What's new

Is Lockheed Martin working on a nuclear fusion-powered fighter jet?

Hamartia Antidote

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Nov 17, 2013
Messages
35,188
Reaction score
30
Country
United States
Location
United States
https://www.siliconrepublic.com/machines/lockheed-martin-nuclear-fusion-jet-fighter
F-22-718x523.jpg



Lockheed Martin quietly obtained a patent for what could be a game-changing nuclear fusion reactor, one that could potentially fit into a fighter jet.

If the latest patent from defence manufacturing giant Lockheed Martin is anything to go by, nuclear fusion technology could revolutionise the future of travel.

For those not in the know, a nuclear fusion reactor is one of the holy grails of science, promising to replicate the inner workings of the sun in a confined reactor, capable of generating huge, near-limitless amounts of energy cheaply with no environmental impact.

Not the first nuclear aircraft
The Drive recently reported that a patent filed by Lockheed Martin was approved in February of this year for a compact fusion reactor that could not only be fitted on board an aircraft carrier to power its systems, but also on board a fighter jet.

If such a reactor was achieved, a fighter jet could potentially fly for as long as feasibly possible without needing to refuel, and wouldn’t pose a risk in terms of a potential nuclear accident.

Nuclear-fission.jpeg

The only US aircraft to carry a nuclear reactor was the NB-36H (centre foreground). The project was cancelled in 1958. Image: USAF

During the 1950s, the US and Soviet Union tested aircraft that included a nuclear fission engine in order to develop aircraft that could fly for months at a time so that they could be prepared for the declaration of nuclear war.

However, the intense radiation emitted from the reactor was a threat to the crew on board, and would be catastrophic for anyone on the ground in the event of an accident.

The patents were first discovered by aircraft researcher and journalist Stephen Trimble, who also confirmed that a prototype reactor was being developed at Lockheed Martin’s Palmdale facility in California.

Nuclear drones patrolling indefinitely
Patents for the reactor were filed in 2014 by the company’s advanced research division, Skunk Works, with the aim of having its compact fusion reactor (CFR) ready by 2019.

While it has obviously missed that deadline, the delay does not mean the technology is to be left behind.

As Dr Thomas McGuire, head of Skunk Works’ Compact Fusion Project, detailed in a 2014 report, the smaller reactor is more feasible than a large-scale one.

If the system functions as expected, the CFR could take 11kg of fuel in the form of the hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium, and run the reactor for an entire year without needing to stop.

Throughout that time, it would be consistently pumping out 100MW of power, enough to power up to 80,000 homes.

When discussing how it could impact aircraft design, Lockheed Martin said that this amount of power would allow it to fly indefinitely and would only be hampered by the crew’s need for food and water on the ground.

The likelier option is that this would translate extremely well into drone aircraft used to patrol the skies for years at a time, which, admittedly, sounds a little terrifying.
 
.
and wouldn’t pose a risk in terms of a potential nuclear accident.

Unfortunately that's the inherently big problem with the idea! lol.

One thing to put a reactor in a sub or a carrier, another thing to put it in an aircraft that has a much higher risk of hitting the ground and kaboom.
 
.
Unfortunately that's the inherently big problem with the idea! lol.

One thing to put a reactor in a sub or a carrier, another thing to put it in an aircraft that has a much higher risk of hitting the ground and kaboom.
I think that the greater risk isn't the kaboom but the fallout of radioactive material, which, kaboom or not, will be hazardous.
If fusion becomes feasible, there would just be a Hydrogen explosion, no heavy metals, but it is even more complicated, sensitive and dangerous than conventional fuel.
 
.
I think that the greater risk isn't the kaboom but the fallout of radioactive material, which, kaboom or not, will be hazardous.
If fusion becomes feasible, there would just be a Hydrogen explosion, no heavy metals, but it is even more complicated, sensitive and dangerous than conventional fuel.
i am thinking same bro
 
.
I think that the greater risk isn't the kaboom but the fallout of radioactive material, which, kaboom or not, will be hazardous.
If fusion becomes feasible, there would just be a Hydrogen explosion, no heavy metals, but it is even more complicated, sensitive and dangerous than conventional fuel.

It seems hard to imagine any nuclear fusion process being deemed safe at any acceptable level beyond the risk of an aviation fuel explosion and especially to make it small enough to power something like a fighter jet or even an airliner. Size, containment chamber, the effects of the weight of that chamber and then other questions such as controlling power for acceleration and thrust. What would be the propulsion system? In ships and submarines it's mostly powering a drive shaft that uses a propeller as the primary driving/pushing force. How would that translate to something that would produce the results of an F-16's afterburners, for example? Definitely challenging.
 
Last edited:
. .
Disaster in the making... hope this never becomes a reality.
 
. .
Well the most funny thing about this "nuclear jet" fiasco in the cold war era was that Russians were actually successful in flying a nuclear jet for months over Moscow, but of course without any shielding from the radiation as a result all the crew members died because of cancer.
And an interesting fact, not a lot of people know that before anyone even thought of nuclear subs the real idea was nuclear jets but that was not possible because the anti-radiation shielding was too heavy for the jet to take off, but that never seemed to be a problem for submarines. Here's a documentary about this.
@Hamartia Antidote @Gomig-21 @Oscar .
 
.

Ah yes, back when the the Discovery Chanel was worth watching the multitude of interesting programs besides Shark Week and they hadn't discovered the shameless money-making concept of reality TV yet that degraded the quality overnight. Even the Military Chanel was great. The good ol' days.

Despite what that fellow says, even with today's tech, besides the challenge of making the mechanical aspect of it successfully operational and safe, the emissions part of the jet/propulsion that @Mhmoud brought up is another huge hurdle to get over. But, if there's anyone that can pull it off, it's the US.
 
. . . . .
It seems hard to imagine any nuclear fusion process being deemed safe at any acceptable level beyond the risk of an aviation fuel explosion and especially to make it small enough to power something like a fighter jet or even an airliner. Size, containment chamber, the effects of the weight of that chamber and then other questions such as controlling power for acceleration and thrust. What would be the propulsion system? In ships and submarines it's mostly powering a drive shaft that uses a propeller as the primary driving/pushing force. How would that translate to something that would produce the results of an F-16's afterburners, for example? Definitely challenging.

It wouldn't produce afterburner, but could super cruise to more than Mach 1. Good for bombers but not for fighters. And it just be too expensive and dangerous as posters including you mentioned. It would work, but just not worth it.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom