FA+
Shop
355 submissions
During and 1950s and 1960s, there has been several projects of nuclear-powered bombers but they generally consisted of shoehorning a reactor into the bomb bay of an existing conventional bomber. I wanted to see what a purpose-built nuclear-powered bomber could look like and what infrastructure would be required to support its operation.
I adapted two principles from nuclear space propulsion systems : the reactor is separated from the fuselage by a shadow shield which offers a cone-shaped zone of protection, and the reactor is started only after reaching cruise altitude with a non-nuclear method of propulsion. The result is a bomber shaped like a Concord without a cockpit, housed in a hangar with a thick concrete section for servicing the nose-mounted reactor.
I adapted two principles from nuclear space propulsion systems : the reactor is separated from the fuselage by a shadow shield which offers a cone-shaped zone of protection, and the reactor is started only after reaching cruise altitude with a non-nuclear method of propulsion. The result is a bomber shaped like a Concord without a cockpit, housed in a hangar with a thick concrete section for servicing the nose-mounted reactor.
Category Designs / Abstract
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 800 x 654px
File Size 37.9 kB
Listed in Folders
Yes, it is cheaper to field 5-10 conventional bombers with their crew and fly them in rotation than to field 1 nuclear bomber with its specialist crew and have them fly for weeks on end. Although a rapid rotation of bombers is more accident-prone, as shown by several Broken Arrow incidents during the cold war.
I think a bigger problem is that if this goes down - and one would go down - it's going to cause an international radiological incident. It's not a great idea to fly nuclear reactors around.
Along with various other issues. I'll assume drop-off rockets for launch to minimise needed support systems, but if the engines lack the thrust to take off then I doubt their abilities in cruise. Putting the reactor in front means occupying the optimal command and control and sensor space as well as making it massively front-heavy which is not a great idea in aircraft design (and will put the airframe under extreme strain during turns.) Fuel rods last for weeks or months and the water used for driving the jet turbines should be in a closed loop so there's no need for a water tank or waste storage. The payload should be more central with the centre of mass to avoid stability loss. The crew also has zero visibility which is very not optimal. It's also a very confined space to expect them to occupy for such long periods, this would make a boomer sub seem roomy.
This is an extremely expensive lawn dart crossed with a diplomatic disaster in an era where the heavy bomber is obsolete. This isn't getting through any serious air defense.
It does somewhat resemble an actual proposal for a nuclear cruise missile mothership designed to fly over opposition nations dispensing lesser warheads before itself crashing into the ground to serve as a dirty bomb. That project was cancelled because ballistic missiles are a lot more efficient.
You come up with a lot of cool stuff and I generally enjoy following you, but this one isn't your best. I still enjoy the thought experiment, but think it could have been better executed. Looking forward to future inventions regardless!
Along with various other issues. I'll assume drop-off rockets for launch to minimise needed support systems, but if the engines lack the thrust to take off then I doubt their abilities in cruise. Putting the reactor in front means occupying the optimal command and control and sensor space as well as making it massively front-heavy which is not a great idea in aircraft design (and will put the airframe under extreme strain during turns.) Fuel rods last for weeks or months and the water used for driving the jet turbines should be in a closed loop so there's no need for a water tank or waste storage. The payload should be more central with the centre of mass to avoid stability loss. The crew also has zero visibility which is very not optimal. It's also a very confined space to expect them to occupy for such long periods, this would make a boomer sub seem roomy.
This is an extremely expensive lawn dart crossed with a diplomatic disaster in an era where the heavy bomber is obsolete. This isn't getting through any serious air defense.
It does somewhat resemble an actual proposal for a nuclear cruise missile mothership designed to fly over opposition nations dispensing lesser warheads before itself crashing into the ground to serve as a dirty bomb. That project was cancelled because ballistic missiles are a lot more efficient.
You come up with a lot of cool stuff and I generally enjoy following you, but this one isn't your best. I still enjoy the thought experiment, but think it could have been better executed. Looking forward to future inventions regardless!
The nuclear-powered bomber concept was obsolete from the 1960s onward, thanks by incremental efficiency gains in turbojets. I haven't claimed this idea to be useful today, but the description is rather short.
The propulsion system use an indirect cycle : a coolant with a large temperature interval (likely an Na-K eutectic mix) circulates inside the reactor or the heater before entering the turbojet, where a heat exchanger replaces the combustion chamber. The heater should be powerful enough to get the plane to its cruise altitude at subsonic speed before switching to the nuclear reactor for supercruise, so RATO/JATO pods should not be necessary for takeoff.
The propulsion system use an indirect cycle : a coolant with a large temperature interval (likely an Na-K eutectic mix) circulates inside the reactor or the heater before entering the turbojet, where a heat exchanger replaces the combustion chamber. The heater should be powerful enough to get the plane to its cruise altitude at subsonic speed before switching to the nuclear reactor for supercruise, so RATO/JATO pods should not be necessary for takeoff.
Comments