WI: Production of nuclear aircraft

Nuclear power can certainly be used on aircraft (as long as your plane is big enough), and offers one sizable advantage from the get-go--you theoretically never have to land until your fuel runs out. Even though realistically you'd want to land every few weeks to do maintenance, that's still a massive advantage.

Although both the US and Soviet Union drew up designs for nuclear aircraft and put nuclear reactors and shielding in aircraft as tests, no nuclear aircraft ever flew. Part of this is the obvious risk of a crash scattering nuclear materials everywhere, but also because the combination of nuclear submarines and ICBMs were considered to make these obsolete.

But there's one place conventional aircraft can never go where nuclear aircraft can, and that's making some truly enormous aircraft. Take a look at the Lockheed CL-1201, which would weigh over 5,000 tons and with dimensions several times the size of a Boeing 747. In theory, you could make a plane even larger, too. Over a certain size (several million pounds), nuclear aircraft have a better power-to-weight ratio than non-nuclear aircraft.

The uses of this are numerous. You could airlift hundreds of soldiers and their equipment to any point in the world within a day. You could use it as a flying command center with equipment too large/energy intensive to be mounted on smaller aircraft. You could use it as a platform for an ALBM system (an improved version of the concept of launching a Minuteman ICBM from a C-5 Galaxy as tested). Perhaps you could use it as a flying aircraft carrier, although it could only sustain a small air group (of course, being far more mobile than a comparable light carrier more than makes up for it). I like the idea of using such a massive aircraft to launch spacecraft with--it could fly over international waters at the equator, carrying a rocket to launch into space. You could no doubt design some efficient and useful launch systems with such a system.

The downsides are finding a runway where something this size could take off and land from, and realistically very few of these runways would be built. Making it a flying boat would be most realistic, since you'd have all the world's oceans to land in. Any civilian uses of such planes would likely only be above the oceans anyway.

Basically, can aircraft like the CL-1201 ever be produced? What would the effects of such aircraft existing be?
 
Not in a same world.

While I wholeheartedly support nuclear energy, it's a really bad idea. Big planes are inflexible in their role, hugely expensive and they still crash.

The same world where nuclear bombs were regularly transported in a manner where a crash of the bomber carrying them could cause their detonation (far worse than some nuclear materials being scattered)? Not to mention nuclear submarine accidents.

There's an argument to be made that several smaller aircraft could more cheaply (and safely) do the job of a much larger aircraft like the CL-1201 concept, but there's a myriad of things a concept like the CL-1201 could do which smaller aircraft can't. And there's plenty of routes such an aircraft could fly (over the oceans and High Arctic/Antarctic) which would minimize the amount of time it would be flying above the land, which would also eliminate the need to design runways to handle such an aircraft and simplify how such an aircraft would land and take off.
 
The same world where nuclear bombs were regularly transported in a manner where a crash of the bomber carrying them could cause their detonation (far worse than some nuclear materials being scattered)? Not to mention nuclear submarine accidents.

There's an argument to be made that several smaller aircraft could more cheaply (and safely) do the job of a much larger aircraft like the CL-1201 concept, but there's a myriad of things a concept like the CL-1201 could do which smaller aircraft can't. And there's plenty of routes such an aircraft could fly (over the oceans and High Arctic/Antarctic) which would minimize the amount of time it would be flying above the land, which would also eliminate the need to design runways to handle such an aircraft and simplify how such an aircraft would land and take off.

I think he mistyped or fell victim to autocorrect and meant "sane world" from the context/sentence structure.

The issue I see here isn't that nuclear aircraft on that scale would be impossible, per say, but that you have cheaper, safer, less materially/logistically intensive options for any situation in which they might be useful by virtue of the underlying requirements. For example, a flying boat style aircraft makes for a poor troop transport since you need to be able to comfortably store the men, their equipment, ect. and then unload them at site. There's no need to do that in the middle of the ocean, and if you're going to a port or doing a combat landing a ship will get you a lot more space, tonnage, and protection for your buck and can be docked in many more locations than the jumbo-jet can land without crashing. Likewise with the aircraft carrier role; if you're spending the vast majority of your time over the ocean, you can get much more on-board firepower with a longer endurance (in the form of more planes with more fuel, torpedo/missiles in the munitions bay, ect.) and security in the form of protective and emergency response systems than any plane. If they're going over land...,why not just use conventional aircraft?
 
