 12 June 68 -

Newer pylons (pt no. E279837 and E279838 introduced in lieu and by conversion of Pt No. E229133 and E229134 for Carriage of Special Stores for the T8 only.



Wasnt Napalm used on the Torrey Canyon to try ang get it to burn?

[cornish-stormrider]

Gents
Pipe down, will you.

You are all discussing the development a/c for the chem trail projects.

Please desist

[air pig]

Indeed napalm was used on the Torrey Canyon along with HE bombs.

[walter kennedy]

"...Nasty stuff napalm. I have it on good authority the RAF did not use napalm.

Naptha impregnated petroleum jelly or some such but not napalm..."


Seem to recall "FRANTAN" (FRANgible TANk) as accessories on Rhodesian Hunters :E

[Pontius Navigator]

My point about Napalm was that we used a euphemism rather than admit the truth.

A bit like the invention of 'respirator testing facilities' that had been known by their true name 'gas chamber' for half a century or more.

[WH904]

Sorry Pontius, your sarcasm was wasted on me... Monday morning and all that? :)

Not sure what Cornish is talking about? I don't think the Hunter was ever used to develop chemical weapons as such, it was more about exploring dispersion techniques?

Actually it's the Canberra (WV787) that has a more interesting history in terms of chemical weapons. Arguably the most "deadly" aircraft ever to carry British military markings, had its tanks been filled with active ingredients. A greatly overlooked aeroplane, tucked in a corner of a museum now :(

[4Greens]

Anything with a nuclear weapon was a lot more deadly.

[diginagain]

Not sure what Cornish is talking about? I don't think the Hunter was ever used to develop chemical weapons as such, it was more about exploring dispersion techniques? Too late! They've already got to you.

[WH904]

Anything with a nuclear weapon was a lot more deadly.

Not true. If you look at the statistics the Canberra comes out on top.

[ShotOne]

Yes, evil baddies test chemical weapons. Our brave boys "explore dispersing techniques". Just like "they" have spy planes. We have reconnaissance aircraft.

[NutLoose]

My point about Napalm was that we used a euphemism rather than admit the truth.

Or as the mighty Jaguar called it on the weapons selector panel, Bombs Fire.

[NutLoose]

Gents
Pipe down, will you.

You are all discussing the development a/c for the chem trail projects.

Please desist

The truth is out there :p

http://worldtruth.tv/chemtrail-whistleblower-speaks/

[WH904]

Shh, say no more, somebody might make a bid to kidnap XE601 *eek*

[ricardian]

More on chem-trails for the tinfoil hat brigade (http://www.look-up.org.uk/)

[500N]

I am amazed at how much gets written about chem trails.

The mind boggles at the thought processes these people go through
to come up with some of this stuff.

[Hempy]

Wasnt Napalm used on the Torrey Canyon to try ang get it to burn?

I always wondered what would happen if the Sovs decided to invade in Supertankers :E

Direct hits

The bombing raids began yesterday, when eight Royal Naval Buccaneers set off from Lossiemouth in Scotland.

Since then, the RAF and the Royal Navy have dropped 62,000lbs of bombs, 5,200 gallons of petrol, 11 rockets and large quantities of napalm onto the ship.

Despite direct hits, and a towering inferno of flames and smoke as the oil slick began to burn, the tanker refused to sink.

The mission was called off for the day when particularly high spring tides put out the flames.

A disappointed statement from the Home Office said "We have been informed officially that the fire in the wreckage of the Torrey Canyon is out. We cannot say at this stage what the next step will be."

All that firepower!

[Davef68]

A small tactical nuke would have saved all that effort....:E

[cornish-stormrider]

And as a devout Cornishman, and proud of it I am damn glad you were not involved in that there decision making process.....

[NutLoose]

Look on the bright side Cornish, you wouldn't need contraception...

[Rosevidney1]

I was home on leave and present at the scene watching at least 2 of the strikes. Must admit to being underwhelmed at the RAFs effort (I was myself in Crab Air at the time). The FAA at least hit the huge stationary thing on occasion which was somewhat better than the junior service. Prime Minister Wilson took so long to decide to destroy it the cargo of oil had cooled making combustion harder.

[tsrjoe]

re. Hunter with 'special' stores ... I have in my files a late 50's Kingston drawing showing Hunter F.6 with a 'Red Beard' nuclear store on an inboard pylon. I am not sure if this was actually intended to be used in service or possibly as an emergency measure, I will endeavour to dig it out and check dates etc.


the note re Mk.'s FGA.9 and T.8 are intriguing especially the dates, 1964 and 1966 (might suggest WE.177 ?) altho I am wondering if the Royal Navy had the requirement to carry anything the RAF. versions didn't ?


napalm tanks were part of the types potential armament and were based upon the smaller size drop tank, altho once again photographs showing same are extremely rare (as with most 'special' weapons)


cheers, Joe

[WH904]

That sounds fascinating, I'd love to see the drawing. I would have thought Red Beard would have been way too big for under-wing carriage so that should be worth seeing!

If the notes refer to 64-66 I guess WE.177 might have been an option, but as you say, there was no requirement. The notes refer to FGA9 and T8 so that's both the RAF and Navy but it's difficult to see why any Hunter would be required to carry RB or 177. Maybe it was just a company-inspired fit in anticipation of a requirement that didn't actually exist.

[Davef68]

Could Hunters have carried some of the dual-keyed US Weapons (e.g. the B28)?

[Pontius Navigator]

Red Beard entered service in Apr 1960. AFAIK the Mk 28 was only supplied to the Valiant and Canberra forces under Project Echo.

RB was 12ft 10in long and 28 inch diameter. As well as the girth you would need further clearance of perhaps 2 feet or so to manoeuvre the gauntlet* into the implosion sphere.

In May 1963 OR1178 settled the aircraft at 11 types for the WE177A these included the P1154 but no mention of the Hunter at any point.

*

In the late '80s outside the guard room at RAF Finningley were some white painted metal planters. These were Red Beard gauntlet containers. I wonder how many recognised them for what they were?