Nuclear is the first in human history that can systematically destroy human civilization, and it is the most feared existence during the Cold WarBut nuclear energy is also one of the most efficient, safest, and cleanest electricity ever used**. Nuclear power is currently the source of energy with the lowest number of deaths per unit of electricity generated, and it is also the world's second-largest clean energy source after hydropower, with at least 10% of global electricity generation generated by nuclear power plants**.
The first atomic bomb**.
Nuclear energy is also used in a variety of ways, and nowadays there are reactors on aircraft carriers, reactors on submarines, and reactors on icebreakers, but some people are going to ask -Why are both aircraft carriers and submarines equipped with nuclear reactors, but none of them have a nuclear-powered strategic bomber?United States.
As it stands, it is true that there is no nuclear-powered bomber, but that does not mean that humanity has not conceived it.
As early as 1942, the famous father of atomic energy and Nobel laureate in physics Enrique ?When Fermi was in full swing with the atomic bomb in the Manhattan Project, he put forward an idea that seemed bold at the time - the United States could develop a super bomber powered by nuclear fission, and the almost unlimited range brought by nuclear energy could allow the bomber to fly directly from the continental United States to any corner of the world to drop bombs. 」
Fermi. However, his idea did not receive enough attention at that time, on the one hand, because he was also busy researching the atomic bomb, and on the other hand, because the world war was raging at that time, and the United States did not have the energy to develop this new ** that looked too advanced. It was not until the end of World War II that the United States began to develop a nuclear-powered bomber in earnest.
In 1945, the U.S. Department of Defense, then known as the Department of War, put forward a secret proposal that supersonic unlimited cruise of bombers could be achieved through nuclear propulsion technology. The U.S. Air Force (then called the Army Air Force) launched the Nuclear Propulsion Aircraft (ANP) program the following year, pulling in a number of airlines such as Convair, Pratt & Whitney, and General Electric to cooperate in the development of nuclear-powered bombers.
However, at that time, the US Air Force did not have much money, and it was always difficult to use taxpayers' money to sprinkle everywhere, so they thought of a compromise solution: take the existing bomber and try it first. In 1952, a B-36 bomber was damaged by a tornado at Caswell Air Force Base in Texas.
Comparison of the size of the B-29 vs the B-36.
The Air Force calculated, it would cost a lot of money to repair this thing, so it was better to directly transform it into a verification machine, so it agreed to Convair's request. And this special B-36 bomber has become the only nuclear-powered bomber NB-36H in the United States so far.
Although Americans like to brag now, Americans at that time were really good at doing practical things. Soon, the bomber was equipped with a small air-cooled reactor weighing 16 tons and a power of 1 megawatt, while the crew compartment was completely rewrapped in lead and rubber, and even all the glass on board was replaced with leaded glass up to 30 centimeters thick. But after 47 test flights and 215 hours of flight tests, the biggest problem was exposed:It doesn't consume fuel, but it consumes pilots too much
NB-36H nuclear-powered bomber.
The test results showedThe redesigned cabin does not shield the pilot from radiation in the crew compartmentIf pilots work in this environment for a long time, they will not be able to grow a second head. Coupled with the fact that the power-to-weight ratio of this thing was far inferior to the latest jet engine at the time, Eisenhower waved his hand and focused on the new conventional jet bomber.
The result is known - the B-52 became a classic among conventional strategic bombers, and the NB-36H was completely submerged in history.
USSR. Originally, the Soviets didn't think much about this nuclear-powered bomber, but seeing that the American NB-36H was ready to start test flights, Khrushchev was also in a hurry, and asked his subordinates to hurry up and make something similar.
In August 1955, the Council of Ministers of the USSR asked the Tupolev Design Bureau, the Kuznetsov Design Bureau and the Moscow Aviation Institute to rush forward with the development of a nuclear-powered bomber. Tupolev was atmospheric, and directly brought in a Tu-95M bomber of the latest type at that time to be used as a test platform, and after several groups of people remodeled, this Tu-95 was transformed into a Tu-95LAL nuclear bomber.
