I was just wondering…can anyone tell me where I could find some technical information on the French AN-22 Nuclear Gravity Bomb?
I’m not looking for detailed, or for CLASSIFIED information, mind you. Just weight, length, yield, and preferably a side view diagram or photo. Like one can easily find on a couple of dozen American atomic weapons.
And for the record: No, I’m NOT wanting to do anything illegal or unsavory with the information.
So…can anyone help me out?
The Nuclear Weapon Archive has some information, including weights and yields, but no photos.
Ranchoth, Ranchoth, Ranchoth!
How many time do we have to tell you?
You may not settle your neighborhood grudges by mass extermination.
Time out for you, young man!
Generally, when addressing someone who’s in possession of Atomic Hellfire, you say “please.”
>;D
Ranchoth
(“Lo, I am become death, killer of threads.”)
Here are some photos and a diagram. (I found this page with a Google search for “AN-22” bombe–the French spelling seemed to help.) A search on Mirage IVA has some pictures of the bomber, some of which may have an AN-22 attached (partially recessed under the fuselage), but it’s hard to see.
Here’s a diagram of the AN-22 mounted underneath the Mirage IVA.
Oh, excellent…much obliged, Omphaloskeptic!
Tell you what…after the world is crushed under my heel, you get your own city-state. How’s that? 
I’d say you need to get a hold of a copy of this book: Nuclear Weapons Databook, Vol. 5: British, French, and Chinese Nuclear Weapons. I have Volumes 1-4, which deal with U.S. and Soviet nuclear weapons and production facilities, but by the time Vol 5. came out in 1995, I was no longer doing research in nuclear issues.
It’s out of print, and Amazon doesn’t have any used, but you might find one elsewhere, or at a nearby library.
It’s an absolutely fascinating set of books, by the way, although vols 1-4 are now about 20 years out of date.
Hmm, … throw in a secret lair (with convenient, obvious self-destruct mechanism), too, and we’ll call it a deal!
Back in the 90=s, I heard that France had a surface-surface missile project called “Hades”, This missile was to be capable of carrying conventional, nuclear, and neutron bombs. My quation: was the program ever completed? Our (USA) neutron bomb project was cancelled by the foolish Jimmy Carter…did the French perfect theirs?
And (for those knowledgable), what are the Frech war planners envisiging for their nuclear “force de frappe”? With the evil empire gone, who do the french regard as their likely enemy? 
[Sir Humphrey Appleby KCB, MVO, MA (Oxon)]
The British, of course!
[/Sir Humphrey Appleby KCB, MVO, MA (Oxon)]
Omphaloskeptic: Thank you for that link. That’s the funniest site I’ve seen in years.
Sounds intriguing…Say, did Volume 4 (On Soviet Nuclear Weapons) have diagrams or side-view photos of Russian nuclear gravity bombs, by any chance?
I’m not knowledgeable, so take what I’m going to write with a handful of salt. I hope someone will correct me if I’m mistaken.
AFAIK, the neutron bomb study programm was completed, but they were never tested, let alone installed on the Hades. Instead, for reasons I don’t know, they choose to use conventionnal nukes on these missiles. They were tactical missiles, intended to be used on the battlefied (i.e. somewhere in Germany against the russian tanks). After the collapse of the soviet Union, France renounced to these battlefield nukes (and also to land-based strategical missiles, but anyway, these ones were at the end of their life and would have had to be replaced soon). So there’s no more “Hades”, and there never was a french neutron bomb, AFAIK.
I don’t think there’s a “likely” ennemy currently, but who knows what lies in the future?
Normally, the french nuclear concept was the “detterence from the weak to the strong”, IOW, french strategic nukes wouldn’'t have been used against ennemy military targets, or missile sites, etc, but only against cities. The idea being that given the cost involved, threatening french “vital interests” wouldn’t have been worth it. These “vital interests” never were clearly defined, but it was usually assumed that a collapse of the NATO defence in Germany in the hypothetical WWIII would have been a sufficient condition for a “stop right now or we launch nukes” threat.
In theory, tactical nukes were intended only as “last warning weapons”. But the development of the Hades that you mention shows that they had some other ideas.
Curently, the last thing I read about this issue was a sum-up of the last ?-years defence programm plan, two or three years ago. I don’t remember anything about the strategic missiles, but I remember a sentence that, in a convoluted way, seemed to mean that tactical nuclear weapons could be used against rogue states, in order to destroy whatever threat they could put on (I would assume for instance, their own potential nuclear weapons, or long-range missiles loaded with who knows what).
Concerning strategical missiles, I assume that we keep them in case Bush would suddenly notice that France has the ability to build WMDs and to terrorize him with her votes at the UNSC and thinks that he must do something about it preemptively. More seriously, for the same reason the USA keep theirs. Because with them, nobody can seriously threaten you without being suicidal. When you would need them, it’s too late to think about develloping and building nukes. And paranoïa and long-term thinking is an asset for military planners. North Korea and Iran understand this concept pretty well. Who knows would could be the ennemy? Lybia announcing tomorrow she had develloped nukes? China 15 years down the road? Expansionist and militarist policies making a coming back in Russia?
There’s also probably a status issue at stakes. With nukes, you belong to the “club” that matters.
Not sure. There are a couple of shots of an SU-24 Fencer fighter bomber with what could be a big bomb or a cruise missile mounted on its side. The text says the plane was capable of carrying two nuclear bombs, but doesn’t identify the payload in the picture.
There are also a couple of shots of a Tu-26 Backfire bomber carrying an AS-4 Kitchen cruise missile, but you said you wanted a gravity bomb, didn’t you?
Strange how little information is available about Soviet weapons, isn’t it? Why do you suppose that is…
