PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Military Aviation (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation-57/)
-   -   Nuclear Tests (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/506939-nuclear-tests.html)

ORAC 2nd Feb 2013 20:42

Nuclear Tests
 
Relates to the threads reference Canberra/Valiant etc

I bet none of them went through what this guy did.From the latest issue of Smithsonian Air & Space. Sorry for copying, but hopefully it will persuade a few to sign up for a subscription.

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c3...psfc3f9fcd.jpg


http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c3...ps88e8e0d4.jpg

Link to the online article.

Pontius Navigator 2nd Feb 2013 20:51

I recall the story of another pilot, maybe the same one, who was involved with 21 tests.

Onceapilot 2nd Feb 2013 20:56

Very brave, if this was voluntary. Strange, flying to "one-tenth of a second accuracy" and the weapon might be 45seconds early!?

OAP

AtomKraft 2nd Feb 2013 23:18

This guy must have balls of (probably radioactive) steel.

Respect. :ok:

NutLoose 3rd Feb 2013 12:16

A late old family friend was stationed on the islands during the tests, he was telling me they were issued goggles and told to face away, he said he could see the skeletons of all of those in the rows behind him, after the blast he said what perturbed him most was the fact that the toothpaste in the NAAFI shop had all burst their caps and squirted everywhere, he said they also noticed all the land crabs that used to scoot at the signs of movement would walk into people having been blinded by the blast, similarly the NAAFI cats were blinded as well.

Still a lot better than the way we treated the Aboriginies.

dragartist 3rd Feb 2013 13:43

Op Grapple
 
I have just finished reading a great book on the subject. Operation Grapple. Think it came from Pen and Sword. Lent it out can't remember who too. probablly never get it back.

RedhillPhil 3rd Feb 2013 17:26

"Whether the overexposure contributed to the life-threatening Melanoma I developed seven months later, I'll never know".

I think that's a given - shirley?

VinRouge 3rd Feb 2013 22:29

Well worth a look at the Castle Bravo shot that killed a few Japanese fishermen; the bang was significantly more efficient than expected.

Be interesting to see if the v bombers could have escaped the blast after lofting their thermonuclear loads; can't imagine the v bomber was the most manoeuvrable post loft.

MAINJAFAD 4th Feb 2013 02:19

OnceaPilot

The H-bomb test he is referring to was most likely Redwing Cherokee, the first air dropped US H-bomb test, which was dropped from a B-52. The aircraft crew misidentified the aim point and dropped the weapon (a 3 megaton Mk 17) in the wrong place. I do recall reading an article by a B-47 pilot who was involved that test that their crew realised as soon as the weapon had been released that they were way too close to air zero and had to make an extreme manoeuvre (of a B-47) to get as far away as they could. Though they survived, the B-47 suffered extensive damage from the thermal effects and blast. There are a couple of videos kicking around on the internet showing the de-classified film of the effects on aircraft used on these test (the one covering the aircraft is below).


Pontius Navigator 4th Feb 2013 07:04


Originally Posted by VinRouge (Post 7673897)
Be interesting to see if the v bombers could have escaped the blast after lofting their thermonuclear loads; can't imagine the v bomber was the most manoeuvrable post loft.

We didn't loft as such but did release in the climb with pitch angles between 12 and 15 degrees depending on the particular engines fitted. The standard release height was 10,500 feet followed by a 47 deg bank turn through 140 deg and still climbing. I have papers showing the lowest heights for weapons function but increasing risk.

BEagle 4th Feb 2013 07:40


We didn't loft as such but did release in the climb with pitch angles between 12 and 15 degrees depending on the particular engines fitted.
Fortunately that suicidal technique had been binned by the time I flew the Vulcan (1977); the only attack option we used was low-level laydown.

Courtney Mil 4th Feb 2013 14:53

Well, BEags, at least that suicidal technique was replaced by a completely safe, non-suicidal technique of flying around at low level with the blinds closed. :uhoh:

NutLoose 4th Feb 2013 15:10

It was all suicide, when you look at Chernobyl and how far that reached, we’d all be dead once couple had been dropped in Europe, either that or sterile. No one would have won.

ORAC 4th Feb 2013 15:22

Another article by the same pilot about ejecting from an F-104 in a downward firing seat. He finishes by stating that someone up there must like him. I ain't too sure.....

