A Nuclear-Powered Plane?
Monday, Jan. 13, 1958
In Deputy Defense
Secretary Donald Quarles's office in the Pentagon last week a group of
high-level Navy and Air Force officers got together to ponder a serious
decision: whether the U.S. ought, in the age of the missile, to speed up a
nuclear-powered airplane project, and, if so, what kind of plane, to perform
what kind of mission, at what cost, and when. The Navy argued hard for a
subsonic nuclear turboprop seaplane for antisubmarine warfare and long-range
radar-warning patrol. The Air Force argued not quite so hard for a more
advanced supersonic nuclear jet bomber. All believed that the Russians might
soon have an atomic plane ready for testing.
The U.S.'s
atomic-plane project has been slowed down three times since 1946 because
critics argued that it was too complex, too costly (one flash estimate: $1
billion minimum), that new missiles would make the new atomic plane obsolete
before it could fly. In 1953 Defense Secretary Wilson called the atomic plane
"a shitepoke*—a great big bird that flies over the marshes—you know—that
doesn't have much body or speed to it, or anything, but can fly."
Last week the argument
revolved around whether the U.S. ought to design and build an entirely new
aircraft for nuclear power (time estimate: four to six years) or install a
reactor to power an existing-type plane (time estimate: three years). The Navy
said that it could adapt several of its seaplanes, including the experimental
Martin P-6M multijet Sea-master or the old Mars, now up for sale, added that it
would be safer to test a nuclear plane over sea than over land areas, where a
crash might expose civilians to explosion and radiation. The Air Force said it
could adapt its operational B-52 intercontinental jet bomber or its KC-135 jet
tanker, but added that it was much more interested in getting a supersonic
nuclear jet that would provide a new operational weapons system than it was in
winning a round in psychological warfare. In the end the meeting agreed only
that 1) the atomic-plane project needed more study, and that 2) the group would
get together again to consider the results of that study soonest—"but not
next week."
* Webster: Any of
various herons..."
No comments:
Post a Comment