Nuclear Abrams

>>33822107

No

>>33822107
Learn how a nuclear reactor works then ask yourself that question.

>>33822107
As if the crew doesn't already get enough second-hand radiation from all the DU

>I played C&C generals as a kid and never questioned it

>>33822107
God, i miss F35-treads

>>33822426
NORMIE GET THE FUCK OFF MY BOARD.

>>33822107
>US Army nuke school

>>33822426
DU isn't radioactive, it's just incredibly poisonous

But imagine all the damage when "muh Saudi monkey models" go up in smoke

>>33822116
really?
A nuclear turbine engine is a pretty straight forward design.
>air goes in
>air gets heated by the reactor and cools it
>air goes out
>filters

>>33823311
At least it would actually be able to kill something

>>33822111
don't say no anon, making nuclear reactors smaller and more compact is just a matter of engineering.

>>33823586
i don't think tanker is going to want to have a nuclear reactor at the back of their tank

>>33823613
if it lets them go for years without refueling then most likely they will want it. it's not like an abrams if not full of nuclear waste already in ammunition and armor. a nuclear reactor is not something very special and dangerous. only badly built russian ones are with graphite insulation.

>>33823288
Of course it is radioactive, you wannabe know-it-all. Try googling before you sperg

It is fairly hard to justify a nuclear reactor on a capital ship covered by the most armor and protection a structure can be afforded. Why the fuck would you put one on a tank? It's fucktarded.

>>33822107
Thats the biggest bullshit I've read today

File: d844762a6684c659493d58d199d99241.jpg (12KB, 236x264px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 236x264px

>>33823655
you don't need a big reactor for a tank anon, just a small one.

File: Chrysler-TV-8-tank-1-730x400.jpg (63KB, 730x400px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 730x400px

neva been dun befo

>>33823655
>Why the fuck would you put one in a tank?
Ridiculous ammounts of power and torque,top speeds over 100 mph and being able to pull of unseen off-road abilities.
Railgun potential.
No need to refuel for years.
Added protection.

File: Chrysler-TV-8-military-tank.jpg (71KB, 730x312px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 730x312px

>>33823655

>>33823801
Heavy as fuck due to reactor shielding
Crew still needs to eat, shit and sleep
Still needs to be resupplied with ammo

Yup, you are a retard.

>>33823843
>Heavy as fuck due to reactor shielding
what the fuck are you talking about?
>Still needs to be resupplied with ammo
yeah but that only gets consumed when the tank fires which is 0.00000001% of it's lifetime.

>>33823885
>>Heavy as fuck due to reactor shielding
>what the fuck are you talking about?

Dude, are you that clueless or do you just play dumb? Any reactor with a notable power output will need sufficient shielding or it will kill the crew of the tank faster than a haji with a RPG.

>>33823935
we are talking about tanks with du armor... nothing gets nearly as heavy as the main armor.
for a small reactor you need a little shielding maybe but it will be hardly noticeable compared to the frontal armors weight or the weight of the gun and turret.

>>33823843
>implying it's manned

>>33822116
A liquid metal fast breeder could not be sufficiently miniaturized but a molten salt reactor might do the trick.

>>33823964
>reactor
>smaller than/equal to an abrams powerpack
>current year
yeah, no. that's not how that works

>>33823735
Yeah just a small sci-fi reactor. What an idea.

>>33824010
never said current year but it will happen eventually. and when it happens they will try it out and probably gonna like it.

what i wonder about if the armor concept of tanks will change radically in the coming years. active protection gets better and better. eras get better and better. myabe it will be the renaissance of light tanks heavy armor going almost extinct.

>>33824056
like i said it will happen inevitably. nothing in physics say you can't scale down reactors.

>>33823801
>Ridiculous ammounts of power and torque,top speeds over 100 mph and being able to pull of unseen off-road abilities.

Bullshit. Even the smallest reactor would be insanely large, and the need to shield the crew from it would be necessary thus limiting whatever power output it gives

>Railgun potential.

Ah yes, let's put an insanely expensive weapon that requires a ridiculous amount of maintenance on a fucking vehicle that would already be a nightmare to keep in safe working condition. And let's put all this on a vehicle that is expected to work in the most blasted, god-forsaken environments this planet has ever shit out.

>No need to refuel for years.

Literally the ONLY actual benefit. Good thing we don't have our entire military built around managing the logistics of these vehicles at a cheaper, more efficient method.

>Added protection.
??????

>>33824074
Inevitably? Says who? You? Sci-fi novelists? Thorium is the new cold fusion. It's nothing more than the silliest of pipe dreams dreamt up by science fiction novelists.

