dropping

Videos and other imagery bearing witness to the awesome destructive power of nuclear detonations remain some of the most enduring legacies of the Cold War. But of the more than 2,000 nuclear weapons tests that have been carried out since 1945, only very, very few have involved a live weapon dropped from a fighter-bomber.

A nuclear strike performed by the Su-7

At least one such test took place in the Soviet Union, however. On his X account, Sam Wise, an aviation analyst at Janes, brought our attention to footage that purportedly shows that test, or at least portions of it.

The test in question was especially notable in that it involved a free-fall tactical nuclear bomb that was delivered by a crewed fighter-bomber, specifically a Su-7 Fitter attack jet, in an end-to-end test.

Of those 2,000-plus nuclear tests, only a small fraction involved bombs dropped from aircraft of any kind — roughly 200 to 250 according to records compiled by the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization. Those tests almost always involved bombers, aircraft with multiple engines, several crew members, and, often, dedicated to delivering nuclear weapons.

The vast majority of nuclear tests were conducted underground, at sea, or on land. In the latter case, the devices were typically detonated from an elevated position, either atop a tower or suspended from a balloon. This better replicated the conditions of a typical nuclear detonation, with the weapon engineered to explode in an air burst above the ground, for maximum effect.

One reason for the relative scarcity of air-dropped nuclear bomb tests was the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963, which pushed testing underground.

At the same time, dropping a live nuclear weapon from a crewed aircraft brings additional risks for relatively little benefit.

At the beginning of the nuclear age, air-dropped tests were useful to prove that bombs could be delivered, but they were inefficient in terms of scientific measurement and riskier to conduct from a safety point of view. Dropping a nuclear device from an aircraft adds variables (altitude, speed, trajectory) that complicate measurements. If something goes wrong, you risk losing a plane, or worse, an accidental detonation or contamination spread.

Based on the available information, it appears that the U.S. military never tested a live tactical nuclear bomb dropped by a tactical combat jet, despite the very many platforms, both Air Force and Navy, that were cleared to carry them operationally.

It should be noted that the U.S. Air Force did detonate one tactical nuclear weapon after launch from a fighter. However, this involved an air-to-air rocket, the nuclear-tipped Genie, which was fired on this occasion from an F-89 interceptor, in 1957’s Operation Plumbbob John.

Project Genie : Air-to-air rocket nuclear testing

France does appear to have conducted a live test of an air-dropped tactical nuclear bomb, with an AN52 dropped from a Jaguar attack jet in August 1972, to help prove that weapon for service.

Returning to the Soviet Union, on August 27, 1962, pilot Lt. Col. A. I. Shein took off in a single-seat Su-7B, with a live 244N nuclear bomb carried on the centerline station below the fuselage. He then headed for the Semipalatinsk test site on the Soviet steppe. Also known as “The Polygon,” the Semipalatinsk range was the main test site for Soviet nuclear weapons. It is in the Abai region, in what is now Kazakhstan.

Shein put the jet into a climb at an angle of around 45 degrees. This was an ‘over-the-shoulder’ toss maneuver, typical for fighter-bombers of this era. This involved the attacking aircraft pulling upward before releasing its bomb to compensate for the weapon’s gravity drop in flight. The result would put the weapon on the target, without the aircraft having to pass over it. Instead, the jet would complete a half roll and (hopefully) avoid the blast effects so it could escape. The launch maneuver sequence, as shown in the video, is apparently simulated, or at the least, heavily edited.

Shein later recalled:

“I take off, the excitement subsides, I enter the combat course, and make an approach. Everything is normal, I make an approach for a combat release, bring the aircraft into a nose-up attitude, and monitor the G-forces. After four seconds, I hear a signal, then a second, a short third, and I press the ‘release’ trigger. The green light goes out, indicating the release has been completed. The bomb’s release is felt by the shaking of the aircraft. I continue the nose-up attitude. For control, I note the release angle; it is almost constant and equal to 44–50 degrees. After passing the top point, I then descend at a 50-60 degree angle, perform a half-roll, increase engine speed and, consequently, aircraft speed, descend to the lowest possible altitude, and try to get as far and as quickly as possible from the target.”

This method required a bomb computer to calculate the release point. For the U.S. Air Force, this was the Low Altitude Bombing System, or LABS, while the Su-7 was fitted with the equivalent PBK-1 device, a separate box that was added to the left side of the instrument panel. In this context, PBK denoted Pritsel dliya Bombometaniya s Kabrirovaniya, or toss-bombing sight.

A video shows a U.S. Air Force B-47 bomber flying the LABS maneuver:

Boeing B-47 Stratojet (Low Altitude Bombing System) LABS Maneuver

After release from the Su-7, the bomb exploded at an altitude of around 800 feet, at the coordinates of 50.4°N and 77.8°E. The detonation had a yield of 11 kilotons.

