DOCSLIB.ORG

N O T I C E This Document Has Been Reproduced From

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
N O T I C E This Document Has Been Reproduced From N O T I C E THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED FROM MICROFICHE. ALTHOUGH IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT CERTAIN PORTIONS ARE ILLEGIBLE, IT IS BEING RELEASED IN THE INTEREST OF MAKING AVAILABLE AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE i^ G DC -A S P-80-010 CONTRACT NAS8-33527 N81-11101 (NASA-C13-101594) LOW THRUST VEHICLE CONCEPT l STUDY Final Report (General Dynamics Corp.) 291 p HC A13/MF A01 CSCL 22B f Unclas G3/18 29132 LOW THRUST VEHICLE CONCEPT STUDY GENERAL DYNAMICS Conveii Division Prepared under Contract NAS8-33527, Task 7 Prepared by Advanced Space Programs GENERAL DYNAMICS CONVAIR DIVISION San Diego, California FOREWORD This report aocunents the results of Contract NAS8-33527, Task 7 — "Loa, Thrust Vehicle Concept Study". This study was conduced over a 9-month period from September 1979 to May 1980. The NASA/MSFC Program Manager was D. R. Saxton. The General Dynamics Program Manager was W.J. Ketchum. In addition to the program managers, many General Dynamics Convair person- nel contributed to the study. The key individuals and their contributions are: P. J. Griff1th Computer/Simulation R. Ma.ffucci Propellant Acquisition S. Mald Avionics/Power F. Merion Thermodynamics C. D. Pengelley Structural Dynamics R.C. Risley Costs, Schedules E. I. Seiden Weights L. E. Siden Conceptual Designs P. Slysh Structures/Synthesis All data in this report are presented in the English System. PRECEDING PACE SI ANK NOT FILMED iii TABLE OF CONTFNTS Section Page 1 INTRODUCTION . .1-1 1.1 Objectives . .1-1 1.2 Study Approach . .1-1 2 MISSION/PAYLOAD DEFINITION . 2-1 2.1 Potential Missions/Payloads for Low-thrust Propulsion . .2-1 2.2 OTV Requirements . .2-2 2.3 Selected Payload Characteristics. .2-2 2.3.1 Space Based Radar . .2-4 2.3.2 Geoplatform . .2- 10 2.3.3 Power Array , , . , , . 2-11 2.3.4 External forces and torques at LEO. 02-12 3 CANDIDATE LOW-THRUST PROPULSION SYSTEM CONCEPTS, . , . 3-1 3.1 OTV Characteristics. , , , , , . , , , , . , 03-1 3.2 Propulsion Characteristics , , . , . , .3-1 3.2.1 Thrust Transient . 3-1 3.2.2 Distributed Thrust . 3-4 3.2.3 Thrust Vector Coni rol. , , . , .3-5 3.2.4 Exhaust Plume Interaction , , . , . , . , . 3-6 3.2.5 Engines . 3-6 4 PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS . 4-1 4.1 Computer Synthesis/Optimization . 4-2 4.2 Payload Configurations . 4-3 4.3 Payload- OTV-Shuttle Length Fit. o4-4 4.4 OTV Characteristics. 4-4 4.4.1 Velocity Requirements vs. Initial Thrust-to -Wei rht . .4-5 4.4.2 Isp vs. Thrust. .. 4-6 4.4.3 OTV Length vs. Propellant Weight . .4-6 4.4.4 Mass Fraction vs. Propellant Weight . :4-6 4.4.5 Mission Losses . 4-6 4.4.6 Summary of OTC' Parameters . 4-8 4.5 Payload Characteristics. 4-8 4.5.1 Space Based Radar - Tetrahedral Truss Arm (SBR-A) .4-8 4.5.2 Space Based Radar - Tetrahedral Truss Ring (SBR-R) .4-9 4.5.3 Geoplatform . .4-10 4.6 Shuttle Characteristics . , . .4-10 PRECEDING PAGE BLANK NOT FILMF-^ v TABLE OF CONTENTS (Contd) Section Page 4 4.7 OPTOTV Computer Program . 4-10 (Contd) 4.7.1 Missions . .4-11 4.7.2 Growth Capability . 4-11 4.8 Results . .4-12 4.8. 1 Space Based Radar-A Analysis Results . .4-14 4.8.2 Space Based Radar- R Analysis Results . .4-24 4.8.3 Geoplatform Analysis Results . .4-30 4.8.4 Summary Analysis Results • • • • • • • . • • 4-36 5 BASELINE VEHICLE CONCEPT IDENTIFICATION AND DEFINITION . 