Форум » Дискуссии » Уран,Плутоний,Золото,Платина,Бериллий,Три́тий ... » Ответить
Уран,Плутоний,Золото,Платина,Бериллий,Три́тий ...
milstar: http://www.thebulliondesk.com/ Деньги любят тишину… Соглашение о продаже нашего оружейного урана Соединенным Штатам продолжает действовать Николай Леонов Генерал-лейтенант КГБ, начальник Аналитического управления 09.03.2011 История эта - тщательно замалчиваемая. Кто-то из «новых русских» часто произносил известную фразу: «Деньги любят тишину, а большие деньги – мертвую тишину». Под эти «критерии» подпадает операция с продажей российского оружейного урана и плутония Соединенным Штатам Америки, начатая в 1993-м. Уже в последние годы существования Советского Союза Михаил Горбачев был постоянно озабочен поиском возможностей потрафить Западу, заручиться благорасположением Соединенных Штатов. В этом ряду - его соглашение от 7 декабря 1987-го с Вашингтоном о ликвидации ракет средней и меньшей дальности. В соответствии с текстом документа СССР и США обязывались в течение трех лет уничтожить все имевшиеся у них баллистические и крылатые ракеты с дальностью стрельбы от 500 до 1000 километров - так называемые «ракеты меньшей дальности» и с дальностью стрельбы от 1000 до 5500 километров - так называемые «ракеты средней дальности». На первый взгляд, соглашение выглядело разумным: избыточный арсенал накопленных ракет и атомных головок был слишком велик. Но М. Горбачев и Э. Шеварднадзе не учли того обстоятельства, что очень многие страны из числа соседей СССР - КНР, КНДР, Индия, Пакистан, Иран, Израиль - начинали к тому времени активно развивать свое ракетостроение, создавая именно носители «меньшей» и «средней» дальности. Их арсенал не представлял угрозы для США, но советская территория оказывалась в пределах досягаемости. Все время играя в «поддавки» с США, М. Горбачев, не спросив никого из своих военных советников, согласился уничтожить и самый современный по тем временам советский ракетный комплекс «Ока», который даже не входил в категорию ракет «меньшей дальности» - он был типичным тактическим оружием, имел дальность стрельбы меньше 500 километров. Но для США «Ока» была как камушек в сапоге солдата на марше. Эта самоходная установка могла использовать и обычные и ядерные боеприпасы, она действовала на нервы воякам из армий НАТО, и те уговорили Генерального секретаря ЦК КПСС согласиться на ее уничтожение. Чего никогда не простили ему наши военные. Итак, к началу 90-х годов со всех уничтожаемых ракет были сняты ядерные боеголовки, которые складировали в хранилищах, а сами носители разрушили. А тут подоспел развал Советского Союза. Часть ракетно-ядерных комплексов оказалась на территориях новых государств - Украины, Белоруссии и Казахстана, что вызвало глубокую озабоченность в США, для которых увеличение числа ядерных держав в мире всегда было и остается неприемлемым. Единственное исключение они охотно делают только для Израиля, как известно. Украину, Белоруссию и Казахстан под прямой угрозой заблокировать их прием в ООН западные страны заставили безоговорочно сдать оказавшееся под их контролем ракетно-ядерное оружие России, которая брала на себя обязательство обеспечить его безопасное хранение. В 1992-м был подписан так называемый Лиссабонский протокол, по которому Украина, Белоруссия и Казахстан были объявлены странами, не имеющими ядерного оружия. В результате всех этих событий к 1993-му на военных складах Российской Федерации скопилось около 500 тонн оружейного урана, снятого со всех видов уничтоженных ракетных комплексов ------------------------------------------------------------- . Для сравнения: в атомной бомбе, сброшенной на Хиросиму, было всего 10 кг оружейного урана. К этому времени российское правительство, постоянно испытывавшее катастрофическую нехватку средств для пополнения госбюджета, получило вкрадчивое предложение от США, выразивших готовность скупить весь этот урановый «излишек» за 12 миллиардов долларов. Борису Ельцину и Виктору Черномырдину идея показалась весьма привлекательной и даже спасительной. В то время российское правительство было похоже на алкоголика, испытывавшего жестокий синдром похмелья и готового за стакан водки отдать что угодно, не то, что урановый «излишек». Переговоры шли споро и в полном секрете. С американской стороны их вел вице-президент Альберт Гор, с российской - премьер-министр Виктор Черномырдин, поэтому достигнутая договоренность получила их имена. Соглашение специально «загнали» на столь высокий уровень - чтобы не выносить текст соглашения на ратификацию законодательными органами двух стран. Дескать, речь - о простом межправительственном соглашении по экономическим вопросам, не затрагивающем проблемы безопасности государств. Европейские страны - Франция, Германия, Великобритания - узнавшие о ведущихся переговорах, выразили горячее желание принять в них участие и заполучить часть российского урана, но США вежливо - и жестко – пресекли их претензии в зародыше. Соглашение было подписано 18 февраля 1993-го. Оно предусматривало продажу в течение предстоявших 20 лет российского оружейного урана в количестве 500 тонн Соединенным Штатам Америки для использования его в атомной энергетике. Общая стоимость уникального товара была определена в 11,9 миллиарда долларов. Оружейный уран со степенью обогащения 90 процентов по изотопу U-235 должен был быть разбавлен на российских предприятиях до 4,4 процентной концентрации, что соответствует уровню ТВЭЛов - тепловыделяющих элементов, используемых в АЭС. В Соединенных Штатах на атомных электростанциях насчитывается 109 реакторов, которые, таким образом, получали запас энергетического сырья на много десятилетий вперед. --------------------- Первые партии низкообогащенного урана были отгружены из России в 1995-м. В США уплыли 186 тонн топливного урана, для изготовления которых были переработаны 244 боеголовки общим весом в 6 тонн оружейного урана. Дальше конвейер доставки в США ядерного топлива заработал с нарастающим темпом. К исходу 2008-го - последние известные мне данные - были уже проданы 352 тонны - из оговоренных 500 - оружейного урана. Это количество соответствует 14 тысячам демонтированных боеголовок. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Официальные ведомства России максимально засекретили всю информацию, связанную с этой сделкой, но сведения о ней все же просочились в 1997-м в прессу. Потом к этой теме обращались депутаты Государственной Думы Игорь Родионов, Виктор Черепков и другие: они запрашивали Федеральное агентство по атомной энергии, Министерство обороны и главу государства с просьбой дать полную информацию по этому соглашению, но не получили удовлетворявших их ответов. Тем временем в американских изданиях промелькнули сообщения о том, что Россия сильно продешевила при совершении сделки, ибо стоимость 500 тонн урана значительно выше цены, которая была определена соглашением. Намекали, что В. Черномырдин получил очень крупный «откат» за эту сделку. Джордж Буш-старший публично назвал В. Черномырдина «коррупционером». Французская газета «Монд» также отметилась подобными публикациями. Виктор Степанович грозился подать на них в суд за диффамацию, но отказался от таких намерений. Почему – неизвестно. Я дважды публично выступал по вопросам этой сделки. Первый раз - в 2005-м на Всемирном Русском Народном соборе, второй – в бытность депутатом Госдумы в 2006-м году в Комитете по безопасности. Выступление было приурочено к выполнению Россией половины своих обязательств по этой сделке: в США было отгружено 250 тонн оружейного урана. Я выступил с предложением выйти из этой коммерческой сделки, поскольку в 2006-м Россия уже не испытывала никаких финансовых трудностей, и остающиеся 250 тонн оружейного урана были для безопасности государства несравненно ценнее 6 миллиардов долларов. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Меня не поддержали, и выполнение наших обязательств продолжалось. Нынешний руководитель Росатома Сергей Кириенко открыто заявил недавно, что Россия безусловно выполнит к 2013-му все свои обязательства по соглашению и с гордостью добавил: «Мы уничтожаем гораздо больше высокообогащенного урана, чем США и все другие страны вместе взятые». ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.Kirienko -grazdanin IzraIya,ego nastojaschaja familiya Izraitel ######################################### Rossii neobxodimo 1.Razwernut RSMD s yabch protiv Izrailya . 2. Sposbstwowat sozdaniju MBR/ICBM s yabch w kazdoj strane ,wrzdebnoj bloku USA/NATO/Izrail Сейчас «придушенная» дискуссия свелась к вопросу о цене проданного урана. Самые отъявленные критики соглашения оценивают проданный уран в 8 триллионов долларов. Наиболее уравновешенные защитники позиции правительства сходятся на 50 миллиардах долларов - что в любом случае в 4 с лишним раза больше, чем реально полученная Россией сумма. Делались попытки определить стоимость проданного урана, сопоставив его энергетический потенциал с энергетическим потенциалом нефти. Нехитрые операции на калькуляторе показали: 1 тонна оружейного урана по тепловыделяющей способности равна 1 миллиону 350 тоннам нефти. Умножим эту последнюю цифру на 500 и получим 675 миллионов тонн нефти. Если принять среднюю цену нефти за 80 долларов за баррель, то окажется, что стоимость нашего урана, проданного в США, составила бы 405 миллиардов долларов, или в 35 раз больше, чем мы в реальности получили. Эти цифры наиболее близки к реальности. Но ведь не только деньгами – пусть даже очень большими - измеряется ценность оружейного урана. Россия уже никогда не сможет наработать такое его количество. Мы потеряли прежние месторождения урановой руды, оставшиеся в Казахстане, Узбекистане и на территории бывшей ГДР. В России сохранилась только одна шахта - в Иркутской области. Нет теперь и прежних обогатительных комбинатов. Когда руководителей нашей атомной промышленности упрекают в том, что мы продали за бесценок наше энергетическое будущее, они отмахиваются, уверяя, что у нас и без этого достаточно запасов расщепляющихся материалов. Но оппоненты не унимаются, настаивая на том, что, дескать, запасы оружейного урана у нас и в США были примерно одинаковыми, между 500 и 600 тоннами. Из этого делается вывод, что мы продали Соединенным Штатам практически большую часть нашего уранового достояния, чем нанесли непоправимый урон безопасности страны. Ссылаясь на данные американской прессы, оппоненты правительства утверждают, что США оценили свои запасы урана и плутония в 4 триллиона долларов, а скупили наши запасы за смехотворную сумму в 12 миллиардов. Внести ясность в эту запутанную ситуацию могли бы компетентные ведомства России, но они хранят гробовое молчание. С какой бы стороны мы не рассматривали эту сделку, придется признать, что она была крайне невыгодной для национальных интересов России. Соединенные Штаты, которые даже во сне мечтают об «атомной стерилизации» России, получили огромное преимущество в энергетической обеспеченности на длительный срок. Они мечтают о наступлении таких времен, когда у России будут вырваны «атомные зубы» и она утратит способность адекватно ответить на смертельный укус своего потенциального противника. Им долго ждать? Специально для Столетия http://www.stoletie.ru/rossiya_i_mir/dengi_lubat_tishinu_2011-03-09.htm http://com-stol.ru/?p=3502 http://www.proatom.ru/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=2870