The same world where nuclear bombs were regularly transported in a manner where a crash of the bomber carrying them could cause their detonation (far worse than some nuclear materials being scattered)? Not to mention nuclear submarine accidents.

There's an argument to be made that several smaller aircraft could more cheaply (and safely) do the job of a much larger aircraft like the CL-1201 concept, but there's a myriad of things a concept like the CL-1201 could do which smaller aircraft can't. And there's plenty of routes such an aircraft could fly (over the oceans and High Arctic/Antarctic) which would minimize the amount of time it would be flying above the land, which would also eliminate the need to design runways to handle such an aircraft and simplify how such an aircraft would land and take off.
1. There were several accidents with nuclear bombs.
2. Reactors generally contain far more fissionable material than bombs.
3. Big planes require big, hardened concrete runways. This drastically limits their use.
 
I think he mistyped or fell victim to autocorrect and meant "sane world" from the context/sentence structure.

The issue I see here isn't that nuclear aircraft on that scale would be impossible, per say, but that you have cheaper, safer, less materially/logistically intensive options for any situation in which they might be useful by virtue of the underlying requirements. For example, a flying boat style aircraft makes for a poor troop transport since you need to be able to comfortably store the men, their equipment, ect. and then unload them at site. There's no need to do that in the middle of the ocean, and if you're going to a port or doing a combat landing a ship will get you a lot more space, tonnage, and protection for your buck and can be docked in many more locations than the jumbo-jet can land without crashing. Likewise with the aircraft carrier role; if you're spending the vast majority of your time over the ocean, you can get much more on-board firepower with a longer endurance (in the form of more planes with more fuel, torpedo/missiles in the munitions bay, ect.) and security in the form of protective and emergency response systems than any plane. If they're going over land...,why not just use conventional aircraft?

One proposal for the CL-1201 had it docking with a Boeing 707 to help ferry troops and equipment from the air to the ground. And as a flying boat, it could carry smaller ships to help move troops and equipment from the plane to shore.

A supercarrier (a CL-1201 sort of aircraft would be about as expensive as one) can carry much more aircraft, but can only travel on the ocean and has limited speed--a literal aircraft carrier can be at any point in the world within a day or two. And it's a flying airfield too, so there's some advantages over conventional airfields in that regards.

1. There were several accidents with nuclear bombs.
2. Reactors generally contain far more fissionable material than bombs.
3. Big planes require big, hardened concrete runways. This drastically limits their use.

1. Yes there were, that's my point exactly.
2. True, but a nuclear bomb accidently exploding from the force of impact is a hell of a lot worse than fissionable materials being scattered over the land. The government who owned the plane would move in immediately to provide cleanup for the area, which isn't likely to be a particularly large area. Over the ocean, the impact is exclusively environmental.
3. Yes, they do, but you only need to build a few of them since these big planes can fly for weeks without needing to land. And if you build a flying boat, then you have all the world's oceans and larger lakes to land in.
 
Its my understanding that the USSR actually managed to fly a variant of the Tu-95 under nuclear power. Airborne nuclear reactor in aft fuselage (like our NB-36) with liquid metal heat transport fluid circuit to heat exchangers in burner region of modified inboard turboprop engines. Takeoff and climb on jet fuel power. Inboard chemical fuel reduced with increasing reactor power. Inboards running on nuclear heat at substantially reduced output. Outboard engines shut down and feathered. Aircraft limps along under nuclear power alone.

Heat transport fluid was low temperature lead alloy. Further understand that there are (as of several years ago) few, if any, survivors among aircrew or ground maintenance staff.

Dynasoar
 
there's one place conventional aircraft can never go where nuclear aircraft can, and that's making some truly enormous aircraft. Take a look at the Lockheed CL-1201, which would weigh over 5,000 tons and with dimensions several times the size of a Boeing 747. In theory, you could make a plane even larger, too. Over a certain size (several million pounds), nuclear aircraft have a better power-to-weight ratio than non-nuclear aircraft.
Oh. Really?
Any evidence for that statement?

The Boeing Pelican design suggests otherwise.

And note that that was never built due to lack of market. Note further that even moderately large jumbos like the 747 and A380 are having a really tough time finding customers.
 
Note, too, that the Savannah was a responding failure as a merchant ship. If nuclear power isnti economic in a ship, which has far fewer weight constraints, I find it incredibly hard to believe it can be economic in an airplane.
 
One proposal for the CL-1201 had it docking with a Boeing 707 to help ferry troops and equipment from the air to the ground. And as a flying boat, it could carry smaller ships to help move troops and equipment from the plane to shore.

