The A-10 Warthog Almost Became A ‘Tactical’ Nuclear Bomber

We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

5 Key Points: The A-10 Warthog, famous for its tank-killing and close air support roles, was once considered for a nuclear delivery role in 1975.

-Engineers explored equipping the aircraft with tactical nuclear weapons to counter potential Soviet aggression during the Cold War.

-However, the Warthog’s limitations—low-altitude performance, safety concerns, and the need for costly modifications—made the idea impractical.

-Despite its robust armor and agility for ground support, the A-10 lacked features essential for nuclear missions, like high-altitude capability and hardened safety mechanisms.

-Ultimately, the concept was abandoned, allowing the A-10 to excel in its intended role during conflicts like Desert Storm.

Could the A-10 Warthog Have Delivered Tactical Nukes?

There is one memory of the A-10 Warthog that I will never forget from Operation Desert Storm in 1991. This war was made for television as video from airplane cameras was released to the public, and the American viewers ate it up. One popular CNN news program portrayed the A-10 extremely well and the network interviewed two Warthog pilots. The mustachioed and uber-confident aviators were surprised that they were instant celebrities and described how easy it was to destroy Saddam Hussein’s tanks and armored vehicles.

A-10 Warthog: Nuclear Capable Bomber?

But those pilots, should they be around today, may not know one story about the A-10 that was surprising. In 1975, the Air Force pondered something that struck me as unbelievable. Designers and engineers thought that the A-10 could be a nuclear-equipped warbird. The A-10 was designed to eliminate tanks and armored personnel carriers in a war with the Soviet Union. The airplane was also made to provide close air support for troops on the ground.

It is surprisingly maneuverable, so equipping the warbird with a nuclear weapon was plausible since the A-10 had the specs and features to deliver tactical (not strategic) nuclear ordnance successfully, as it was thought at the time.

Placing a nuclear weapon on the Warthog was going to cost the Air Force $86 million, though, and that cost gave designers and engineers pause. Was that money going to be worth it? And another question emerged. The A-10 was made to fly low in its tank plinker and tactical role. How would it fly high enough to drop a nuclear bomb or fire an air-to-ground nuclear missile?

The Engineers Would Have Their Hands Full

Another problem was that nuclear ordnance was heavy, and it was not clear if the A-10 airframe could even carry a warhead. The A-10 had the engine thrust to make it deadly as a close air support and anti-armor warbird, but nuclear capability was a different mission altogether. A nuclear-armed A-10 was going to be an engineering challenge.

But in 1975, the nuclear triad needed an update. Yes, the Air Force had B-52 bombers, but war planners wondered if they could get a jet that could fly faster and lower and have some ability to escape evasion from ground fire. The A-10 would give the Air Force a different option and diversity of nuclear strike capability.

Something Was Needed to Fight Back Against a Huge Onslaught

But perhaps the Air Force thought that A-10 could deliver a lighter, low-yield battlefield tactical weapon that could eliminate an entire Soviet division should the Russians stream through the Fulda Gap to start the ground war to end all ground wars. The Americans and NATO were outmanned and outgunned by the Soviets and Warsaw Pact countries. Tactical nuclear warfare would have been the next step should the friendly forces be overrun. The battlefield nuclear weapon was a possibility. So why not deliver it with the A-10?

But even lighter tactical nuclear weapons had a huge blast radius that would have fried an A-10. Who wanted to put the Warthog pilots in danger?

Image: Creative Commons.

The A-10 just does not fly as well at high altitudes. The A-10 was heavy because it was highly armored to ward off enemy ground fire. It would have needed to endure large amounts of drag at higher altitudes. To accomplish this tactical nuclear weapon, the A-10 would have likely needed many airframe improvements and modifications that would have hurt its original purpose of tank plinking and close air support.

The A-10 Needed Safety Features

As National Interest explained, “the A-10 lacks key features that most nuclear-capable bombers in the U.S. arsenal have. Among its key safety features are hardened storage areas, failsafe mechanisms to prevent accidental detonation, and an advanced suite of electromagnetic warfare capabilities to better protect the operations of the bird while in combat.”

So, because of all these difficulties, the Air Force decided not to pursue a nuclear Warthog – the correct decision after the feasibility study. The A-10 kept its original mission, making it a successful combat airplane during Operation Desert Storm, the Second Gulf War, and the Global War On Terror.

An A-10 Thunderbolt II flies over Grand Bay Bombing and Gunnery Range at Moody Air Force Base, Ga., Feb. 18, 2016. Multiple U.S. Air Force aircraft within Air Combat Command conducted joint aerial training that showcased the aircrafts tactical air and ground maneuvers, as well as its weapons capabilities. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Brian J. Valencia/Released)

The nuclear mission was creative, and it is always good to have ideas that challenge the status quo, but there were many disadvantages of placing tactical nukes on the A-10. I wouldn’t say it was a dumb idea, though.

Delivering tactical nuclear weapons was a valid concern during the Cold War. It was just better that a different warplane conducted those duties and instead left the A-10 to do what it did best.

About the Author: Dr. Brent M. Eastwood

Brent M. Eastwood, PhD, is the author of Don’t Turn Your Back On the World: a Conservative Foreign Policy and Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare, plus two other books. Brent was the founder and CEO of a tech firm that predicted world events using artificial intelligence. He served as a legislative fellow for U.S. Senator Tim Scott and advised the senator on defense and foreign policy issues. He has taught at American University, George Washington University, and George Mason University. Brent is a former U.S. Army Infantry officer. He can be followed on X @BMEastwood.