The Lancaster as a potential nuclear bomber in 1945

[FLYBOYJ]

AIUI the initial mods were to fit the aircraft to carry larger bombs and then the aircraft were specially lightened with higher performance engines:

Project Silverplate

Of course the Lancaster would benefit from a similar set of mods (to reduce armament and armour).

Would have, could have, should have - we beat this discussion to death a few years ago.

Could a Lancaster or Lincoln have carried and deliver a nuclear weapon?

Absolutely

Would it have been practical and a better platform as far as performance and safety?

NO

A 4 engine, liquid cooled, un pressurized tail dragger heavy bomber does not make a good nuke bomber IMO, and that's not taking anything away from the Lancaster (it was a great aircraft). The B-29 was a half a generation away from the Lancaster (and Lincoln) and when we throw the B-50 into the fray, the gap grows further. As history showed us, even the RAF eventually recognized the limitations of the Lancaster and Lincoln in the post war years.

 

[nuuumannn]

That's a beaut (cg) picture of a Washington.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Oh, and I'll also add, had a Lancaster or Lincoln been called to deliver a nuke, I'd feel sorry for the poor sods who had to fly the mission.

 

[RCAFson]

Can you verify that with a source, please?



Again, you're ignoring the fundamental fact that neither the Lanc or the Lincoln are American. In 1944, flying from the Marianas was the only option. Without viable (in-service) in-flight refuelling, both have to be ruled out owing to their insufficient performance. The best and only option was to throw money and resources at the B-29 until it worked, or examine other US options. I just don't think the British aircraft were considered enough, firstly because they weren't American; they were dismissed early on for this reason, and then because their performance wouldn't cut it.

Even 'Silverplating' them wouldn't give either type sufficient performance to make a return flight from Tinian safely. As I quoted earlier, the Lanc would be flying at 15,000 ft at speeds lower than 200 mph. Sure, the Lincoln and the Lanc VI offer better performance, but not the same as that of the B-29.

Source:

Ramsey quickly concluded that there were only two Allied bombers capable of carrying both weapons: the Boeing B-29 (if suitably modified) and the Avro Lancaster. The Lancaster had ample room internally, and it was a prodigious weight lifter; it almost won the contest. In fact, Ramsey traveled to Canada in October 1943 to meet with Roy Chadwick, the Lancaster's chief designer. As luck would have it, Chadwick had crossed the Atlantic to view Lancasters being built at the Avro Canada works in Toronto, and Ramsey seized the chance to show Chadwick some preliminary sketches of both the gun and the implosion weapon casings. Chadwick assured Ramsey that the Lancaster could accommodate either bomb and promised whatever support might be needed, but he was well-used to wartime secrecy; Chadwick did not ask why the weapons had such unusual shapes.
Operation Silverplate - The Aircraft of the Manhattan Project

I'm ignoring the fact that neither the Lancaster or Lincoln are American because that's not germane to the topic. Flying from the Marianas or other suitable bases is germane.

 

[nuuumannn]

Somewhat unrelated, but of interest. In the 1950s, when the British detonated nuclear bombs on Australian soil, RAAF Avro Lincolns were flown in cloud sampling flights, which irradiated the aircraft so much, to the point that they were taken to the far end of the airfields and burned, others were dumped at sea. The crews suffered terribly, including ground crews, who were not told about the missions the Lincolns had just flown on, but were told to wash them down with water. These guys wore shorts only - no protective gear of any sort in the South Australian heat and had radioactive water pouring down upon them from the aircraft they were washing. Not surprisingly, most ended up living short and rather painful lives. The legacy of the British tests were felt for a looooong time.

 

[nuuumannn]

Interesting, thanks for the link, RCAFson.

I'm ignoring the fact that neither the Lancaster or Lincoln are American because that's not germane to the topic.

It's enormously relevant as that is the principle reason why the Lancaster was rejected, regardless of Groves' enquiry with Chadwick.

 

[RCAFson]

Oh, and I'll also add, had a Lancaster or Lincoln been called to deliver a nuke, I'd feel sorry for the poor sods who had to fly the mission.

The mission would be a low-high-low profile and the bomber crews would not be in any more discomfort than B-17 crews flying over Germany.