A supercarrier (a CL-1201 sort of aircraft would be about as expensive as one) can carry much more aircraft, but can only travel on the ocean and has limited speed--a literal aircraft carrier can be at any point in the world within a day or two. And it's a flying airfield too, so there's some advantages over conventional airfields in that regards.

If you have the ground base/facilities to support large troop concentrations and land/be prepared to do maintainense and repair on something like a 707 than you have an airfield that you could just fly the planes you'd be carrying to under their own power. Plus said airfield can be of a much larger maximum size and have more complex/specialized facilities, defences, synergy with surrounding infastructure, ect than the CL-1201 ever could. It and said super carrier also have far more field endurance time, which is key in any longer term military operations in which the aircraft compliment are to play a part: your flying airfield would have to make frequent trips back to the few bases capable of supporting it to restock with munitions and fuel for its aircraft complement.

There's just nearly always a more efficient option.
 
Note, too, that the Savannah was a responding failure as a merchant ship. If nuclear power isnti economic in a ship, which has far fewer weight constraints, I find it incredibly hard to believe it can be economic in an airplane.

I don't disagree, but I wonder how much of that was due to being essentially a one-off. As I understand it, Savannah was built just before containerisation became commonplace. This meant she carried all her own derricks and had a traditional layout of cargo holds etc, but also meant she wasn't a terribly efficient design. Something like a large container ship or VLCC might be more economical than Savannah was, and it would obviously be better yet if you could get them rolling off a production line and benefit from economies of scale.
 
Its my understanding that the USSR actually managed to fly a variant of the Tu-95 under nuclear power. Airborne nuclear reactor in aft fuselage (like our NB-36) with liquid metal heat transport fluid circuit to heat exchangers in burner region of modified inboard turboprop engines. Takeoff and climb on jet fuel power. Inboard chemical fuel reduced with increasing reactor power. Inboards running on nuclear heat at substantially reduced output. Outboard engines shut down and feathered. Aircraft limps along under nuclear power alone.
It appears that they planned to do this, but never actually did, just the same way that the United States never proceeded past the NB-36.

Incidentally, @asnys, you want to share your two cents on this one? It's right in your wheelhouse...
 
Note, too, that the Savannah was a responding failure as a merchant ship. If nuclear power isnti economic in a ship, which has far fewer weight constraints, I find it incredibly hard to believe it can be economic in an airplane.

The Savannah was built as a demonstrator. A pilot or test project. It also was in use when fuel oil was extremely cheap. At 1978 oil prices it would have been profitable, despite it's other defects.
 

trurle

Banned
But there's one place conventional aircraft can never go where nuclear aircraft can, and that's making some truly enormous aircraft. Take a look at the Lockheed CL-1201, which would weigh over 5,000 tons and with dimensions several times the size of a Boeing 747. In theory, you could make a plane even larger, too. Over a certain size (several million pounds), nuclear aircraft have a better power-to-weight ratio than non-nuclear aircraft.

The uses of this are numerous. You could airlift hundreds of soldiers and their equipment to any point in the world within a day. You could use it as a flying command center with equipment too large/energy intensive to be mounted on smaller aircraft. You could use it as a platform for an ALBM system (an improved version of the concept of launching a Minuteman ICBM from a C-5 Galaxy as tested). Perhaps you could use it as a flying aircraft carrier, although it could only sustain a small air group (of course, being far more mobile than a comparable light carrier more than makes up for it). I like the idea of using such a massive aircraft to launch spacecraft with--it could fly over international waters at the equator, carrying a rocket to launch into space. You could no doubt design some efficient and useful launch systems with such a system.

The downsides are finding a runway where something this size could take off and land from, and realistically very few of these runways would be built. Making it a flying boat would be most realistic, since you'd have all the world's oceans to land in. Any civilian uses of such planes would likely only be above the oceans anyway.

Basically, can aircraft like the CL-1201 ever be produced? What would the effects of such aircraft existing be?

The question is mostly about being competitive to other solutions, as FillyofDelphi correctly noted.

The only realistic option for CL-1201 styled aircraft usage would be long-endurance nuclear deterrency carriers, an option which lost to SLBM option early in 196x. Delaying SLBMs development or may be having Soviets tracking (or perceive to be tracking) US submarines more effectively will greatly increase odds the permanently-flying ballistic missile launchers based on CL-1201 will be accepted into the service.
 
Top