This is a discussion on How atomic are General Atomics aircraft? within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Hi Everyone,
During a sit down session ( usually occurs in the bathroom ) I was thinking about the recent ...
During a sit down session ( usually occurs in the bathroom ) I was thinking about the recent reports from Isreali media about the crash of the Russian prototype AIST UAV, and that got me thinking. How ATOMIC are the Predator and the like aircraft.
In the 50s and 60s both the US and USSR experimented with setting up nuclear reactors on airplanes I believe these were a B-36...and a Tu-95
I thought to myself, is it possible that since you have a UAV and dont need sheilding a Predator type aircraft could have a nuclear engine as part of its cruise system, and use a jet/fuel engine for take off and landing. It is the lead shielding that makes the reactor heavy, but what if you did not need shielding and with advances in nuclear energy since the 50s a smaller source could be used?
So I guess here is the question: does the Predator and other large drones glow in the dark?
Is there a published system anywhere that describes how these aircraft can achieve such efficiency on a jet engine or turbofan?
Is there any folks here who can calculate how much fuel would
1 Ч Allison Rolls-Royce AE3007H turbofan engine, 7,050 lbf (31.4 kN) thrust
guzzle in a 36 hour period
or how much fuel
Honeywell TP331-10 turboprop engine, 950 SHP (712 kW)
Endurance: 14–28 hours (14 hours fully loaded)
Fuel Capacity: 1815 kg (4,000 lb)
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 11,131
Threads:
I find it extremely unlikely that currently operating UAVs use nuclear propulsion. And while I wouldn't rule it out for the future completely, I do find it rather unlikely. Keep in mind this is battlefield technology. Damage, and subsequent environmental contamination are extremely likely. If they are operating over friendly forces, or near friendly forces, this also means casualties for your own troops. If a damaged UAV returns with a reactor leak to base, this could mean contamination of the airbase. There is also the issue of price tag, and the politics around it. In short there are some major obstacles.
I find it extremely unlikely that currently operating UAVs use nuclear propulsion. And while I wouldn't rule it out for the future completely, I do find it rather unlikely. Keep in mind this is battlefield technology. Damage, and subsequent environmental contamination are extremely likely. If they are operating over friendly forces, or near friendly forces, this also means casualties for your own troops. If a damaged UAV returns with a reactor leak to base, this could mean contamination of the airbase. There is also the issue of price tag, and the politics around it. In short there are some major obstacles.
Well governments never really care about politics around weapons that win it the war. And General Atomics usually makes ... Atomic Power related stuff. Not airplanes. This is what got me thinking about a nuclear power source.
Im hoping someone can calculate the fuel capacity vs engine vs time on this forum to tell me if the planes really can stay up as long as they are listed to stay up on the fuel/engine that they have. I am sure they can but its the fact that general atomics makes them that got me thinking.
If I recall correctly, the Air Force was experiemnting with a nuclear-propelled bomber in the 50s, but it never got much further than a test reactor mounted in a conventionally-powered B-36 Peacemaker. Reactors are also pretty bulky and heavy, so they'd only be possibly in a fairly large UAV.
Right now, conventionally powered UAVs like the Global Hawk have impressive range (One flew from Hawaii to Australia). And Solar-powered aircraft like NASA's Helios also have potential. So while an airborne nuclear would bring benefits, it wouldn't be adding much in the way of new capability.
And yes, while being unmanned would reduced the need for shielding, keep in mind that the thing has to land somehwere and be maintained by ground personnel. I hardly think crew chiefs want to have to wear hazmat suits everytime they need to supervise airframe maintenance.
As for the General Atomics. Many defense contractors have very diverse portfolios. We think of Lockheed Martin as being mostly an aircraft builder, but they do everything from train US Army soldiers in EOD to run Singapore's pilot training program.
Same reason General Electric also makes jet engines as well as washing machines.
The Nuclear Energy for the Propulsion of Aircraft (NEPA) project was followed in May 1951 by the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion (ANP) program. The USAF pursued two different systems for nuclear powered jet engines, the Direct Air Cycle concept which was developed by General Electric, and Indirect Air Cycle which was assigned to Pratt & Whitney.It used the molten fluoride salt NaF-ZrF4-UF4 (53-41-6 mol%) as fuel and was moderated by beryllium oxide (BeO), liquid sodium as a secondary coolant, and it had a peak temperature of 860 °C, it operated for a 1000 hr cycle in 1954. It was the first molten salt reactor.The NB-36H, was modified to carry a 1 MW, air-cooled nuclear reactor in the aft bomb bay, with a four ton lead shield between the reactor and the cockpit.The reactor was operational but did not power the aircraft; its purpose was to investigate the effect of radiation on aircraft systems.