milstar: Ceni na 2012 god https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mragheb/www/NPRE%20402%20ME%20405%20Nuclear%20Power%20Engineering/Isotopic%20Separation%20and%20Enrichment.pdf Obogaschenie yrana -81000 $ za funt ,primerno 180 000 $ za 1 kg ili 180 mln $ za tonnu
milstar: Linear-implosion weapons could use tampers or reflectors, but the overall diameter of the fissile-material plus tamper/reflector increases compared to the volume required for an untamped, unreflected pit. To fit weapons into small artillery-shells (155 mm and 152 mm are known; 105 mm has been alleged to be possible by nuclear-weapon designer Ted Taylor), bare pits may be required. Linear-implosion weapons have much lower efficiency due to low pressure, and require two to three times more nuclear-material than conventional implosion weapons. They are also considerably heavier, and much smaller than conventional implosion weapons. The W54 nuclear warhead used for special purposes and the Davy Crockett nuclear-artillery unit was about 11 inches diameter and weighs 51 pounds. The 155 mm W48 is 6 inches in diameter and weighs over twice as much, and probably requires twice as much plutonium. Independent researchers have determined that one model of US Army conventional implosion fission-weapon cost $1.25 million per-unit produced, of which $0.25 million was the total cost for all non-nuclear components and $1 million the cost of the plutonium. Linear-implosion weapons, requiring two to three times more plutonium, are considerably more expensive. http://www.tutorgig.info/ed/W79
milstar: .1.6.3.2 Linear Implosion In weapons with severe size (especially radius) and mass constraints (like artillery shells) some technique other than gun assembly may be desired. For example, plutonium cannot be used in guns at all so a plutonium fueled artillery shell requires some other approach. A low density, non-spherical, fissile mass can be squeezed and deformed into a supercritical configuration by high explosives without using neat, symmetric implosion designs. The technique of linear implosion, developed at LLNL, apparently accomplishes this by embedding an elliptical or football shaped mass in a cylinder of explosive, which is then initiated at each end. The detonation wave travels along the cylinder, deforming the fissile mass into a spherical form. Extensive experimentation is likely to be required to develop this into a usable technique. Three physical phenomenon may contribute to reactivity insertion: density increase due to collapsing voids in the core; density increase from phase transformations (if delta-phase plutonium is used); and reduction in surface area by deformation into a sphere (or approximate sphere). Since the detonation generated pressure are transient, and affect different parts of the mass at different times, compression to greater than normal densities do not occur. The reactivity insertion then is likely to be rather small, and weapon efficiency quite low (which can be offset by boosting). The use of metastable delta-phase plutonium alloys is especially attractive in this type of design. A rather weak impulse is sufficient to irreversibly collapse it into the alpha phase, giving a density increase of 23%. The supercritical mass formed by linear implosion is stable - it does not disassemble or expand once the implosion is completed. This relieves the requirement for a modulated neutron initiator, since spontaneous fission (or a calibrated continuous neutron source) can assure detonation. If desired, a low intensity initiator of the polonium/beryllium type can no doubt be used. Special initiation patterns may be advantageous in this design, such as annual initiation - where the HE cylinder is initiated along the rim of each end to create a convergent shock wave propagating up the cylinder. http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq4-1.html#Nfaq4.1.6.3 4.1.6.3.1 Complex Guns Additional improvements in gun system performance are possible by combining implosion with gun assembly. T ####################################################################### he implosion system here would be a very weak one - a layer of explosive to collapse a ring of fissile material or dense tamper on to the gun assembled core. This would allow further increases in the amount of fissile material used, and generate modest efficiency gains through small compression factors. A significant increase in insertion speed is also possible, which may be important where battlefield neutron sources may cause predetonation (this may make the technique especially attractive for artillery shell use). Complex gun approaches have reportedly been used in Soviet artillery shell designs. ###################################################
milstar: 4.1 Elements of Fission Weapon Design http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq4-1.html#Nfaq4.1.6.3 http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq4-5.html#Nfaq4.6.3
milstar: 152 mm projectile ZBV3 for self-propelled guns 2S19 Msta-S, 2S3 Acacia, 2S5 Giatsint-S, towed gun D-20, 2A36 Giatsint-B, and 2A65 Msta-B. The yield was 1 kiloton, maximum range 17.4 km. The nuclear weapon was designated RFYAC-VNIITF and designed by Academician E. I. Zababakhin in Snezhinsk. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_artillery#section_2 http://www.vniitf.ru/index.php/2010-08-20-07-38-20/2010-05-28-08-21-09/2010-05-28-08-38-03/105-2009-04-23-05-01-25 Diametr 330 mm pozwoljaet sozdat bombu s moschnostju 340 kt (B61-7-11)
milstar: The W82 was a low yield tactical nuclear warhead developed by the United States and designed to be used in a 155mm artillery shell (sometimes called the XM-735 shell). It was conceived as a more flexible replacement for the W48, the previous generation of 155mm nuclear artillery shell. A previous attempt to replace the W48 with the W74 munition was canceled due to cost. Originally envisioned as a dual purpose weapon, with interchangeable components to allow the shell to function as either a 'standard' fission explosive, or an "enhanced radiation" device, the warhead was developed at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory[1] starting in 1977. The eventual prototype round had a yield of 2 kilotons in a package 34 inches long and weighing 95 lbs,[1] which included the rocket-assisted portion of the shell. ------------------------------------------------- The unit cost of the weapon was estimated at $4 million.[2] http://www.flickr.com/photos/87913776@N00/3644851733/
milstar: 1.The smallest possible bomb-like object would be a single critical mass of plutonium (or U-233) at maximum density under normal conditions. An unreflected spherical http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/DoSuitcaseNukesExist.html alpha-phase critical mass of Pu-239 weighs 10.5 kg and is 10.1 cm across. 2. As little an excess as 10% (1.1 critical masses) can produce explosions of 10-20 tons. A mere 1.2 critical masses can produce explosive yield of 100 tons and 1.35 critical masses can reach 250 tons 3.At this point a nation with sophisticated weapons technology can employ fusion boosting to raise the yield well into the kiloton range without requiring additional fissile material. ne putat s thermonuklera 2- stupenchatij design fission -fusion ########################################## 4.The smallest diameter US test device publicly known was the UCRL Swift device fired in the Redwing Yuma shot on 28 May 1956 . It had a 5" (12.7 cm) diameter, a length of 62.2 cm (24.5 inches) and weighed 43.5 kg (96 lb). The test had a yield of 190 tons, but was intended to be fusion boosted (and thus would probably have had a yield in the kiloton range) but its yield was insufficient to ignite the fusion reaction and it failed to boost in this test 5.Later and lighter 155 mm designs were also developed -- the W74 (canceled early in development), and the W-82/XM-785 shell. The W82 had a yield of up to 2 kilotons and weighed 43 kg (95 lb), but included a number of sophisticated additional features within this weight. Since it was capable of being fielded with a "neutron bomb" (enhanced radiation) option, which is intrinsically more complex than a basic nuclear warhead, and was in addition rocket boosted, the actual minimum nuclear package was substantially lighter than the weight of the complete round. Its overall length was 86 cm (34"). 6.Later and lighter 155 mm designs were also developed -- the W74 (canceled early in development), and the W-82/XM-785 shell. The W82 had a yield of up to 2 kilotons and weighed 43 kg (95 lb), but included a number of sophisticated additional features within this weight. Since it was capable of being fielded with a "neutron bomb" (enhanced radiation) option, which is intrinsically more complex than a basic nuclear warhead, and was in addition rocket boosted, the actual minimum nuclear package was substantially lighter than the weight of the complete round. Its overall length was 86 cm (34"). 7.Compact nuclear artillery shells (208 mm and under) are based on a design approach called linear implosion. The linear implosion concept is that an elongated (football shaped) lower density subcritical mass of material can be compressed and deformed into a critical higher density spherical configuration by embedding it in a cylinder of explosives which are initiated at each end. As the detonation progresses from each direction towards the middle, the fissile mass is squeezed into a supercritical shape. 8.The Swift device is known to have been a linear implosion design. 9.f the yield is as much as 10 kilotons, then the device would have to be fusion boosted. ne putat s thermonuclear 2-stupenchatij fission -fusion #################################### 10.A somewhat more sophisticated variation would extend the linear implosion concept to cylindrical implosion, in this case an oblate (squashed) spheroid, roughly discus-shaped, of plutonium would be embedded in a cylinder of high explosive which is initiated simultaneously around its perimeter. The cylindrically converging detonation would compress and deform the fissile mass into a sphere, that could be wider than the original thickness of the system. This type of design would make the flattest possible bomb design, perhaps as little as 5 cm. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The ##only obvious application## for such a device would be briefcase bomb, and would require a special development effort to create it. ############# Oschibka ... ####### Primer Oniks /Bramos diametr 700 mm ,wes Bch -200 kg + wes RGSN 85 kg ,M2 pri wisote poleta 5 -10 metrow ymenschenie diametra poslednej chasti w 9 raz do 77.5 mm ,ymenschaet EPR w 81 raz pri prochix rawnix i sootw sokrascxhaet dalnost obnaruzeniaj w 3 raza snizenie dimaetra i wesa pozwolit poluchit bolee wisokie skorosti i yskorenija
milstar: Oralloy thermonuclear warheads In 1999, nuclear weapon design was in the news again, for the first time in decades. In January, the U.S. House of Representatives released the Cox Report (Christopher Cox R-CA) which alleged that China had somehow acquired classified information about the U.S. W88 warhead. Nine months later, Wen Ho Lee, a Taiwanese immigrant working at Los Alamos, was publicly accused of spying, arrested, and served nine months in pre-trial detention, before the case against him was dismissed. It is not clear that there was, in fact, any espionage. In the course of eighteen months of news coverage, the W88 warhead was described in unusual detail. The New York Times printed a schematic diagram on its front page.[36] The most detailed drawing appeared in A Convenient Spy, the 2001 book on the Wen Ho Lee case by Dan Stober and Ian Hoffman, adapted and shown here with permission. Designed for use on Trident II (D-5) submarine-launched ballistic missiles, the W88 entered service in 1990 and was the last warhead designed for the U.S. arsenal. It has been described as the most advanced, although open literature accounts do not indicate any major design features that were not available to U.S. designers in 1958. The above diagram shows all the standard features of ballistic missile warheads since the 1960s, with two exceptions that give it a higher yield for its size. The outer layer of the secondary, called the "pusher", which serves three functions: heat shield, tamper, and fission fuel, is made of U-235 instead of U-238, hence the name Oralloy (U-235) Thermonuclear. Being fissile, rather than merely fissionable, allows the pusher to fission faster and more completely, increasing yield. This feature is available only to nations with a great wealth of fissile uranium. ########################################### 500 tonn kotorogo Rossiya prodala w USA The United States is estimated to have 500 tons.[citation needed] The secondary is located in the wide end of the re-entry cone, where it can be larger, and thus more powerful. The usual arrangement is to put the heavier, denser secondary in the narrow end for greater aerodynamic stability during re-entry from outer space, and to allow more room for a bulky primary in the wider part of the cone. (The W87 warhead drawing in the previous section shows the usual arrangement.) Because of this new geometry, the W88 primary uses compact conventional high explosives (CHE) to save space,[37] rather than the more usual, and bulky but safer, insensitive high explosives (IHE). The re-entry cone probably has ballast in the nose for aerodynamic stability.[38] The alternating layers of fission and fusion material in the secondary are an application of the Alarm Clock/Sloika principle. http://www.enotes.com/topic/Nuclear_weapon_design
milstar: Oralloy thermonuclear warheads In 1999, nuclear weapon design was in the news again, for the first time in decades. In January, the U.S. House of Representatives released the Cox Report (Christopher Cox R-CA) which alleged that China had somehow acquired classified information about the U.S. W88 warhead. Nine months later, Wen Ho Lee, a Taiwanese immigrant working at Los Alamos, was publicly accused of spying, arrested, and served nine months in pre-trial detention, before the case against him was dismissed. It is not clear that there was, in fact, any espionage. In the course of eighteen months of news coverage, the W88 warhead was described in unusual detail. The New York Times printed a schematic diagram on its front page.[36] The most detailed drawing appeared in A Convenient Spy, the 2001 book on the Wen Ho Lee case by Dan Stober and Ian Hoffman, adapted and shown here with permission. Designed for use on Trident II (D-5) submarine-launched ballistic missiles, the W88 entered service in 1990 and was the last warhead designed for the U.S. arsenal. It has been described as the most advanced, although open literature accounts do not indicate any major design features that were not available to U.S. designers in 1958. The above diagram shows all the standard features of ballistic missile warheads since the 1960s, with two exceptions that give it a higher yield for its size. The outer layer of the secondary, called the "pusher", which serves three functions: heat shield, tamper, and fission fuel, is made of U-235 instead of U-238, hence the name Oralloy (U-235) Thermonuclear. Being fissile, rather than merely fissionable, allows the pusher to fission faster and more completely, increasing yield. This feature is available only to nations with a great wealth of fissile uranium. ########################################### 500 tonn kotorogo Rossiya prodala w USA The United States is estimated to have 500 tons.[citation needed] The secondary is located in the wide end of the re-entry cone, where it can be larger, and thus more powerful. The usual arrangement is to put the heavier, denser secondary in the narrow end for greater aerodynamic stability during re-entry from outer space, and to allow more room for a bulky primary in the wider part of the cone. (The W87 warhead drawing in the previous section shows the usual arrangement.) Because of this new geometry, the W88 primary uses compact conventional high explosives (CHE) to save space,[37] rather than the more usual, and bulky but safer, insensitive high explosives (IHE). The re-entry cone probably has ballast in the nose for aerodynamic stability.[38] The alternating layers of fission and fusion material in the secondary are an application of the Alarm Clock/Sloika principle. http://www.enotes.com/topic/Nuclear_weapon_design
milstar: http://www.arms-expo.ru/049051051052124050057053048.html ишенный ракетный комплекс "Кабан" (96М6М) создан Челябинским открытым акционерным обществом (ОАО) "Федеральный научно-производственный центр "Станкомаш" на базе существующих метеорологических ракет и обладает высокими имитационными возможностями. Подробнее: http://www.arms-expo.ru/049051051052124050057053048.html МОСКВА, 22 окт - РИА Новости. Расчеты зенитных ракетных систем С-300В впервые в учебно-боевой практике смогли поразить мишени, которые имитировали оперативно-тактические баллистические ракеты, сообщил журналистам в пятницу в Москве начальник зенитных ракетных войск (ЗРВ) Военно-воздушных сил генерал-майор Сергей Попов. "Благодаря кропотливой работе аппаратов зенитных ракетных войск Северо-Западного и Дальневосточного объединений ВВС и ПВО по подготовке зенитных ракетных частей С-300В два полка С-300В впервые смогли справиться с выполнением боевых стрельбы по ракетам-мишеням "Кабан", аналогам оперативно-тактических баллистических ракет". - сказал Попов. "Плотность удара достигала шести целей в минуту, а всего, за две минуты боя, было уничтожено 14 ракет-мишеней - аналогов перспективных средств воздушного нападения вероятного противника", - сказал генерал. "В целом, эффективность боевых стрельб зенитных ракетных частей составила более 85%", - сообщил начальник ЗРВ ВВС. Oсновные характеристики Калибр, мм 250 Длина, м 5,72 Масса, кг 330 Высота подъема, км 46 Дальность точки падения, км до 100 Время работы двигателя, с 4,5-9 Максимальная скорость, м/с 830-1300 Полное время полета, с 185 Подробнее: http://www.arms-expo.ru/049051051052124050057053048.html 250 mm *5720 mm / 1300 met .sec testirowanna yabch kalibrom w 2 raza nize 127 mm ,werojatno wozmozno i dalnejschee snizenie ############################################################### Snizenie klaibra w 2 raza = snizeniju fronatalnoj EPR w 4 raza ili snizeniju max. dalnosti w 1.4 raza ################################################################ Takze za schet snizenija kalibra i wesa mozno poluchit bolee wisokie yskorenija i dalnost #########################################################
milstar: 4.3.1 Fusion Boosted Fission Weapons Fusion boosting is a technique for increasing the efficiency of a small light weight fission bomb by introducing a modest amount of deuterium- tritium mixture (typically containing 2-3 g of tritium) inside the fission core. As the fission chain reaction proceeds and the core temperature rises at some point the fusion reaction begins to occur at a significant rate. This reaction injects fusion neutrons into the core, causing the neutron population to rise faster than it would from fission alone (that is, the effective value of alpha increases). The fusion neutrons are extremely energetic, seven times more energetic than an average fission neutron, which causes them to boost the overall alpha far out of proportion to their numbers. Is this due to several reasons: 1. Their high velocity creates the opposite of time absorption - time magnification. 2. When these energetic neutrons strike a fissile nucleus a much larger number of secondary neutrons are released (e.g. 4.6 vs 2.9 for Pu-239). 3. The fission cross section is larger in both absolute terms, and in proportion to scattering and capture cross sections. Taking these factors into account, the maximum alpha value for plutonium (density 19.8) is some 8 times higher than for an average fission neutron (2.5x10^9 vs 3x10^8). A sense of the potential contribution of fusion boosting can be gained by observing at 1.5 g of tritium (half an atom mole) will produce sufficient neutrons to fission 120 g of plutonium directly, and 660 g when the secondary neutrons are taken into account. This would release 11.6 kt of energy, and would by itself result in a 14.7% overall efficiency for a bomb containing 4.5 kg of plutonium (a typical small fission trigger). The fusion energy release is just 0.20 kt, less than 2% of the overall yield. Larger total yields and higher efficiency is possible of course, since this neglects the fission-only chain reaction required to ignite the fusion reaction in the first place and that fission multiplication would continue significantly beyond the fissions caused by the fusion induced secondaries. http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq4-3.html
milstar: Linear implosion Linear-implosion uses a mass of nuclear material which is more than one critical mass at normal pressure and in a spherical configuration. The mass, known as pit, is configured in a lower density non-spherical configuration prior to firing the weapon and then, small to moderate amounts of explosive collapse and slightly reshape the nuclear-material into a supercritical-mass which then undergoes chain-reaction and explodes. Three methods are known to compress and reshape the nuclear-material; collapsing hollow spaces inside the nuclear material, using plutonium-gallium alloy, which is stabilized in the low-density delta-phase at a density of 16.4 (and which collapses to denser alpha-phase under moderate explosive-compression), and shaping an explosive and nuclear material so that the explosive pressure changes a stretched-out, elliptical or football shape to collapse towards a spherical or more spherical end-shape. A bare critical mass of plutonium at normal density and without additional neutron reflector material is roughly 10 kilograms. To achieve a large explosive-yield, a linear-implosion weapon needs somewhat more material, on the order of 13 kilograms. 13 kilograms of alpha-phase (highest density) plutonium at a density of 19.8 g/cm^3 is 657 cubic centimeters, a sphere of radius 5.4 cm (diameter 10.8 cm / 4.25 inches). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W79 Linear-implosion weapons could use tampers or reflectors, but the overall diameter of the fissile-material plus tamper/reflector increases compared to the volume required for an untamped, unreflected pit. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To fit weapons into small artillery-shells (155 mm and 152 mm are known; 105 mm has been alleged to be possible by nuclear-weapon designer Ted Taylor), bare pits may be required. ############# Linear-implosion weapons have much lower efficiency due to low pressure, and require two to three times more nuclear-material than conventional implosion weapons. They are also considerably heavier, and much smaller than conventional implosion weapons. The W54 nuclear warhead used for special purposes and the Davy Crockett nuclear-artillery unit was about 11 inches diameter and weighs 51 pounds. The 155 mm W48 is 6 inches in diameter and weighs over twice as much, and probably requires twice as much plutonium. Independent researchers have determined that one model of US Army conventional implosion fission-weapon cost $1.25 million per-unit produced, of which $0.25 million was the total cost for all non-nuclear components and $1 million the cost of the plutonium. Linear-implosion weapons, requiring two to three times more plutonium, are considerably more expensive. ##########################################
milstar: 4.1.6.3.2 Linear Implosion In weapons with severe size (especially radius) and mass constraints (like artillery shells) some technique other than gun assembly may be desired. For example, plutonium cannot be used in guns at all so a plutonium fueled artillery shell requires some other approach. A low density, non-spherical, fissile mass can be squeezed and deformed into a supercritical configuration by high explosives without using neat, symmetric implosion designs. The technique of linear implosion, developed at LLNL, apparently accomplishes this by embedding an elliptical or football shaped mass in a cylinder of explosive, which is then initiated at each end. The detonation wave travels along the cylinder, deforming the fissile mass into a spherical form. Extensive experimentation is likely to be required to develop this into a usable technique. ###################################################### Three physical phenomenon may contribute to reactivity insertion: density increase due to collapsing voids in the core; density increase from phase transformations (if delta-phase plutonium is used); and reduction in surface area by deformation into a sphere (or approximate sphere). Since the detonation generated pressure are transient, and affect different parts of the mass at different times, ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- compression to greater than normal densities do not occur. The reactivity insertion then is likely to be rather small, and weapon efficiency quite low (which can be offset by boosting). ############################################################################## The use of metastable delta-phase plutonium alloys is especially attractive in this type of design. A rather weak impulse is sufficient to irreversibly collapse it into the alpha phase, giving a density increase of 23%. ########################################### The supercritical mass formed by linear implosion is stable - it does not disassemble or expand once the implosion is completed. This relieves the requirement for a modulated neutron initiator, since spontaneous fission (or a calibrated continuous neutron source) can assure detonation. If desired, a low intensity initiator of the polonium/beryllium type can no doubt be used. Special initiation patterns may be advantageous in this design, such as annual initiation - where the HE cylinder is initiated along the rim of each end to create a convergent shock wave propagating up the cylinder. http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq4-1.html#Nfaq4.1.6.3
milstar: 4.1.8 Fission Initiation Techniques It is a major problem in an implosion bomb since the interval during which the bomb is near optimum criticality is quite short - both in absolute length (less than a microsecond), and also as a proportion of the time the bomb is in a critical state. http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq4-1.html#Nfaq4.1.6.3 A far superior idea is to use a modulated neutron initiator - a neutron emitter or neutron generator that can be turned on at a specific time. This is a much more difficult approach to develop, regardless of the technique used. Modulated initiators can be either internal designs, which are placed inside the fissile pit and activated by the implosion wave, or external designs which are placed outside the fission assembly. It should be noted that it is very desirable for an initiator to emit at least several neutrons during the optimum period, since a single neutron may be captured without causing fission. If a large number can be generated then the total length of the chain reaction can be significantly shortened. A pulse of 1 million neutrons could cut the total reaction length by 25% or so (approx. 100 nanoseconds), which may be useful for ensuring optimal efficiency Early pulse neutron tubes used titanium hydride targets, but superior performance is obtained by using scandium hydride which is standard in current designs. A representative tube design is the unclassified Milli-Second Pulse (MSP) tube developed at Sandia. It has a scandium tritide target, containing 7 curies of tritium as 5.85 mg of ScT2 deposited on a 9.9 cm^2 molybdenum backing. A 0.19-0.25 amp deuteron beam current produces about 4-5 x 10^7 neutrons/amp-microsecond in a 1.2 millisecond pulse with accelerator voltages of 130-150 KeV for a total of 1.2 x 10^10 neutrons per pulse. For comparison the classified Sandia model TC-655, which was developed for nuclear weapons, produced a nominal 3 x 10^9 neutron pulse. 4.1.8.2 External Neutron Initiators (ENIs).
