project-navigation
Personal tools

Author Topic: Nuclear aircraft  (Read 5764 times)

Offline val

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
Nuclear aircraft
« on: March 19, 2012, 04:51:32 am »
Hello,
I have a suggestion to make. Waitaminute, this is the feature requests board, of course this is a suggestion.
Anywho, I've been looking around the forums and the online ufopedia, and there is no hint or suggestion of a long endurance(Thinking days, weeks maybe) aircraft anywhere, despite how useful this might be to Phalanx and anyone shipping/watching anything in general.  Two prototypes of nuclear aircraft were developed by the US during the Cold War, a manned bomber and a strategic cruise missile, were capable of endurance measured in months.
I think it would be implemented like this:

*It's big. No one's using fusion practically in the game, otherwise Phalanx would be using it. So it's critical/subcritical fission, and that means reactor shielding and coolant. So, it's large, not at all agile, and probably fixed winged.

*It's fast, with insane amounts of "fuel". The cruise missile in question, Project Pluto, was theoretically capable of supercruise(supersonic cruising) for months before hitting a target.

*Because it uses a nuclear reactor and is big to begin with, it can carry a lot of stuff you wouldn't trust to UN shipping. Stuff like antimatter.

*It can use bigger/better/more exotic equipment, for same reasons as above. Like antimatter missiles or base radar.

*It can be upgraded to antimatter easily. It's already built with a large, high thrust engine in mind, so adding an antimatter engine is a matter of reinforcing the plane.

*Because it's using nuclear/antimatter propulsion, it might be capable of lifting it's self into orbit.
This is the one thing I'm not sure about; might be cool to have an early space interceptor as a stopgap, but possibly game breaking for being able to nail the carriers in orbit early.

That's what I got. Comments?

Offline val

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
Re: Nuclear aircraft
« Reply #1 on: March 19, 2012, 05:00:41 am »
Another note:
The bomber in question was the Convair NB-36. It used electricity from a nuclear reactor to power it's self
The USSR tried the same thing with the TU-95LAL.

Offline val

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
Re: Nuclear aircraft
« Reply #2 on: March 19, 2012, 05:11:51 am »
ANother thing: actual nuclear propulsion was attempted via the Convair X-6. That was the bomber I meant, not the NB-36.

Offline geever

  • Project Coder
  • PHALANX Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 2561
    • View Profile
Re: Nuclear aircraft
« Reply #3 on: March 19, 2012, 06:36:10 am »
Thanks for the suggestion, but I think we won't add it.

What if such an airplane is shot down? It makes the land inhabitable for 100 years?

There are some conflicts in your suggestion also:
* big, heavy vs. fast
* big, fixed winged vs. size of the hangars, and the fact planes must be VTOL capable.

-geever

Offline val

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
Re: Nuclear aircraft
« Reply #4 on: March 19, 2012, 07:00:01 am »
Those are some pretty nice 3 points you have there.

Would be a shame if anything happened to them. :D
Anywho:
*The subcritical reactor Phalanx uses in bases turns off at the flick of the particle accelerator switch and makes waste that only lasts weeks. Use that.
*In this case, it's not that it isn't fast(it's VERY FAST), it's not at all agile. In addition to the normal g-force issues, it's a heavy plane by necessity; cooling and reactor shielding, you know?
*It probably couldn't land on anything but water, really. Like you said, it's too big, and asking the designers of such a plane to make it VTOL would probably result in a flat no. Maybe a new off base installation, build-able only offshore, to refuel the planes?

Offline Kildor

  • Project Artist
  • Captain
  • ***
  • Posts: 757
  • Project mapper and some other stuff`er
    • View Profile
    • http://ufoai.nx0.ru
Re: Nuclear aircraft
« Reply #5 on: March 19, 2012, 07:10:19 am »
AFAIK we already have antimatter-powered aircrafts. At least Starchaser and Dragon interceptors are AM-based ones.

Offline val

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
Re: Nuclear aircraft
« Reply #6 on: September 08, 2012, 07:23:52 am »
I'm back!
And I figured upgrading the nuclear planes to AM would be a stopgap until proper aircraft can be produced.
(sorry for necro)

Nokim

  • Guest
Re: Nuclear aircraft
« Reply #7 on: September 08, 2012, 08:47:31 pm »
What if such an airplane is shot down? It makes the land inhabitable for 100 years?
Hirisima & Nagasaki is habitable now. No 100 years. Chernobil area can be habitable in most parts too (this is now discussed in Ukraine). And nowadays reactors can be much more safe especially if built with possible crash in mind.
There are some conflicts in your suggestion also:
* big, heavy vs. fast
* big, fixed winged vs. size of the hangars, and the fact planes must be VTOL capable.
First thing coming to mind is carrier. Big, but heavily armed carrier with few smaller aircrafts onboard and some supplies. Some kind of mobile interception base, i think many would like such thing in beginning of game for possible coverage of all planet by patrolling. It will be expensive however.

Offline val

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
Re: Nuclear aircraft
« Reply #8 on: September 09, 2012, 03:48:51 am »
First thing coming to mind is carrier. Big, but heavily armed carrier with few smaller aircrafts onboard and some supplies. Some kind of mobile interception base, i think many would like such thing in beginning of game for possible coverage of all planet by patrolling. It will be expensive however.
Airborne aircraft carrier sounds pretty cool. Maybe have each heavy aircraft be a very small base, to ease modification? It can only be modified when docked, though.
And honestly, first thing I thought was a Mobile Maccross Missile Massacre.

Offline Nutter

  • Squad Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 223
    • View Profile
Re: Nuclear aircraft
« Reply #9 on: September 10, 2012, 09:56:26 pm »
 Quick question: Who's gonna pay for all that? Nuclear reactors aren't all that efficient when you try to stick them in aircraft.
Neither of the nuclear bomber programs actually got off the ground using their reactor before they were scrapped and the cruise missile irradiated the shit out of it's path.
 The player would probably have to shove funds and researchers into the project since day one for it to be applicable in time.
Sure, you might get the UN to hand over a few spare carriers if you beg long enough but I think that'd mean you'd have to pay for their crews. And even then, there's the issue of landing an insanely fast, radioactive hunk of metal on one of those.
 Oh, and flying aircraft carriers would probably get a taste of orbital bombardment faster than you can say "Goodness gracious great balls of fire!" There's a reason why all your bases are very immobile and underground. I won't comment on their surface appearance, though.
Most of this, of course, is assuming that the aliens have any sort of sense in that hive brain of theirs.