.......Using all my remaining strength, I pulled the parachute’s top shroud lines and stopped my pendulum swing almost directly under the canopy. The ground was racing toward me, and before I could get turned around to face downwind, I hit the ground rotating. I landed in what had been Pancho Barnes’Happy Bottom Riding Club dump and was dragged for 40 yards on my back through broken glass and tin cans until my chute got hung up on a yucca tree.

The aircraft went in five miles short of the runway at Edwards. I was one happy aviator, even though my flight suit was torn and covered with blood and sand, I had cracked several vertebrae in my lower back, an air police pickup truck almost ran over me, and a doctor on his first day at the base hospital and a pediatrician on his first rescue helicopter ride dropped me from the stretcher a couple of times...............

Ivan Rogov 4th Feb 2013 15:53


Fortunately that suicidal technique had been binned by the time I flew the Vulcan (1977); the only attack option we used was low-level laydown.
Did that mean flying over the target, in range of any weapon available? I know the recent GW1 thread highlighted that GR1s overflying the target with JP233 actually had better survival than those lofting bombs further out, but they were a lot smaller than a Vulcan.

I guess it was not the preferred attack method, but without a standoff weapon like Blue Steel and Skybolt we didn't have many options and high level had been proven to be dangerous?

Were there any estimates on success rates for low-level laydown V's loft or was it largely irrelevant as it would have effectively been end ex for everyone? :\

It sounds like the SSBNs were our only credible strategic response after the late 60's.

Pontius Navigator 4th Feb 2013 17:29

IR, I am aware of one target where at least 5 aircraft were planned to attack in a short period of time using the 2E attack. It was a given that several would have been destroyed if the first or second got his bomb away.

BEagle, the pop-up escape manoeuvre had something going for it, you were at least 15,000 feet above and 4-5 miles from DGZ. The downside was the expected SA2 impact was pretty close to the time of detonation.

Do you remember the master planning for a laydown attack? Pass the target, extend to about 5-6 miles until the blast wave passed. Then the master stroke. Execute a 180 degree turn, remaining at low level until abeam the target and then max rate climb.

At least if the bomb didn't go the first time it gave you a second chance. It also had you climbing in a scene of greatest devastation.

Courtney Mil 4th Feb 2013 17:49


Originally Posted by NutLoose
No one would have won.

Nutty, I think that was the whole point of the deterrent.

But the Cold War seems such a waste of money now. We spent all that money on some amazing weapons and then never used them. Shouldn’t we have had a great big nuke party at the end instead of wasting them? It would have saved all those decommissioning costs too. If they’d filmed each drop, it could have built up a magnificent film library for sale to film-makers and made a bit of cash out them all too!

NutLoose 4th Feb 2013 18:58

I visited Elvington where there is a WE177 propped up against the wall and gave it a satisfying kick.

I was being pragmatic, I think Chernobyl opened the worlds eyes to the fact you couldn't have a limited war.

Courtney Mil 4th Feb 2013 20:15

Was it green, Nutty? All the ones I saw were green. I wonder why. Perhaps they needed camoflage during their relatively short time of flight.

To be honest, though, there's still a big difference between a reactor explosion like Chernobl and the detination of a realatively small nuke like WE177. The explosion at Chernobl wasn't a nuclear explosion, it was mainly hydrogen and it didn't consume any of the fuel, it just ejected it into the atmosphere. Bombs are a bit different.

That said, a world full of big bombs were always going to make one hell of a mess of the the planet. However, look at how many we've already detonated and the effect we live with today. The thing is, that it may be that a relatively small number of reactor accidents equates to quite a lot of bombs. Both in terms of immediate contamination and legacy.

Pontius Navigator 4th Feb 2013 20:35

The YS2 was green, the same as most other bombs. The WE177B was white probably for better thermal protection once released. The WE177C was probably green for camouflage whilst being carried.

However you might have a point CM.

At one presentation a gentleman, who wore crimson pants or some such, when told that the bomb would impact and the laydown timer start asked:

"What would happen if I sent a man with a satchel charge and blew it up?"

When told there probably wouldn't be time said:

"Well what would happen if I shot it with my gun?"

So there you have it. Britain's nuclear deterrent neutralised by Herr Grubber and his little tank.


All times are GMT. The time now is 15:38.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.