WI: The US Navy Goes For Nuclear Seaplane Bombers Instead Of Nuclear Submarines?

GuildedAgeNostalgia

1. In the 1950s, the US navy designed and tested the Martin P6M Sea Master, a seaplane capable of Mach 0.8, had a range of 2,000 miles, and could carry 2 Mark 11 nuclear bombs, conventional bombs, mines, and torpedoes. The concept was considered viable (although it had a few kinks in development), however due to budget cuts and competing with nuclear submarines, the Navy decided to drop the project.

Martin_P6M_Seamaster_in_flight_c1955.jpg


2. Given the advantages that Seaplanes have over submarines in terms of speed, the ability to avoid radar and sonar via sea skimming, and the ability to land and take off on water, what if the United States navy either decided to go with seaplane strategic bombers for nuclear strikes instead of submarines, or tries to do both? What impact would this have on nuclear strategy and development moving forward?
 

Sekhmet_D

Kicked
Mach 0.8 is still pretty vulnerable to fighter interception. Plus, a seaplane can't carry those big mean long range nuclear missiles that a sub can.
 

CV12Hornet

Both is out of the question. The Polaris subs shanked the USN’s budget in the kidneys, they’re not giving up surface ships or carriers to buy seaplanes.
 

scifilovr

Doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell from taking away funding from carrier aviation or submarines, which are the two most powerful lobbying groups in the US Navy.

Besides that, the entire draw of an SSBN is that it is expected to be fully survivable. You're not supposed to know where it is, so even if your target country (let's say your the USSR attacking the USA) has all of its ICBMs and all of its ground based bombers and all of its surface ship carried weapons, you can never be assured that you'll get the submarines and you will thus be vulnerable to a second strike.
 

MKD

I mean , GREAT!, but why? You loose the sneaky beaky point of a submarine..................
 

jlckansas

You are also going to have to fight the USAF for the flying strategic component of the Nuclear Triad. The USAF lobby won't give up that part, and coupled with the CV and SSBN parts of the Navy fighting it also, won't have a chance in congress.
Don't give the P6M a strategic nuclear mission and it would be around in limited quantities. Imagine being able to use that to mine places like Haiphong harbor in the Vietnam war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top