TV-8 - the nuclear-powered tank

amazing really.

But let us also evaluate one thing:

US defense forces and nuclear:

So, nuclear powered tanks - not so great
nuclear powered bombers: not great either
nuclear-powered cruise missiles: No and no

Nuclear ships: OH YES!!!

But.... despite everything: We do not see any other nuclear-powered ships. No super tankers, no heavy bulk carriers, nothing else but defense forces using nuclear powered boats.

why oh why is that?

Simple. Cost.

Reactors are expensive to build and maintain. Like really expensive. In fact insanely expensive. Commmercial operators are obsessed with keeping costs down, the military not so much. Plus it's a lot easier to get hold of oil than Uranium/Plutonium.
 
Simple. Cost.

Reactors are expensive to build and maintain. Like really expensive. In fact insanely expensive. Commmercial operators are obsessed with keeping costs down, the military not so much. Plus it's a lot easier to get hold of oil than Uranium/Plutonium.

You do also technically have a few civilian nuclear vessels. Most of these are icebreakers, where the cost-benefit rules break down much like with the military, but there have also been four nuclear merchant ships, one each from Germany, Japan, Russia, and the US (of which only the Russian vessel is still in service). However, it does seem that these mostly got gov't funding as either a propaganda project, research prototype/proof-of-concept, or a mix of both.
 
Interesting. Super tankers are a bit bigger than the usual cruiser/carrier. If it is cost-effective for a carrier, it should be even more so for a tanker or bulk carrier.

The other consideration could be power output. A carrier (I believe) is a using a lot more electrical power than a typical tanker. On the other hand a big marine diesel is a good source of electrical power.

Yes, there were a few nuclear powered ships - NS Savannah - the most famous. Costs were high but also based on either factors.
 
amazing really.

But let us also evaluate one thing:

US defense forces and nuclear:

So, nuclear powered tanks - not so great
nuclear powered bombers: not great either
nuclear-powered cruise missiles: No and no

Nuclear ships: OH YES!!!

But.... despite everything: We do not see any other nuclear-powered ships. No super tankers, no heavy bulk carriers, nothing else but defense forces using nuclear powered boats.

why oh why is that?

Nuclear powered aircraft are perfectly feasible, and arguably a good idea since they could airlift insane amounts of men and equipment. Or be a good launchpad for spacecraft. Above a certain size of aircraft, nuclear power is superior to other power sources.
 
The only thing Nuclear power plant can produce is heat. You can use the heat to make steam for turbines. So ships and anything with wheels could have an onboard nuclear power plant. You can generate electricity with the turbines, so electric motors are viable. Rolls Royce has made an electric plain, but to have an onboard power plant? It would be like Hughes spruce goose. As for Missiles or anything similar, how would that work?
 
The nuclear powered cruise missile was going to be something very fantastic. Wiki has a few sentences on it. Read and be scared!

Project Pluto was a United States government program to develop nuclear-powered ramjet engines for use in cruise missiles.

Test site construction: " Also required for the construction was 25 miles (40 km) of oil well casing, which was necessary to store the approximately 1,000,000 pounds (450,000 kg) of pressurized air used to simulate ramjet flight conditions for Pluto"

In order to reach ramjet speed, it would be launched from the ground by a cluster of conventional rocket boosters. Once it reached cruising altitude and was far away from populated areas, the nuclear reactor would be made critical. The SLAM, as proposed, would carry a payload of many nuclear weapons to be dropped on multiple targets, making the cruise missile into an unmanned bomber. After delivering all its warheads, the missile could then spend weeks flying over populated areas at low altitudes, causing tremendous ground damage with its shock wave and fallout. When it finally lost enough power to fly, and crash-landed, the engine would have a good chance of spewing deadly radiation for months to come.

Sounds like a weapon everyone should have?
 
amazing really.

But let us also evaluate one thing:

US defense forces and nuclear:

So, nuclear powered tanks - not so great
nuclear powered bombers: not great either
nuclear-powered cruise missiles: No and no

Nuclear ships: OH YES!!!

But.... despite everything: We do not see any other nuclear-powered ships. No super tankers, no heavy bulk carriers, nothing else but defense forces using nuclear powered boats.

why oh why is that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_icebreaker
 
Simple. Cost.

Reactors are expensive to build and maintain. Like really expensive. In fact insanely expensive. Commmercial operators are obsessed with keeping costs down, the military not so much. Plus it's a lot easier to get hold of oil than Uranium/Plutonium.

There are also cultural and safety factors involved. If CO2 was globally taxed to a high level, then there might be drive to make nuclear propelled merchant ships. They might have very high running speed which would keep the required numbers lower. Ecologically a great idea, but due to economical and political factors infeasible.
 
Interesting. Super tankers are a bit bigger than the usual cruiser/carrier. If it is cost-effective for a carrier, it should be even more so for a tanker or bulk carrier.

The other consideration could be power output. A carrier (I believe) is a using a lot more electrical power than a typical tanker. On the other hand a big marine diesel is a good source of electrical power.

Yes, there were a few nuclear powered ships - NS Savannah - the most famous. Costs were high but also based on either factors.
Cost equations are somewhat different. A US Supercarrier needs 260,000-280,000 horsepower to push it in excess of 30 knots and also has to produce excess steam to run the catapults, plus a big housekeeping load. Charles De Gaulle pushes 160,000 horsepower to get 27 knots, and the excess steam for catapults and housekeeping load. Meanwhile a record setting huge bulk carrier or oil tanker only has a 40-50,000 horsepower drive train for 15-18 knots and a modest housekeeping load. Also the civilian vessel has to be insured, and the insurance costs for a nuclear reactor are non trivial
 
I found out today that Atomic farming was a thing!

There was also this

800px-NB-36H_with_B-50%2C_1955_-_DF-SC-83-09332.jpeg


But the question remains what advantages would such a tank bring?

Surely it would be massively expensive to build and maintain - if even possible
 
\<smip>
Nuclear ships: OH YES!!!

But.... despite everything: We do not see any other nuclear-powered ships. No super tankers, no heavy bulk carriers, nothing else but defense forces using nuclear powered boats.

why oh why is that?
They existed, four of them. They were uneconomic, but probably could be competitive today.
Mainly fear of "radiation".
 

thorr97

Banned
If the advances in energy weapons get to a certain point then perhaps the "cost / benefit" calculations about nuclear powered tanks will thus then change. Until then, however, such a complex, expensive, and heavy powerplant is simply unsuited to the role of an armored fighting vehicle.
 
I somehow also think the safety aspect comes into play.

I am not sure that the personnel would be happy sitting next to a nuclear reactor, as I doubt pilots would be greatly appreciative of a nuclear reactor in the cockpit.

PS: Look up the nuclear powered car. There were a few concept cars along. Designs were … left-field at best.

I think we might have beaten this topic to death by now?
 
Top