Deke Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Various sources say the SH-3H was capable of carrying the B57 nuclear bomb and using it as depth charge. I've never seen pictures of that, just the Mk-101 "Lulu" mounted on the SH-3, but after that was retired I assume the B57 took its place. Has anybody seen pictures of this or the real thing? Deke Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tailspin Turtle Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Various sources say the SH-3H was capable of carrying the B57 nuclear bomb and using it as depth charge. I've never seen pictures of that, just the Mk-101 "Lulu" mounted on the SH-3, but after that was retired I assume the B57 took its place. Has anybody seen pictures of this or the real thing? Deke The B57 wsa the replacement for the Mk-101. I haven't seen a picture of it on an SH-3 (or any other ASW aircraft) but the standard B57 could be equipped with a retarding parachute (internally carried?) and one of its fusing options was hydrostatic, which suggests that the one carried by SH-3s et al wasn't externally different from the standard weapon. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Does anyone know if this was an actual option, or merely theortical? I have serious doubts the Navy has ever considered wasting nukes by using them as depth charges. I know there are nuclear tipped torpedoes, but that's a very different idea from a depth charge. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Does anyone know if this was an actual option, or merely theortical? I have serious doubts the Navy has ever considered wasting nukes by using them as depth charges. I know there are nuclear tipped torpedoes, but that's a very different idea from a depth charge. I believe this was an actual weapon configuration. I've seen stuff online that states that the B57 was used as a depth charge. The old ASROC was basically just a rocket fired nuclear depth charge (I know it also had a torpedo delivery option as well), why would there not be an air dropped nuclear depth charge?. Back in the bad old days, nukes were incorporated in almost every aspect of warfare. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tailspin Turtle Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Does anyone know if this was an actual option, or merely theortical? I have serious doubts the Navy has ever considered wasting nukes by using them as depth charges. I know there are nuclear tipped torpedoes, but that's a very different idea from a depth charge. The nuclear depth charge eliminated the need to determine the location of a submarine as closely as required to hit it with the homing torpedo, which was hard to do. The Navy first employed a nuke as a depth charge using the S2F-2. The weapon was relatively huge although it incorporated the smallest nuclear warhead at the time, the W7 used in the Mk 7 developed to be carried by tactical airplanes. It was called "Alias Betty" and designated Mk 90. The S2F bomb bay had to be enlarged to carry the thing. It was reportedly dropped from an S2F and detonated in an evaluation at least once. The humongous Mk 90 was subsequently replaced by the smaller "Lulu" (Mk101), which fit in a standard S2F bomb bay. The Mk101 was replaced by the B57. You can Google all that at your leisure. Killing a Russian submarine that was threatening to sink an aircraft carrier was a very high priority with the Navy, so nuking it was not considered a waste by the admirals. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Interesting. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Deke Posted February 14, 2015 Author Share Posted February 14, 2015 Thank you for the information. Deke Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.