As for the Su-7, this was the Soviet Union’s first-generation supersonic attack jet. It was rapidly equipping fighter-bomber regiments, and nuclear strike would become one of its most important duties.

The streamlined 244N was the first mass-produced Soviet tactical nuclear bomb specifically intended for carriage by supersonic jets.

A photo showing the earlier, non-streamlined RDS-4 tactical free-fall bomb:

RDS-4 “Tatyana” was a Soviet atomic bomb that was first tested with a yield of 27 kilotons at Semipalatinsk Test Site, on August 23, 1953. The Soviet Union’s first mass-produced tactical nuclear weapon. pic.twitter.com/c7xdODw0tZ

— NUKES (@atomicarchive) August 24, 2023

At this point, it should be noted that there is a possibility that the video shows not the 244N, but an IAB-500, a so-called ‘imitation bomb’ that replicated the shape, dimensions, weight and flight characteristics of the nuclear device. Filled with a mixture of liquid petroleum and white phosphorus, it also produced a large fireball that subsequently turned into a mushroom cloud.

With that in mind, the video could at least show portions of an IAB-500 test, although the location and the original voiceover point squarely to the 1962 Semipalatinsk test. The apparent installation of a camera pod below the Su-7’s wing, to record the detonation, also suggests a nuclear test rather than training.

Regardless, the 244N was successfully tested and was put into operational service in several variants, including with different yields up to a maximum of 30 kilotons. Most of these bombs were deployed by Soviet units stationed close to what would have been the front line in the event of a confrontation with NATO: in East Germany, Hungary, and Poland.

Starting in 1967, Western intelligence began to note training activities involving nuclear weapons at Soviet airbases in East Germany, including Su-7s taking part in LABS-type maneuvers.

In one of its reports from 1967, the U.S. Military Liaison Mission (USMLM) noted that its staff identified Su-7s from Grossenhain Air Base performing at least four LABS practice delivery runs on October 7 of that year.

“The aircraft passed over the airfield at approximately 2,000 feet, pulled up into vertical climb to 3,500 feet, pitched over, flew inverted for several seconds, then rolled over again departing to the west.”

Two days later, the USMLM reported “A very active program of local navigational, touch-and-go landings, LABS maneuvers, and possible range activity flown by Grossenhain-based Fitter and [two-seat Su-7] Moujik” aircraft.

Air-dropped tactical nuclear weapons still play a significant role in Russia’s military strategy, as evidenced by recent moves to station tactical devices in Belarus. Many Russian combat aircraft have variants capable of carrying nuclear bombs, and most Russian air-launched missiles weighing over around 1,000 pounds have the option of a nuclear warhead.

Russia really wants West to see they’re doing a tac nuke exercise. After several exercise videos they put the head of the 12 GUMO in front of a Belarusian Su-25 (possibly at Lida air base) loaded with what is said to be “training nuclear ammunition.” https://t.co/h9rHp2qvGv pic.twitter.com/sTzAqSNd9f

— Hans Kristensen (also on Bluesky) (@nukestrat) June 13, 2024

Starting in the 1960s, the 244N was superseded by a modernized development of the same weapon, the 10-kiloton RN-24, as well as the one-kiloton RN-28. These were carried, among others, by the MiG-21 and Su-7.

These bombs were followed in the 1980s followed by the RN-40 and RN-41, carried by the MiG-23, MiG-27, MiG-29, Su-17, Su-24, and Su-27.

To this day, the IAB-500 also remains in use to train combat jet pilots in nuclear bomb delivery. Alongside it, although much less known, and barely ever seen, are tactical nuclear bombs, the descendants of the 244N that was proven in a unique test back in 1962.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

WASHINGTON — If the U.S. and Iran aren’t able to soon come to a deal to end the war or extend the ceasefire that expires next week, the Trump administration is setting the stage to shift its war campaign toward a more economic-focused effort aimed at choking Tehran into submission rather than relying on bombs alone.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told reporters at a White House briefing Wednesday that the U.S. plans to ramp up economic pain on Iran, and said the new moves will be the “financial equivalent” of a bombing campaign.

The threat of secondary economic sanctions on countries doing business with people, firms, and ships under Iranian control — including allies like the United Arab Emirates and competitors like China — represents an escalation of sanctions that the U.S. is already employing.

Bessent said the administration has “told companies, we have told countries that if you are buying Iranian oil, that if Iranian money is sitting in your banks, we are now willing to apply secondary sanctions, which is a very stern measure. And the Iranians should know that this is going to be the financial equivalent of what we saw in the kinetic activities.”