 

[RCAFson]

Somewhat unrelated, but of interest. In the 1950s, when the British detonated nuclear bombs on Australian soil, RAAF Avro Lincolns were flown in cloud sampling flights, which irradiated the aircraft so much, to the point that they were taken to the far end of the airfields and burned, others were dumped at sea. The crews suffered terribly, including ground crews, who were not told about the missions the Lincolns had just flown on, but were told to wash them down with water. These guys wore shorts only - no protective gear of any sort in the South Australian heat and had radioactive water pouring down upon them from the aircraft they were washing. Not surprisingly, most ended up living short and rather painful lives. The legacy of the British tests were felt for a looooong time.

let's think about that for a moment. In high altitude flights the aircrew are breathing bottled oxygen and thus will not be breathing irradiated dust. A B-29 crew, OTOH, will be breathing pressurized air that's filled with radioactive dust... in both cases the aircraft will be contaminated.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The mission would be a low-high-low profile and the bomber crews would not be in any more discomfort than B-17 crews flying over Germany.

But how much discomfort "would have" it been to avoid the nuclear shock waves, any radiation, and the chance of intercepting aircraft if you're going to try to present that scenario?!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

let's think about that for a moment. In high altitude flights the aircrew are breathing bottled oxygen and thus will not be breathing irradiated dust. A B-29 crew, OTOH, will be breathing pressurized air that's filled with radioactive dust... in both cases the aircraft will be contaminated.

And an unpressuirzed Lancaster at "low-high-low profile" would have been any better?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

RCAFson - you're hanging your hat on a losing argument. I think in the long term there was a reason why a Lancaster never carried a nuclear weapon

 

[FLYBOYJ]

let's think about that for a moment. In high altitude flights the aircrew are breathing bottled oxygen and thus will not be breathing irradiated dust. A B-29 crew, OTOH, will be breathing pressurized air that's filled with radioactive dust... in both cases the aircraft will be contaminated.

Yep - and Paul Tibbets lived to be 92. Major Sweeney, lived to be 84. Maybe plutonium is a little more toxic!

 

[wuzak]

I believe I said it before, but I think the Lancaster was only considered as long as it took the USAAF/Boeing to work out how to modify the B-29 to carry Thin Man.

And that turned out to be moot, as Thin Man would not be used.

 

[RCAFson]

But how much discomfort "would have" it been to avoid the nuclear shock waves, any radiation, and the chance of intercepting aircraft if you're going to try to present that scenario?!

The historical A-bomb missions did not do anything in terms of speed or altitude that a Lancaster couldn't do too (IE flown a weapon release profile that didn't entail fatal consequences for the crew). Does that make the Lancaster preferable to the B-29? No, it doesn't, but it was mission capable, and exploring this seems to have been the intent of the thread. The Silverplate B-29 was more capable than the Lancaster or Lincoln but historically the B-29 A-bomb missions met no opposition.

 

[wuzak]

The historical A-Bomb missions were flown about 8-10,000ft above the Lancaster's ceiling.

And probably quite a bit faster.

 

[wuzak]

A 4 engine, liquid cooled, un pressurized tail dragger heavy bomber does not make a good nuke bomber IMO, and that's not taking anything away from the Lancaster (it was a great aircraft). The B-29 was a half a generation away from the Lancaster (and Lincoln) and when we throw the B-50 into the fray, the gap grows further. As history showed us, even the RAF eventually recognized the limitations of the Lancaster and Lincoln in the post war years.

The B-29 was also quite a bit bigger than the Lancaster.

40% wing span, 38% greater wing area, was heavier empty than the Lancaster's MTOW.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The historical A-bomb missions did not do anything in terms of speed or altitude that a Lancaster couldn't do too (IE flown a weapon release profile that didn't entail fatal consequences for the crew). Does that make the Lancaster preferable to the B-29? No, it doesn't, but it was mission capable, and exploring this seems to have been the intent of the thread. The Silverplate B-29 was more capable than the Lancaster or Lincoln but historically the B-29 A-bomb missions met no opposition.

Hard to say that a Lancaster "could have" accomplished the same mission profile as a B-29 over Hiroshima, but I think we'll agree that a Lancaster (or Lincoln) "could have" carried a nuke.

 

[wuzak]

Had the Lancaster been required to carry the A-bombs, there would be some modifications, no doubt.

First would be to (minimum) upgrade to Mk VI standard, with two stage Merlins.

Alternatively, two stage Griffons could be fitted.

The longer span wings of the Lincoln may have been an option.

I also wonder if wing tip tanks, such as used on the Shackleton, could have been a useful modification to add range.

 

[RCAFson]

The historical A-Bomb missions were flown about 8-10,000ft above the Lancaster's ceiling.

And probably quite a bit faster.

The Lancaster VI had a ceiling of 28500ft at 65000lb (max TO weight) whilst carrying all three turrets..

 

[wuzak]

The Lancaster VI had a ceiling of 28500ft at 65000lb (max TO weight) whilst carrying all three turrets..

True, but not that many made.

I think we should specify Mk numbers when talking about the Lancaster. I always think of the performance of the Mk I and Mk III when talking about the Lancaster.