5-1 5.1 Baseline Configuration, Description, and Weight . ^-1 5.2 Subsystems * . .5-6 5.2.1 Torus L02 Tank . .5-6 5.2.2 Propellant Acquisition . 5-12 5.2.3 Insulation . .5-29 5.2.4 Pressurization, Tank Pressure Control, and Abort Dump . 5-11 5.2.5 Engine Feed Ducts . 5-51 5.2.6 Fill and Drain . 5-51 5.2.7 Propellant Utilization . _ . 5-51 5.2.8 Auxiliary Propulsion/Attitude Control . 5-52 5.2. 9 Avionics/Power . 5-53 5.3 Installation in Shuttle . 5-59 5.3.1 Adapter Structure . 5-59 5.3.2 Helium Storage . 5-59 5.3.3 Plumbing . .5-59 5.3.4 Deployment . .5-61 6 PROPULSION/SUBSYSTEM TECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENTS . 6-1 6.1 Torus Tank . 6-1 6.2 Low Thrust Engine . 6-4 7 COSTS AND SCHEDULE ESTIMATES . 7-1 7.1 Cost Methodology . 7-1 7.2 Ground rules /Assumptions . .7-2 7.3 Costs for the Low Thrust OTV . 7-8 7.4 Program Schedule/ Funding Requirements . 7-9 8 REFERENCES . .8-1 vi ^R TABLE OF CONTENTS (Contd) Appendix Page 1 DEFINITIONS OF ALGORITHMS — SBR-A & Geoplatform Analyses . Al-1 2 DE FINITIONS OF ALGORITHMS — SBR- R Analysis . A2-1 3 OPTOTV COMPUTER SYMBOLS DEFINITIONS. A3-1 4 OPTOTV PROGRAM LISTING (BASIC) . A4-1 5 OPTOTV COMPUTER SYMBOLS AND LINE NUMBER CROSS REFERENCES . ..45-1 6 SUMMARY OF OPTOTV PROGRAM INPUT-OUTPUT PARAMETER CATEGORIES . A6-1 7 OPTOTV COMPUTER PROGRAM FLOW DIAGRAM . A7-1 8 SOLAR ELECTRIC PROPULSION SYSTEM . A8-1 9 SPACE BASED RADAR-A ANALYSIS . A9-1 10 SPACE BASED RADAR-R ANALYSIS . A10-1 11 GEOPI.ATFORM ANALYSIS . A11-1 12 DISTRIBUTED THRITST ANALYSIS . Al2-1 13 COSTS . A13-1 vii r. i 3 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2-1 Payload allocation . .2-2 2-2 Missions/payloads . .2-3 2-3 Space based phased-array radar concept. .2-4 2-4 Tetrahedral truss arm space-based radar . .2-5 2-5 SBR and OTV in orbiter . .2-6 2-6 Tetrahedral truss arm deployment sequence . .2-7 2-7 GDC tetrahedral truss demonstration. .2-8 2-8 Tetrahedral truss space based radar . 2-9 2-9 Tetrahedral ring deployment sequence . .2-9 2-10 Geostationary platform . 2-10 2-11 SEPS array . 2-11 2-12 SEPS power array deployment . o • • • • • • • 2-12 2-13 Advanced 100 kW power array . o . 2-12 3-1 Orbit transfer vehicles propulsion systems• . •3-1 3-2 Candidate OTV concepts • • • • • . • • 3-2 3-3 OTV options • . • . • . .3-2 3-4 OTV length and mass fraction . • .3-3 3-5 Thrust transient interaction • . •3-3 3-6 Minimum dynamic response * . .3-4 3-7 Distributed thrust - 2 thrusters <_ 0.2 D apart . .3-5 3-8 LSS dynamic response to thrust vector control system . .3-7 3-9 Exhaust plume interaction . .3-8 3-10 Engine options . .3-8 3-11 Low thrust engine performance . .3-9 4-1 Performance analysis . .4-1 4-2 Computer program overview. .4-2 4-3 Payload-OTV-Shuttle length fit . .4-4 4-4 Low thrust AV requirements - LEO to GEO. .4-5 4-5 Isp vs. thrust (low thrust engine performance). .4-6 4-6 OTV length vs. propellant weight . .4-6 4-7 OTV mass fraction vs. propellant weight . .4-7 4-8 SBR-A stowed geometries of bay and trusses . .4-9 4-9 Stowed geometry of SBR-R . .4-9 4-10 SBR-A engine thrust, propellant weight, velocity increment, and specific impulse vs. TW. .4-15 4-11 SBR-A OTV loaded weight and payload capability and weight vs. TW .4-15 4-12 SBR-A. 1 payload, 1 Shuttle. WS = 60, 000 lb, diameter vs. TW . 