The Nuclear Energy for the Propulsion of Aircraft (NEPA) project was followed in May 1951 by the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion (ANP) program. The USAF pursued two different systems for nuclear powered jet engines, the Direct Air Cycle concept which was developed by General Electric, and Indirect Air Cycle which was assigned to Pratt & Whitney.It used the molten fluoride salt NaF-ZrF4-UF4 (53-41-6 mol%) as fuel and was moderated by beryllium oxide (BeO), liquid sodium as a secondary coolant, and it had a peak temperature of 860 °C, it operated for a 1000 hr cycle in 1954. It was the first molten salt reactor.The NB-36H, was modified to carry a 1 MW, air-cooled nuclear reactor in the aft bomb bay, with a four ton lead shield between the reactor and the cockpit.The reactor was operational but did not power the aircraft; its purpose was to investigate the effect of radiation on aircraft systems.
A small UAV, or even a MAV, could be powered by nuclear isotope batteries as is used on space probes perhaps or even one of those large ultra-long endurance UAVs perhaps supplementing solar power generation.
A small UAV, or even a MAV, could be powered by nuclear isotope batteries as is used on space probes perhaps or even one of those large ultra-long endurance UAVs perhaps supplementing solar power generation.
perhaps to power on board electronic equipment... I would say unlikely for propulsion however.
Yes possible useful for a UAV blimp or high altitude sailplane.
An Isotope decay is a possibility, it isnt a full on reactor but still atomic.
for example if this was used to generate power for the surveliance or communication equipment. just like space probes do. or various Russian telemetry devices and unmanned light houses right here on earth...
I dont think the little UAVs with 2-3 hour fly time would use something like this but the bigger ones.. who knows.
Didnt a UAV or two crash in Afghanistan, I wonder who took care of recovery and what they might know or be able to tell. It almost makes sense, to put a radio isotope or a mini reactor into one of these birds especially since the long loiter time is becoming a cruicial requirement.
An Isotope decay is a possibility, it isnt a full on reactor but still atomic.
Didnt a UAV or two crash in Afghanistan, I wonder who took care of recovery and what they might know or be able to tell. It almost makes sense, to put a radio isotope or a mini reactor into one of these birds especially since the long loiter time is becoming a cruicial requirement.
Full-on atomic propulsion for an aircraft is probably never going to happen simply because of the lack of shielding.
The US had Project Pluto back in the 50's which was essentially an unmanned nuclear bomber powered by a reactor which was intended to drop it's bombs over the SU and then just keep flying over enemy territory until it either ran into a mountain or ran out of fuel. The modern equivalent of burning and salting the ground.
Of course this was the same era that produced Project Orion and nuclear landscaping projects, before the radioactive effects of nuclear power/weaponry was fully understood. The postwar years had some amazing concepts but reality isn't as spectacular alas.
Unless you go back to the huge flying-boat bomber concepts (I have somewhere an Eagle book from the era where they were predicting that bombers would get bigger and bigger and tougher and tougher until land bases would be impossible) then you're never going to be able to get an acceptable amount of shielding on it.
Full-on atomic propulsion for an aircraft is probably never going to happen simply because of the lack of shielding.
The US had Project Pluto back in the 50's which was essentially an unmanned nuclear er powered by a reactor which was intended to drop it's over the SU and then just keep flying over enemy territory until it either ran into a mountain or ran out of fuel. The modern equivalent of burning and salting the ground.
Of course this was the same era that produced Project Orion and nuclear landscaping projects, before the radioactive effects of nuclear power/weaponry was fully understood. The postwar years had some amazing concepts but reality isn't as spectacular alas.
Unless you go back to the huge flying-boat er concepts (I have somewhere an Eagle book from the era where they were predicting that ers would get bigger and bigger and tougher and tougher until land bases would be impossible) then you're never going to be able to get an acceptable amount of shielding on it.
If I remember correctly, Lawrence Livermore had a similar project for a nuclear cruise missile. It passed air over an exposed reactor to genrate thrust. Problem is, everything in its wake was exposed to about a 180 rads. Needless to say, the project only made one test on the ground before being cancelled.
even without shieding a nuclear reactor would still be too large and heavy for Predator sized UAVs. At the moment a concept is being worked on to essentially microgenerate nuclear power, but these are still the size of a garden shed and aren't ready for use yet.
And yes UAVs have crashed in combat, so nuclear power would be a terrible idea.
A small UAV, or even a MAV, could be powered by nuclear isotope batteries as is used on space probes perhaps or even one of those large ultra-long endurance UAVs perhaps supplementing solar power generation.
The power output of those battery is quite low. I really doubt they could keep an UAV in air.
How atomic are General Atomics aircraft? 