Go and dream about your black hole grenades and leave actual consideration of military applications to people that are qualified.

>>33824135
small minds were always like this
>hurr many can't fly, but even if he could what impact would it have on wars?
>alright man can fly but he would never fly faster than the speed of sound!
>alright you can fly faster than the speed of sound but you will never leave the atmosphere!
>alright you can leave the atmo but you can't get past the van-allen belt

faggots always say no can't be done never gonna be done and they always wrong. like 20 years ago i bet on some mailing list retards were raging about railguns and how they never gonna be used for reals because it's impossible or impractical or too expensive... yeah fuck that it's pretty clear today we gonna have railguns on ships in a few years.

and pretty clear the miniaturization of nuclear plants is something inevitable because that you can put them in tanks is not why they are needed or developed.

>>33823749
Looks like it got stung by a bee.

>>33824250
>get proven wrong
>hurrrrr small minds
fucking 10/10

>>33824117

>Bullshit. Even the smallest reactor would be insanely large, and the need to shield the crew from it would be necessary thus limiting whatever power output it gives

Nuclear turbine engines are a little bigger than regular jet engines(thanks to filters)so since the tank doesn't need crew you can put several of the inside it and increase the power greatly.


>Ah yes, let's put an insanely expensive weapon that requires a ridiculous amount of maintenance on a fucking vehicle that would already be a nightmare to keep in safe working condition. And let's put all this on a vehicle that is expected to work in the most blasted, god-forsaken environments this planet has ever shit out.

Railguns are not expensive by themselves and do not require a lot of maintenance,the batteries that power the weapon do.

The added protection is made as a aftermath of the torque that can pull a heavier load.

>>33824250
Just because people doubted something would happen and did doesn't mean your idea isn't shitty

File: 564864ef2a840.jpg (62KB, 640x761px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 640x761px

>>33824527
>since the tank doesn't need crew
what the fuck?

>>33824425
wait did you prove anything at all? did i miss something?

>>33824530
yeah sure, i'm just talking about the knee jerk reactions without even considering the actual issues and implications. it's typical of small minded men. and they have been rekt time and time again.

File: Jesus_Christ_How_Horrifying.jpg (7KB, 254x230px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 254x230px

>>33823805

>Shells are stored next to the reactor

>>33824549
However nuclear powered tanks are a horrible idea

>>33824250
Yeah whatever, keep dreaming faggot. Along the way of military innovation there have been many impossibilities. You can jack off about this shit all you want but it's not happening and you're going to have to deal with it. The miniaturization of nuclear power a la Thorium IS a pipe dream, the very same kind that cold fusion was. It is built upon a misunderstanding of science and its application, and nobody that is even mildly familiar with nuclear science believes it is anything other than a joke.

>Nuclear turbine engines are a little bigger than regular jet engines(thanks to filters)so since the tank doesn't need crew you can put several of the inside it and increase the power greatly.

You can put SEVERAL jet engines inside a tank? You couldn't even fit a single one inside of anything outside made up supertanks what the fuck are you talking about

>Railguns are not expensive by themselves and do not require a lot of maintenance,the batteries that power the weapon do.

Railguns are enormously expensive and prone to ludicrous amounts of maintenance, what the fuck are you talking about? Why do you think the Zumwalt-class reduced from like 30 to 3? Because of these fucking things being so goddamn expensive and impossible to effectively use ON A WARSHIP. Let alone a tracked vehicle.

>The added protection is made as a aftermath of the torque that can pull a heavier load.

Yeah, the heavier load of two fucking jet engines just to power the fucking stupid railgun you want to put on it. For what reason again? Who fucking knows.

>>33824549
>hey you know that thing that goes in combat all the time and is pretty much designed to be shot at
>lets put an extremely dangerous, fragile, precise, and maintenance intensive piece of equipment in them
>what could possibly go wrong
summer's early this year.

>>33822107

Not cause where the fuck are we gonna put the water? Or the oil? Or the dozen other shit needed to operate a nuclear reactor?

That said... Maus, NO, RATTE powered by science?

>>33823885
>Heavy as fuck due to reactor shielding.
If only tanks were covered by some thick dense material.

>>33824637
>armor now apparently protects crew from shit within the crew compartment

>>33824644
>maned
But if it were, all that radiation bouncing around inside that tank would turn the crew into ghouls.

>>33824609
are you responding to 2 comments?
genuinely asking.
if you're not,i agree with your statement about thorium but nuclear turbine engines are powered by uranium,and you can put several turbines inside the Abrams.
>Why do you think the Zumwalt-class reduced from like 30 to 3?

yeah because a +3.5 billion stealth ship is reduced because of railguns.