04-16 4-13 Effect of engine thrust & number of burns on size of SBR-A . .4-17 4-14 SBR-A. Mission dependent losses, burn time, and mission time vs. TW . .4-18 viii A A IF- LIST OF FIGURES (Contd) Figure Page 4-15 Effect of dynamic factor (KO) on size of SBR-A . .4-18 4-16 Effect of tip weights on size of SBR-A . .4-!9 4-17 Effect of lens density (WL) on size of SBR-A . .4-19 4-18 Effect of truss material on size of SBR-A . .4-20 4-39 SBR-A. (I,C) length of stowed payload and (LP) length of OTV vs. TW, compared to cargo bay upper length limits . 4-20 4-20 SBR-A. (PC) critical longeron buckling load and (P) induced longeron load vs. TW . .4-21 4-21 SBR-A. (T1) primary strut wall thickness and (D1) primary strut tube diameter vs. TW . .4-21 4-22 SBR-A. (IS) specific impulse held constant at 450 sec and N = 9, 5, 2. Diameter vs. TLV. 4-22 4-23 Effect of Shuttle capability (WS) on size of SBR-A . .4-22 4-24 Effect of constant acceleration (variable thrust) on size of SBR-A .4-23 4-25 Effect of reduced engine performance on size of SBR-A . .4-23 4-26 Effect of number of Shuttles or size of SBR-A.. .4-24 4-27 SBR-R. Engine thrust, propellant weight, velocity increment, and specific impulse vs. TW . • . 4-25 4-28 SRB-R. OTV loaded weight and payload capability and weight vs. TW . 04-25 4-29 Effect of engine thrust and number of burns on size of SBR-R . .4-26 4-30 Effect of lens density (WL) on size of SBR-R . .4-27 4-31 SBR-R. (WN) power spider weight = 10 and 15 lb. Diameter vs. TW . 4-27 4-32 SBR-R. (TL) lens thickness 0.086 and 0. 125 inch. Diameter vs. TW. 4-28 4-33 SBR-R. (ZH) hub weight fraction 0.47 and 0.65 inch. Diameter vs. TW . .4-28 4-34 SBR-R. (A) truss face width = 150, 200, 300, and 400 inches. Diameter vs.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Beyond the United Kingdom: Trends in the Other Nuclear Armed States
    Beyond the United Kingdom: Trends in the Other Nuclear Armed States Ian Kearns Discussion Paper 1 of the BASIC Trident Commission An independent, cross-party commission to examine UK nuclear weapons policy Published by British American Security Information Council (BASIC) November 2011 BASIC in London BASIC in Washington The Grayston Centre 110 Maryland Avenue NE 28 Charles Square Suite 205 London N1 6HT Washington DC 20002 Tel: +44 (0) 207 324 4680 Tel: +1 (0) 202 546 8055 Acknowledgements Author BASIC and the BASIC Trident Commission are grateful to Dr Ian Kearns is the Chief Executive of the European the Ploughshares Fund, the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, Leadership Network (ELN), a member of the BASIC Trident the Polden Puckham Charitable Trust and the Nuclear Commission, and works as a consultant to the Commission Information Trust for their financial support of the work of and to RUSI on nuclear issues. Previously Ian was Acting the Commission. We would also like to thank all those who Director and Deputy Director of the Institute for Public have contributed to the work of the Commission by Policy Research (IPPR) in the United Kingdom and Deputy submitting evidence and otherwise engaging in our activities. Chair of the IPPR’s independent All-Party Commission on National Security in the 21st Century, serving under co-chairs, BASIC would also like to thank the BASIC Trident Lord George Robertson and Lord Paddy Ashdown. He also Commissioners for their unpaid involvement in this enterprise. served in 2010 as a Specialist Adviser to the Joint House of Commons/House of Lords Committee on National Security.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 15A. World Nuclear Forces
    Appendix 15A. World nuclear forces HANS M. KRISTENSEN and SHANNON N. KILE* I. Introduction Despite the efforts over the past half-century to reduce and eliminate nuclear weap- ons, and commitments under the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)1 to achieve this goal, the five states defined by the NPT as nuclear weapon states—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States—continue to deploy more than 16 500 operational nuclear weapons (see table 15A.1). If all warheads are counted— deployed, spares, those in both active and inactive storage, and ‘pits’ (plutonium cores) held in reserve—the five nuclear-weapon states possess an estimated total of 36 500 warheads. This means that they possess over 98 per cent of the world nuclear weapon stockpile. The US 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) and implementation of the 2002 US–Russian Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) will move thousands of US and Russian ‘operationally deployed strategic warheads’ out of declared opera- tional status into various ‘unaccountable’ categories of reserve weapons.2 Thousands of other weapons are also held in reserve. The result is that the US and Russian nuclear weapon arsenals are becoming increasingly opaque and difficult to monitor.3 In the USA, the 2001 NPR and subsequent defence budgets revealed plans for new ballistic missiles, strategic submarines, long-range bombers, nuclear weapons, and nuclear command and control systems. Substantial modernization is under way for virtually all parts of the US nuclear infrastructure. Similarly, Russia is modernizing its strategic nuclear forces by deploying new intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and additional strategic bombers and developing a new generation of nuclear-powered ballistic-missile submarines (SSBNs).
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 15A. World Nuclear Forces
    Appendix 15A. World nuclear forces HANS M. KRISTENSEN and SHANNON N. KILE* I. Introduction Despite the efforts over the past half-century to reduce and eliminate nuclear weap- ons, and commitments under the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)1 to achieve this goal, the five states defined by the NPT as nuclear weapon states—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States—continue to deploy more than 16 500 operational nuclear weapons (see table 15A.1). If all warheads are counted— deployed, spares, those in both active and inactive storage, and ‘pits’ (plutonium cores) held in reserve—the five nuclear-weapon states possess an estimated total of 36 500 warheads. This means that they possess over 98 per cent of the world nuclear weapon stockpile. The US 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) and implementation of the 2002 US–Russian Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) will move thousands of US and Russian ‘operationally deployed strategic warheads’ out of declared opera- tional status into various ‘unaccountable’ categories of reserve weapons.2 Thousands of other weapons are also held in reserve. The result is that the US and Russian nuclear weapon arsenals are becoming increasingly opaque and difficult to monitor.3 In the USA, the 2001 NPR and subsequent defence budgets revealed plans for new ballistic missiles, strategic submarines, long-range bombers, nuclear weapons, and nuclear command and control systems. Substantial modernization is under way for virtually all parts of the US nuclear infrastructure. Similarly, Russia is modernizing its strategic nuclear forces by deploying new intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and additional strategic bombers and developing a new generation of nuclear-powered ballistic-missile submarines (SSBNs).
    [Show full text]
  • SIPRI Yearbook 2011: Armaments, Disarmament and International Security 320 MILITARY SPENDING and ARMAMENTS, 2010
    7. World nuclear forces SHANNON N. KILE, VITALY FEDCHENKO, BHARATH GOPALASWAMY AND HANS M. KRISTENSEN I. Introduction At the start of 2011 eight states possessed approximately 20 500 nuclear weapons, of which more than 5000 were deployed and ready for use (see table 7.1). Nearly 2000 of these are kept in a state of high operational alert. All five legally recognized nuclear weapon states, as defined by the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (Non-Proliferation Treaty, NPT)—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States—appear determined to remain nuclear powers and are either modernizing or about to modernize their nuclear forces.1 At the same time, Russia and the USA have undertaken to make further reductions in their strategic nuclear forces in the 2010 Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (New START), a follow-on treaty to the expired 1991 Treaty on the Reduction and Limit- ation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START). New START, which was signed in April 2010, supersedes the 2002 Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reduc- tions (SORT).2 Sections II and III of this chapter discuss the composition of the deployed nuclear forces of the USA and Russia, respectively. The nuclear arsenals of the other three nuclear weapon states are considerably smaller, but all are either deploying new weapons or have announced their intention to do so. Sections IV–VI present data on the delivery vehicles and warhead stockpiles of the UK, France and China, respectively. Reliable information on the operational status of the nuclear arsenals and capabilities of the three states that have never been party to the NPT— India, Israel and Pakistan—is difficult to find.
    [Show full text]
  • N° 1867 Assemblée Nationale
    N° 1867 —— ASSEMBLÉE NATIONALE CONSTITUTION DU 4 OCTOBRE 1958 DOUZIÈME LÉGISLATURE Enregistré à la Présidence de l'Assemblée nationale le 13 octobre 2004. AVIS PRÉSENTÉ AU NOM DE LA COMMISSION DE LA DÉFENSE NATIONALE ET DES FORCES ARMÉES, SUR LE PROJET DE loi de finances pour 2005 (n° 1800) TOME II DÉFENSE DISSUASION NUCLÉAIRE PAR M. ANTOINE CARRE, Député. —— Voir le numéro : 1863 (annexe n° 39) — 3 — S O M M A I R E _____ Pages INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 5 I. – UNE LEGERE DIMINUTION DU POIDS BUDGETAIRE DE LA DISSUASION................ 7 II. — LE CALENDRIER SERRE DU RENOUVELLEMENT DE LA FORCE OCEANIQUE STRATEGIQUE.......................................................................................................... 11 A. LE M 51, OUTIL PRINCIPAL ET EVOLUTIF DE LA DISSUASION .............................. 11 B. LA POURSUITE DU DEPLOIEMENT DES SOUS-MARINS DE NOUVELLE GENERATION................................................................................................... 12 III – LES FORCES AERIENNES STRATEGIQUES ......................................................... 15 IV. – LES PROGRAMMES DE LA DIRECTION DES APPLICATIONS MILITAIRES DU COMMISSARIAT A L’ENERGIE ATOMIQUE.................................................................. 19 A. UNE PART SIGNIFICATIVE DES CREDITS RELATIFS A LA DISSUASION NUCLEAIRE...................................................................................................... 19 B. L’EVOLUTION DU PROGRAMME
    [Show full text]
  • Format Acrobat
    N° 71 SÉNAT SESSION ORDINAIRE DE 2002-2003 Annexe au procès-verbal de la séance du 21 novembre 2002 AVIS PRÉSENTÉ au nom de la commission des Affaires étrangères, de la défense et des forces armées (1) sur le projet de loi de finances pour 2003, ADOPTÉ PAR L’ASSEMBLÉE NATIONALE, TOME IV DÉFENSE – NUCLÉAIRE, ESPACE ET SERVICES COMMUNS Par M. Jean FAURE, Sénateur. (1) Cette commission est composée de : M. André Dulait, président ; MM. Robert Del Picchia, Guy Penne, Jean-Marie Poirier, Michel Pelchat, Mme Danielle Bidard-Reydet, M. André Boyer, vice-présidents ; MM. Simon Loueckhote, Daniel Goulet, André Rouvière, Jean-Pierre Masseret, secrétaires ; MM. Jean-Yves Autexier, Jean-Michel Baylet, Mme Maryse Bergé-Lavigne, MM. Daniel Bernardet, Pierre Biarnès, Jacques Blanc, Didier Borotra, Didier Boulaud, Jean-Guy Branger, Mme Paulette Brisepierre, M. Robert Calmejane, Mme Monique Cerisier-ben Guiga, MM. Paul Dubrule, Hubert Durand-Chastel, Mme Josette Durrieu, MM. Claude Estier, Jean Faure, André Ferrand, Philippe François, Jean François-Poncet, Philippe de Gaulle, Mme Jacqueline Gourault, MM. Emmanuel Hamel, Christian de La Malène, René-Georges Laurin, Louis Le Pensec, Mme Hélène Luc, MM. Philippe Madrelle, Pierre Mauroy, Louis Mermaz, Mme Lucette Michaux-Chevry, MM. Louis Moinard, Xavier Pintat, Jean-Pierre Plancade, Bernard Plasait, Jean Puech, Yves Rispat, Roger Romani, Henri Torre, Xavier de Villepin, Serge Vinçon. Voir les numéros : Assemblée nationale (12ème législ.) : 230, 256 à 261 et T.A. 37 Sénat : 67 (2002-2003) Lois de finances. - 2 - SOMMAIRE Pages INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 5 CHAPITRE PREMIER - LE NUCLÉAIRE, L’ESPACE ET LES SERVICES COMMUNS DANS LE BUDGET DE LA DÉFENSE POUR 2003.....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • (CEA/DAM) Au Cœur De La Dissuasion Nucléaire Française
    La Direction des Applications Militaires (CEA/DAM) au cœur de la dissuasion au cœur de la dissuasion nucléaire française nucléaire dissuasion la de cœur au nucléaire française De l’ère des pionniers Direction des applications militaires au programme Simulation www-dam.cea.fr ISBN : 978-2-9574210-0-8 http://www.barcode-generator.de La Direction des Applications Militaires (CEA/DAM) (CEA/DAM) Militaires Applications des Direction La La Direction des Applications Militaires (CEA/DAM) au cœur de la dissuasion nucléaire française De l’ère des pionniers au programme Simulation SOMMAIRE CHAPITRE 1 5 DE BECQUEREL À GERBOISE BLEUE (1896 - 1960) Les premières découvertes scientifiques 12 Les atomiciens français dans la résistance à l’occupation nazie 14 La création du CEA 18 La planification industrielle de l’effort nucléaire français 21 Vers le premier essai nucléaire français 38 CHAPITR E 2 49 DE LA BOMBE ATOMIQUE À L’ARME THERMONUCLÉAIRE (1960 - 1968) Nucléaire de défense et programmation 54 L’émergence de la stratégie nucléaire française 58 La montée en puissance de la DAM 62 L’accès à la bombe H et le rôle clé des essais 66 CHAPITRE 3 71 LA CONSOLIDATION DU NUCLÉAIRE DE DÉFENSE FRANÇAIS (1969 - 1981) Le développement de la triade stratégique 76 Le développement de l’arme nucléaire tactique 80 La stratégie des essais 84 CHAPITRE 4 89 ENTRE RUPTURES ET CONTINUITÉ (1981 - 1996) Modernisation des forces et fin de la guerre froide 94 La politique française de désarmement 98 Du moratoire à l’arrêt définitif des essais 104 CHAPITRE 5 107 LA SIMULATION, OUTIL ULTIME DE GARANTIE DES ARMES NUCLÉAIRES FRANÇAISES (DEPUIS 1996) Le développement du programme Simulation 118 La politique d’ouverture du CEA/DAM 126 La DAM, acteur incontournable de l’appareil de défense français 130 DE BECQUEREL À GERBOISE BLEUE 18961 - 1960 Cette première partie est centrée sur les débuts la France Libre a poursuivi cette activité dans le plus de l’énergie nucléaire en France.
    [Show full text]
  • British, French and Chinese Nuclear Arsenals: Research Findings and Arms Control Implications
    BRITISH, FRENCH AND CHINESE NUCLEAR ARSENALS: RESEARCH FINDINGS AND ARMS CONTROL IMPLICATIONS A Paper Prepared for the 4th ISODARCO Beijing Seminar on Anns Control Robert S. Norris Natural Resources Defense Council 1350 New York Avenue NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20005 Tel: 202-624-9328 Fax: 202-783-5917 The purpose of this paper is to report on the research findings contained in a new book by NRDC,British, French, and Chinese Nuclear Weapons,Volume V of the Nuclear Weapons Databook series, published in March by Westview Press, and to examine some of the arms control implications of these second tier powers' nuclear arsenals and policies. To keep my remarks brief I have been very concise in presenting the key findings. Let us first review the major research findings about Great Britain. * The current British stockpile has about 200 warheads of two types with a cumulative yield of approximately 35 megatons (see Table 2). Britain has the smallest operational stockpile of the three nations in the study, making it the fifth largest nuclear weapons state in the world. * Britain has produced about 835 warheads of eight types--including 45 for the nuclear test program-over a 40-year period. This figure represents about 1.2 percent of the some 70,000 warheads that the U.S. has produced. * The book presents the Erst published pictures of several types of British bombs, including the Red Beard, Yellow Sun, and WE 177. * The warhead stockpile has remained fairly steady from the 1960s through the late 1980s--in the 300 to 350 ranee.
    [Show full text]
  • French Nuclear Deterrence Policy, Forces, and Future: a Handbook
    French Nuclear Deterrence Policy, Forces, And Future: A Handbook Recherches & Documents N°4/2020 Bruno Tertrais Deputy director, Fondation pour la recherche stratégique Updated February 2020 www.frstrategie.org French Nuclear Deterrence Policy, Forces, And Future: A Handbook Édité et diffusé par la Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique 4 bis rue des Pâtures – 75016 PARIS ISSN : 1966-5156 ISBN : 978-2-490100-17-0 EAN : 9782490100170 Author’s note: this monograph was designed as an unclassified and factual summary of French nuclear policy. It was originally written in French at the request of and with support from the French Ministry of the ArMed Forces, and published as La France et la dissuasion nucléaire: concept, moyens, avenir (La Documentation française, new edition 2017). Translated, adapted and updated by the author with support from the French Ministry of the ArMed Forces. The author remains solely responsible for its content. The author would like to extend a particular word of thanks to Sylvie Le Sage (Ministry of the ArMed Forces), who diligently and carefully reviewed this English translation. Any errors, however, remain his. 2 FONDATION pour la RECHERCHE STRATÉ GIQUE Key numbers and figures (2020) Nuclear weapons less than 300 Nuclear forces 3 (air, sea, aircraft carrier) SSBN bases 1 (Ile longue) SSBNs 4 (of which 3 in the operational cycle) M51 SLBMs 48 (3 batches of 16) Warheads per SLBM variable Nuclear air bases 3 (Saint-Dizier, Avord, Istres) Nuclear-capable aircraft 2 squadrons of Rafale, 1 flottilla of Rafale-M ASMPA
    [Show full text]
  • Tactical Nuclear Weapons
    UNIDIR/2000/21 Tactical Nuclear Weapons A Perspective from Ukraine A. SHEVTSOV, A. YIZHAK, A. GAVRISH AND A. CHUMAKOV UNIDIR United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research Geneva, Switzerland NOTE The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. * * * The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Secretariat. UNIDIR/2000/21 UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION Sales No. GV.E.01.0.1 ISBN 92-9045-138-6 iii CONTENTS Page Acronyms ............................................. v Preface .............................................. vii Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Europe: History of Deployment ....1 Dynamics of Deployment During the Cold War .............1 Objectives of TNW Deployment ........................7 Tactical Nuclear Weapons Today .......................12 Development of Concepts of Use of TNWs ...............23 Renunciation of Nuclear Weapons: The History of Ukraine .....29 Tactical Nuclear Weapons in the New European Security System: To Be or Not to Be? ......................37 The Liberal and Pragmatic Approaches to Nuclear Disarmament ............................37 Obligations under the NPT and their Fulfilment ............40 Legality of the Use of Nuclear Weapons by
    [Show full text]
  • NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC Nuclear Program 1350 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 300 Washington D.C
    NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC Nuclear Program 1350 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 300 Washington D.C. 20005 Voice: 202-783-7800 (main) 202-624-9350 (Paine) 202-624-9329 (Cochran) 202-624-9328 (Norris) Fax: 202-783-5917 Internet: nrdcnuclear@igc. apc.org Evenings/weekend contact number: 703-527-0306 (Paine) Each of the five declared' nuclear powers--the United States, Soviet Union, Great Britain, France, and China--have gone through similar seeps to create their nuclear arsenals. I After a political decision to develop and test an atomic bomb there followed large scale' mobilization of scientific and engineering resources. Huge facilities were built to produce the fissile materials-- highly enriched uranium and plutonium--supplemented by laboratories, test sites and other essentials. A parallel effort was undertaken to develop and produce delivery systems, such as aircraft, missiles, ships and submarines. The U.S. and Soviet Union engaged in these activities on an enormous scale. While the three second-tier powers were much more modest in deploying their arsenals, they ,still managed to spend huge sums when measured on a per capita basis. The first U.S. test, codenamed "Trinity," on July 16, 1945 at the Alamogordo Bombing Range in south-central New Mexico was of a plutonium weapon. This was the culmination of a 27-month crash effort--to develop, test, and use an atomic bomb--known as the Manhattan Project. A B-29 bomber, named the "Enola Gay", flew over Hiroshima, Japan, on August 6; 1945, and at.g: 15 in the morning, local time, dropped an untested uranium- 235 gun-assembly bomb; nicknamed "Little' Boy.
    [Show full text]
  • N° 2862 Assemblée Nationale
    N° 2862 —— ASSEMBLÉE NATIONALE CONSTITUTION DU 4 OCTOBRE 1958 TREIZIÈME LÉGISLATURE Enregistré à la Présidence de l’Assemblée nationale le 14 octobre 2010. AVIS PRÉSENTÉ AU NOM DE LA COMMISSION DE LA DÉFENSE NATIONALE ET DES FORCES ARMÉES, SUR LE PROJET DE loi de finances pour 2011 (n° 2824) TOME VII DÉFENSE ÉQUIPEMENT DES FORCES – DISSUASION PAR M. FRANÇOIS CORNUT-GENTILLE, Député. —— Voir le numéro : 2857 (annexe n° 10) — 3 — S O M M A I R E _____ Pages INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................... 11 PRÉAMBULE : SUIVI DES RECOMMANDATIONS PARLEMENTAIRES ....................... 15 I. — LE SUIVI DES RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORTEUR EN 2010................................... 15 A. LA FIN DE LA SANCTUARISATION BUDGÉTAIRE ................................................................ 15 B. L’ÉTAT DE LA DÉFENSE EUROPÉENNE ................................................................................ 16 C. L’IMPACT DE PLAN DE RELANCE............................................................................................ 17 D. LES COMPÉTENCES DE MAÎTRISE D’OUVRAGE DE LA DGA.......................................... 18 E. LES CENTRES D’ESSAIS DE LA DGA...................................................................................... 19 F. L’INSTRUCTION 1514 ET LA DÉMARCHE INCRÉMENTALE............................................... 19 G. LE SUIVI POLITIQUE DES GRANDS PROGRAMMES D’ARMEMENT............................... 19 H. L’ABANDON DE
    [Show full text]