Treasury Department warns China, Hong Kong, the UAE and Oman

The warning comes the day after the Treasury Department sent a letter to financial institutions in China, Hong Kong, the UAE, and Oman, threatening to levy secondary sanctions for doing business with Iran, and accusing those countries of allowing Iranian illicit activities to flow through their financial institutions.

It’s part of an economic playbook that President Trump still can use to pressure Iran to accept U.S. proposals to limit its nuclear ambitions, a person familiar with the administration’s thinking told the Associated Press. The person spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss private discussions on the record.

Privately, the argument being made to Trump is that the Iranians think they can weather the storm — but if they cannot pay their loyalists, that could pressure Iran to the table.

And some in the administration believe there are still more economic targets that can be hit that would put the economic hurt on Iran, including bonyads, the charitable trusts that account for a significant percentage of the Iranian economy.

Bessent told reporters that two Chinese banks have received warnings about handling Iranian money. Trump is preparing to visit Beijing next month for talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Bessent also said that Iran’s Gulf neighbors are now willing to look at freezing Iranian money in their banks because of Iran’s aggression during the war.

Daniel Pickard, a sanctions attorney, said imposing secondary sanctions could result in “diplomatic and economic blowback” from allies that could hurt efforts to build coalitions against Tehran.

“A lot of our trading partners have been outspoken in regard to their opposition to the conflict in Iran,” Pickard said. “Most economic sanctions professionals would agree that when you get more people on the team, the chances of your economic sanctions being effective are greater.”

On Wednesday, the U.S. imposed sanctions on an oil smuggling network connected to the deceased senior Iranian security official Ali Shamkhani, who was a close advisor to the former Supreme Leader of Iran. Sanctions include dozens of individuals, companies, and vessels involved in secretly transporting and selling Iranian and Russian oil through front companies, many of which are in the UAE.

“Treasury will continue to cut off Iran’s illicit smuggling and terror proxy networks,” Bessent said in a statement. “Financial institutions should be on notice that Treasury will leverage all tools and authorities, including secondary sanctions, against those that continue to support Tehran’s terrorist activities.

The administration believes the momentum has shifted

Trump administration officials have also signaled growing confidence that the ceasefire and a blockade of shipments from Iranian ports in the Strait of Hormuz have shifted momentum in Trump’s favor.

Iran has endured tens of billions of dollars in damage during the bombardment to the country’s infrastructure — including setbacks to its oil industry, the heart of its fragile and long-isolated economy — that could take years to repair.

Vice President JD Vance on Tuesday said Trump “doesn’t want to make, like, a small deal. He wants to make the grand bargain.”

“That’s the trade that he’s offering,” Vance said. “If you guys commit to not having a nuclear weapon, we are going to make Iran thrive.”

The president’s deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, offered a more caustic assessment of the moment, suggesting that Trump had “played the checkmate move” on Iran by implementing the blockage in the strait.

“If Iran chooses the path of a deal that’s great for the world, that’s great for everybody. If Iran chooses the path of economic strangulation by blockade, then the world will pass Iran by,” Miller said in a Fox News appearance Tuesday evening. “New energy routes will be established. New supply chains will be established. Other nations throughout the region — throughout the world, and especially America — will power the world and Iran will become a footnote.”

Some Republicans are skeptical that more sanctions will work

Some Republicans believe that any tactic to exert more pressure on Tehran is worth trying.

“I would support anything,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). “If the administration came up with the ideas, I would support all of the above. More pressure, the better.”

Others were skeptical, noting that Tehran was already facing a litany of economic penalties that had little impact on its behavior.

“I’m not sure if it’s sanctions that’ll do it. I think we’re putting some pretty heavy sanctions on right now,” said Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), a member of the Banking and Armed Services Committees. “I personally am just not optimistic that we actually can fix this thing without a regime change.”

Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, a think tank that has been critical of Trump’s decision to launch the war, says that Trump had been “politically cornered and strategically constrained” before he announced the ceasefire. But now, Parsi argues, Trump may have altered the difficult dynamic and created a situation where “Iran now appears to need an agreement more than the United States does.”

“The window now open offers Tehran a chance to convert battlefield leverage into lasting strategic gain,” Parsi wrote in a new analysis. “To let it close would mean forfeiting not just incremental progress, but the possibility of reshaping its economic and geopolitical position. By contrast, the United States, having already secured a tenuous exit ramp through the ceasefire, has less at stake in the short term.”

Hussein, Madhani, Weissert and Kim write for the Associated Press.

Iran is accusing the U.S. of dropping anti-tank landmines in an area near one of its underground missile facilities (often referred to as missile cities) that it claims killed several people. While we cannot independently verify the provenance of the images provided by Iranian media or the casualty claims, the use of these munitions would make sense. Despite an intense bombing campaign against Iran’s missiles and launch sites, the Islamic Republic is still firing these weapons at targets across the Middle East. A highly-targeted area-denial campaign around specific missile facilities using mines could help reduce that threat.

The accusation about the landmines came Thursday morning in the form of social media posts by Iran’s official Tasnim news agency.

“These explosive packages resemble ready-made canned food, are somewhat larger than tuna cans, and contain explosives that detonate after being opened, causing casualties,” Tasnim wrote on Telegram. “These packages have been dropped in the skies over the southern suburbs of Shiraz, especially in the village of Kafari, and unfortunately have caused the martyrdom of several people in these areas.”

The Tasnim posts included several pictures of what appear to be BLU-91/B scatterable anti-tank landmines.

.

In its story about the landmines, the Bellingcat open source investigations collective geolocated some to the village of Kafari, Iran…,” the organization stated, citing a video from Canadian lawyer and activist Dimitri Lascaris, who is in Shiraz. 

“This video shows at least three mines approximately two kilometres away from the entrance to what is reported to be Shiraz South Missile Base, an Iranian ‘missile city,’” Bellingcat added. The video shows several of the mines scattered in a village.

In Major Escalation, Epstein Regime Rains Electro-Magnetic Mines Down On Iranian Village

“The US is the only participant in the war known to possess these mines,” Bellingcat posited. “They were developed after the US stopped supplying arms to Iran. A review of Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s (SIPRI) Arms Transfer Database, and US Major Arms Sales does not show any transfers of these mines to Israel.”

We cannot independently verify the origin of the mines seen in the video, but it seems unlikely that Iranians would have access to them. Still, it is possible they did, or have produced dummies or clones, and placed them there for propaganda value. U.S. Central Command declined to say if these mines are being used during Epic Fury.

Iran has been able to preserve a number of its missile launchers, which could involve moving them in and out of underground facilities like the one near Shiraz or hiding them elsewhere in the area and moving them to designated launch points. This is occurring even after these facilities have been repeatedly bombed. These aerial attacks have focused on keeping their entrances caved in. These strikes are on top of the vast, resource-consuming interdiction effort to hunt for and strike launchers that are exposed. So, continued launches from these areas would be a major reason why resorting to deploying anti-tank mines there makes sense and would have a high military value.

Designed to attack tanks and trucks, the mines could destroy or disable the launchers and likely the payloads they carry. They could also make roads to and around the underground missile cities unpassable. Even limiting where the launchers could go within these areas could make them more vulnerable.

The mines are part of the Gator family of systems that includes the air-delivered BLU-91/B and a companion anti-personnel type (BLU-92/B). Different mixes of the mines can be loaded with several types of bomb-like air-dropped dispensers, which break open after release to disperse their payloads over a targeted area.

Each mine and dispenser combination has its own designation. Cluster munitions loaded with Gator mines can be employed by many of the U.S. combat aircraft known to be taking part in Operation Epic Fury today, including bombers. The last known combat employment of Gator mines appears to have been during the Gulf War in 1991. There were unconfirmed reports of Gator use in the opening phases of the war in Afghanistan in 2001.

Air-delivered BLU-91s and BLU-92s both have box-like “aeroballistic adaptors.” That feature is absent on related mines in U.S. Army service that are laid via launchers mounted UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters and trucks.

From a humanitarian viewpoint, there is concern about collateral damage from civilians inadvertently setting them off or picking them up without knowing what they are. Gator mines are not known to have anti-handling features but can still be dangerous to move. They can also be preset to self-destruct after four hours, 48 hours, or 15 days. It’s worth noting that the mines do not always detonate themselves or otherwise function intended, as is the case with all munitions.

That being said, the missile cities are removed from urban areas and sit within large, tightly controlled perimeters. Mining these areas, where civilians have no access, would present a far lower danger to innocent lives than mining random roads or ones near military bases in urban areas.

Of note is that in terms of the mines themselves, the pictures circulating online so far only appear to show BLU-91s having been used in Iran. These are readily distinguishable from BLU-92 anti-personnel mines, which have four ports on top of their main bodies through which spring-loaded trip wires are fired after the mine activates. The tops of the BLU-91s are flat. Gator mine cluster munitions are typically loaded with some amount of both types of mine, but types containing only BLU-91s have at least been tested in the past.

The distinction is important. While the U.S. is not a signatory to the international treaty known as the Ottawa Convention which banned the application or storage of anti-personnel landmines, it does not allow the use of them. There are no such preclusions against anti-tank mines.

It remains to be seen whether the mines, if truly dropped by the U.S., are an isolated incident or part of a broader campaign as Epic Fury drags into a second month. However, deploying an area denial capability like air-dropped anti-tank mines in places where the missiles are known to be stored and around known launch points could prove to be an effective measure in trying to stop Iran’s barrages from continuing.

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com