>For what reason again? Who fucking knows.

Because it can penetrate any tank,and use spread shot to destroy infanty and buildings.

>>33824777
>use spread shot
confirmed 12.
titanfall please go and stay go.

>>33824777
>are you responding to 2 comments?
genuinely asking.
if you're not,i agree with your statement about thorium but nuclear turbine engines are powered by uranium,and you can put several turbines inside the Abrams.

Yes. One poster used the image of a miniaturized Thorium reactor. Which is just pure sci-fi schlock.

>yeah because a +3.5 billion stealth ship is reduced because of railguns.
It's one of the primary costs that goes into the thing. A monstrously expensive cannon that fires nightmarishly expensive ammo. Granted I exaggerated a bit, but it's a glaring problem with them and would be even worse when applied to a smaller conventional land-based vehicle.

>Because it can penetrate any tank,and use spread shot to destroy infanty and buildings.

We can penetrate any tank and kill any infantry using our superior air force. What point is there in wheeling around nuclear fucking reactors around our own troops for such a miniscule improvement when our current technology ALREADY DOES THAT? Last I checked the Abrams wasn't exactly outclassed on the battlefield by the rest of the world.

Also are you saying we'll be firing fucking railguns at infantry? Great, half a million dollars per shot to kill a guy, hope it overkilled him so bad it tears his soul apart too

>>33824878
>Great, half a million dollars per shot to kill a guy
to be fair, we kinda already do that to sand people
granted, it's still fucking retarded.

>>33824827
It's called a M-1028 canister round.

>>33824616
>lets put an extremely dangerous, fragile, precise, and maintenance intensive piece of equipment in them
whaaat? you been drinking some weird cool aid. of all the things that can go kaboom in a tank the nuclear reactor would be the least of your worries.

>>33824984
Yeah there would be no problem whatsoever if a tank were struck in such a way that the nuclear shielding were to be damaged and radioactive death spilled out into the surrounding area populated by friendlies.

>>33824878
>half a million dollars per shot
Sabot rounds and Canister rounds cost ~2000$

>>33825022
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/new-warships-big-guns-have-no-bullets

>>33825006
>have du plates as armor
>get shot with sabot
>somehow survive
>die of cancer anyways

nah, it's not the biggest problem at all the ammunition getting hit will kill you way faster. yet tankers still get in those deathtraps.

>>33825006
also how much nuclear leak would happen from a small reactor like that you think? it would hardly been noticeable beside the du shells spewed from american planes with a geiger-mueller.

for a nation with such a radiation phobia you seem to be rather careless with your radioactive garbage.

>>33825060
Of course it will kill you way faster. YOU. We have armor to protect ammo storage, but in the unlikely event that it is hit, the number of people killed will be small. Contrast that with a chance scrape compromising the shielding and the area around them being rendered dangerous for everyone nearby.

>>33825076
I don't know, you tell me. Let me know how many sieverts I'd be taking up the ass from your imaginary tank nuclear reactor with no shielding.

>>33825076
think about it this way also
>be innaenemy territory, possibly sandbox
>tank is ditched, explodes, whatever
>you have just given the enemy at least 100lbs of fissile material and the ability to reverse engineer your classified minireactor

>>33823801
How much a tank is going to cost? Will we have enough of it and replacements? Whats the point if only a small number of units will be deployed. Then again I know little of US tank organization.

>>33823563
>>33823311
Savage

>>33825058
I already know this,but we are talking about the Abrams here.

>>33825140
I wasn't. I was responding to someone talking about mounting a railgun on a tank to use at firing on infantry.

>>33825121
~25 million.

>>33825209
>source:

>>33822116
Something along these lines

http://atomic-skies.blogspot.com.es/2016/08/atomic-powered-tanks-part-1.html

>>33825226
it`s an estimation.

>>33825264
Based on what

>>33822107
That just sounds like a nuclear meltdown waiting to happen.

>>33825282
The Braidwood powerplant generates 2500 MW and costs 5.2 billion,adding the turbine engines and scaling the reactor down to the Abrams levels the price comes up to 20.8 million+4.2 million for the rest of the tank.

>>33825153
current railgun ammo only costs like $10k
lrlap is super expensive because they bought less than 1/20th what they tooled up for and lockmart wants to get their invested shekels back

>>33825102
>Let me know how many sieverts I'd be taking up the ass from your imaginary tank nuclear reactor with no shielding.
yeah that's an interesting question normally i would be all up for the task to research it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor#Removal_of_fission_products
looks to me the beryllium poisoning would be the biggest issue in case of a leak, also radioactive salts dispersed with steam in case of penetration.

my solution to this would be a crew compartment separated from the engine compartment (if it hasn't already) and pressurized, so the leaking shit can't get inside.

outside there are only hajis anyways.