The Soviets crammed a small VVRL-100 reactor into the Tu-95's bomb bay and flew more than 40 test flights between 1961 and 1969 — but most of the time, the reactor didn't turn on when it went to the sky, because the Soviets had the exact same problem as the Americans: too many pilots.
Tu-95 bomber with Tu-160 bomber.
In order to shield the reactor from the radiation, the Soviets put more effort into shielding them from the reactor than the Americans, using beryllium, cadmium, paraffin and even liquid sodium in addition to sealing rubber and lead. Of course, the efforts of the Soviets also yielded certain resultsThe health of the pilots, although still not guaranteed, is much better than that of the Americans.
Tupolev decided to build a hybrid-propulsion bomber based on the Tu-95 with both NK-14A nuclear engines and NK-12 turboprop engines, and its first flight was expected around the eighties. But at this moment, there was bad news from the Soviet Union. Because ballistic missiles have made great progress, there is no need for the nuclear bomber, a super toy with an extremely high cost and a high risk factor, to continue to develop ......
American nuclear engine experimental reactor why.
At first glance, the biggest problem in the development of nuclear-powered bombers was that the pilots had to be exposed to the threat of low-intensity nuclear radiation for a long time because of the limited safety protection measures. So much so that at the peak of the Cold War, the argument that "elderly pilots should be allowed to fly nuclear bombers to raid the Soviet Union" was popular in the United States for a time.
However, with the passage of time, the technology of nuclear safety protection has been greatly improved, and the safety of the third generation of nuclear reactors is obvious to all. But why are there still no nuclear bombers?One of the most prominent issues is -The power-to-weight ratio is really a crotch pull
A miniature nuclear reactor conceived by the U.S. military.
Micro-reactor technology is not a futuristic technology, and the United States had similar products during the Cold War. And around 2019, the United States began to develop a mobile nuclear reactor that can be carried by trucks in order to supply energy for future land-based mobile directional nuclear energy**, and Biden approved nearly $60 million in prototype research and development funding for this project as soon as he took office.
The mobile reactor has a maximum output of 5,000 kilowatts, but weighs more than a dozen tons and has to be carried by a six-axle heavy truck. What level is this for a strategic bomber?Let's put it this way, the Pratt & Whitney R-36 Wasp piston engine on the B-4360 bomber more than 70 years ago has a power output of 3200 kilowatts, but the weight is only 1More than 7 tons.
Therefore, it is not the safety of the crew that really hinders the bomber on the nuclear engine, but becauseThe output of existing small nuclear fission reactors simply does not meet the power needs of strategic bombers- The B-36 has a full 6 Wasp engines and 4 J47 turbojet engines on it, and if you hang 8 small reactors on the new strategic bomber, it will take up space in the aircraft, not to mention that you say that it is a kamikaze, and you are more credible.
Pratt & Whitney's Wasp engine.
Of course, there are still many disadvantages of the use of nuclear power by strategic bombers, such as the serious radioactive contamination that may result from the radioactive gas emitted by the bomber's nuclear fission engine, which will threaten the safety of all mankindThe procurement and operating costs of a nuclear-powered engine will be much higher than that of a conventional engine, and it will actually cost more money, despite its unlimited range.
The most terrible thing is that it is also very dangerous, after all, the United States and Russia have dropped bombers the most in their own homes, once the bomber crashes and causes radiation to leak in their own homes, it is a ...... to deal with itFuture.
However, nuclear bombers are not completely devoid of hope of making it to the stage of history, after all, there is a cleaner and more efficient nuclear fusion technology in the future. And many airlines are also considering developing ultra-long-range supersonic airliners using nuclear fusion technology in the future. At that time, maybe the nuclear bombers will still have a chance to fight a "turnaround battle".