So, you have some heavily loaded C-5 Galaxy transport planes that you want to send to the other side of the planet. The handbook says that you are supposed to meet up with tanker planes and refuel in flight. BOOORRRRING. Why go to all that bother when, instead, you can meet up with a nuclear powered tow plane and be *dragged* as a glider to the other side of the world?
That was the thinking at Lockheed-Georgia in 1977 when someone dreamed up this:
A giant, two-million pound nuclear seaplane would spool out towlines that the C-5’s would latch onto. The tug would be constrained to fly solely over water, in the event of a crash. And while the C-5’s could power their engines down, it’s clear that the pilots would have to stay on the job… it wouldn’t take much lateral drift to bang one C-5 into the other.
7 Responses to “Nuclear Tugs”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I’ll have some of whatever the guy that dreamed this up was smoking. Giant Nuclear Tug Plane versus Mid Air Refueling, why of *course* you’d go with the Giant Nuclear Tug.
I understand the part about being constrained to fly only over water, but was this thing also a seaplane? Otherwise, how big of an airstrip would be required to get this beast into the air and back down? It has over twice the wingspan and takeoff weight of a 747-400ERF.
> but was this thing also a seaplane?
Errrrmmmm….
“A giant, two-million pound nuclear seaplane…”
Sorry, read too fast and missed the seaplane part. That’s what I get for not paying attention. The bottom hull looked rather boat like.
Ought to put this one in your stuff,unless you already have.
> Ought to put this one in your stuff
Ummm… huh?
should put it in your APR stuff or an additional drawing somewhere.
I thought the concept was crazy when I first looked at it, but actually this makes a lot more sense than the atomic-powered bomber from the point of a military use for a atomic powered aircraft.
The whole idea of the nuclear powered bomber was to allow it to attack Russia after week-long waiting at its fail-safe point or from a unexpected direction (the south).
But Russia already had to defend itself from attacks from the north (SAC over the pole), west-southwest (NATO), and east-southeast (Turkey, Japan and Alaska)…so adding more radars, missiles and fighter to cover the south wouldn’t really have been that much of a problem for it, and deployment from its fail-safe point would be limited by crew supplies and long-term radiation exposure for the crew.
Being able to vastly decrease the fuel load on C-5’s would have greatly increased their payloads, and the atomic-powered towing aircraft would have effectively let them reach any point on the planet…though I’d hate to get caught in a storm in this configuration, and the reinforcements to the Galaxy’s nose to allow it to be safely towed would be something to see in their own right.