>>33825107
>>you have just given the enemy at least 100lbs of fissile material and the ability to reverse engineer your classified minireactor
you can1t make weapons out of a thorium reactor, that's one off it's perks. design specifics are not a big secret either.

>>33825465
abrams needs about 1500kW you can scale that shit down a lot.

>>33822107
>MFW when the nuclear heat exchanger gets globbed up with molten sand and meltsdownl because muh filtration maintenance gets abused just like on the AGT1500

>>33825699
the nuclear is cooled by molten salt
if you add send to it it becomes molten sand cooled

>>33825712
^^^
t. chief engineer of the nukulars

>>33825465
>he thinks smaller = cheaper

Weweeee lad

>>33824135
That's... an exaggeration, considering that a MSR was run for several decades, and was at times fed Thorium (albeit without the fuel cycling that would be needed for efficient operation). It is most definitely not cold fusion.

That said, a MSR/LFTR is nowhere near compact enough for a tank powerplant, and is not likely to become so within the foreseeable future.

Worse, LFTRs are not really made for harsh motions that could cause molten fuel to go places or directions that are contrary to the design's normal operation.

And then there's the whole issue of a hit potentially spilling molten radioactive material all over the ground. That's not very smart.

Traveling-wave or an insanely compact pebble-bed (if that's even possible) are your only marginally-realistic options... and by marginal, I mean "not with any near-future capabilities".

File: 1493434125743.gif (580KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

580KB, 480x360px

>>33824777
>destroy infanty and buildings
>buildings
>canister shot

File: Chrysler TV-8.jpg (38KB, 1024x438px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 1024x438px

>>33822111
>>33822116
what an arrogant and unfriendly comment.
well sure OP wrote a nuclear reactor but there are other nuclear methods of propulsion.
For instance an Radioisotope thermoelectric generator like the Cusiosity uses

>>33822107
>nuclear reactor
>increasing its lifespan
>implying reactor's maintenance qill be easy and shit

>>33826115
railgun canister shot.

>>33826162
RTGs produce about 150 watts of power for 35kg of weight, or 4kw/t. The Abrams, as a whole, does 20kw/t. If you made a tank that was nothing but wheels and RTGs, it would be 5 times worse than the Abrams in terms of mobility, and it wouldn't have any armor or guns.

>>33824074
Physics has a lot to say about the minimum size of reactors.

>>33823637
Because refueling is the number one concern of tankers, right?

>>33826297
for a given technology maybe but we can go as small as a baseball. human sized reactors have already been made.

>>33826344
well it is the main limiting factor in their mobility and range yes.

>>33826356
sorry meant basketball

>>33824609
>>33824777
>>33824878

DDG-1000 procurement was reduced to 3 because Congress is retarded, doesn't know how fucking anything works, and willing to continuously re-enact CGN-9 Long Beach and SSN-21 Seawolf until the end of fucking time.

And that's just two Navy programs off the top of my head. Who knows how many USAF and Army programs they've fucked to death with their mindless "huhhh making less of them will reduce the unit cost lmao" dickery?

>>33826584
The XF-103 is a great example for the USAF.

>>33826687

I would have faster cited the F-22 Raptor, but good one.

There's lots more. I didn't want to turn it into a megaparagraph rant.

>>33825102
>Contrast that with a chance scrape compromising the shielding and the area around them being rendered dangerous for everyone nearby.
That sounds like an argument for it.
>Come on, bro. Shoot me. I dare you. I swear I'll kill all of us.

>>33823544
holy fuck you couldn't be more wrong

>>33823964
Not the guy you are replying to, but do you know what neutron fluxes do to DU? Fast fission neutrons are energetic enough to fission U-238. Ironically, having DU as heavy shielding for the tank would actually be more dangerous than using concrete as shielding.

>>33827861
I don't think enemies miles out are going to care about a breach that kills people in the vicinity. They will be able to evacuate, the enemy will not.

File: half-life-gordon-freeman.jpg (124KB, 1080x600px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1080x600px

>>33823288
What is half-life 3?

>>33823288
Wrong. It's an alpha emitter. However alpha particles can be stopped by skin so...

>>33823288
>>33829944
reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
both of you

>>33822107

What an awful idea

>Atomic Tank gets IED'ed
>people come to collect the wounded
>radiation sickness everywhere
>IED site is now contaminated
>more radiation sickness