milstar: Despite hints to the contrary (for example Ted Taylor's comments in The Curve of Binding Energy among others), it is not plausible that true spherical implosion systems can be developed by a terrorist group. The difficulties in designing and making a working lens system appears to be simply insurmountable. Unfortunately, a spherical implosion system does not seem to be required for reasonably fast insertion at low levels of compression. Consider an implosion of a system that may be in one dimension (linear implosion), two dimensions (cylindrical implosion), or three dimensions (spherical implosion). If delta represents the change in system dimension (i.e. size - radius or length) along the axis or axes of compression in n dimensions (n equals 1, 2, or 3), then the compression C achieved by the implosion is: C = (r_0/(r_0 - delta))^n At very low degrees of compression, this is roughly equivalent to: C = n*(delta/r_0) + 1 That is, the excess density C - 1 is roughly proportional to the dimensional reduction ratio and the number of axes of compression. Thus for a given compression velocity, the actual rate of density increase for 3-D compression is three times faster than 1-D compression, but only 50% faster than 2-D compression. These differences are significant, but not dramatic. Developing linear and cylindrical implosion systems fast enough to produce a highly destructive terrorist bomb appears to be feasible. The flying plate line-charge approach is sufficiently simple, and testable, that a low resource group could develop a workable system. Even plane or cylindrical explosive lenses are not out of the question, although they are probably more difficult. http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/TerroristBombs.html
milstar: http://www.nci.org/NEW/NT/rgpu-mark-90.pdf
milstar: Allotropes of plutonium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allotropes_of_plutonium Densities of the different allotropes vary from 16.00 g/cm3 to 19.86 g/cm3. Plutonium in the δ phase (delta phase) normally exists in the 310 °C to 452 °C range but is stable at room temperature when alloyed with a small percentage of gallium, aluminium, or cerium, enhancing workability and allowing it to be welded in weapons applications. The delta phase has more typical metallic character, and is roughly as strong and malleable as aluminium. In fission weapons, the explosive shock waves used to compress a plutonium core will also cause a transition from the usual delta phase plutonium to the denser alpha phase, significantly helping to achieve supercriticality.[4] The plutonium-gallium alloy is the most common δ-stabilized alloy. delta plotnost -15.92 gramm/sm^3 alfa plotnost - 19.86 gramm/sm^3 The presence of these many allotropes makes machining plutonium very difficult, as it changes state very readily. For example, the α phase exists at room temperature in unalloyed plutonium. http://library.lanl.gov/cgi-bin/getfile?07-16.pdf http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/pubs/00818035.pdf
milstar: World Trade Center and the collapse of the twin towers, which experts estimate to be equivalent to between a 0.20 kiloton to 0.25-kiloton explosion. http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/furanium.asp
milstar: The U.S. W33 artillery shell, which the Pentagon retired from the stockpile, had a yield of about 12 kilotons and an overall mass of about 243 pounds (110 kg). It probably contained about 110 to 132 pounds (50 to 60 kg) of highly enriched uranium ------- This design appears to have been used in the U.S. W-33 atomic artillery shell, which is reported to have had an annular bore. 4.1.6.1.2 Double Gun Systems Significant weight savings a possible by using a "double-gun" - firing two projectiles at each other to achieve the same insertion velocity. With all other factors being the same (gun length, projectile mass, materials, etc.) the mass of a gun varies with the fourth power of velocity (doubling velocity requires quadrupling pressure, quadrupling barrel thickness increases mass sixteen-fold). By using two projectiles the required velocity is cut by half, and so is the projectile mass (for each gun). On the other hand, to keep the same total gun length though, the projectile must be accelerated in half the distance, and of course there are now two guns. The net effect is to cut the required mass by a factor of eight. The mass of the breech block (which seals the end of the gun) reduces this weight saving somewhat, and of course there is the offsetting added complexity. A double gun can improve on the achievable assembled mass size since the projectile mass is divided into two sub-critical pieces, each of which can be up to one critical mass in size. Modifying Eq. 4.1.6.1.1-1 we get: Eq. 4.1.6.1.1-3 M_c/((M - 2M_c)/M)^2 = M - 2M_c with a solution of M = 4.88 M_c. Taking into account the effect of differential reflector efficiency we get mass ratios of ratios of 3.56 (tungsten carbide) and 4 (beryllium) which give assembled mass size limits of M = 7.34 M_c and M = 8 M_c respectively. Another variant of the double gun concept is to still only have two fissile masses - a hollow mass and a cylindrical core as in the single gun - but to drive them both together with propellant. One possible design would be to use a constant diameter gun bore equal to the target diameter, with the smaller diameter core being mounted in a sabot. In this design the target mass would probably be heavier than the core/sabot system, so one end of the barrel might be reinforced to take higher pressures. Another more unusual approach would be to fire the target assembly down an annular (ring shaped) bore. This design appears to have been used in the U.S. W-33 atomic artillery shell, which is reported to have had an annular bore. These larger assembled masses give significantly more efficient bombs, but also require large amounts of fissile material to achieve them. And since there is no compression of the fissile material, the large efficiency gains obtainable through implosive compression is lost. These shortcomings can be offset somewhat using fusion boosting, but gun designs are inherently less efficient than implosion designs when comparing equal fisssile masses or yields. http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq4-1.html#Nfaq4.1.6.1
milstar: 4.1.6.2 Implosion Assembly High explosive driven implosion assembly uses the ability of shock waves to instantaneously compress and accelerate material to high velocities. This allows compact designs to rapidly compress fissile material to densities much higher than normal on a time scale of microseconds, leading to efficient and powerful explosions. The speed of implosion is typically several hundred times faster than gun assembly (e.g. 2-3 microseconds vs. 1 millisecond). Densities twice the normal maximum value can be reached, and advanced designs may be able to do substantially better than this (compressions of three and four fold are often claimed in the unclassified literature, but these seem exaggerated). Weapon efficiency is typically an order of magnitude better than gun designs. http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq4-1.html#Nfaq4.1.6.1 These curves also show that very high shock compressions (four and above) are so energetically expensive as to be infeasible. To achieve a factor of only 3, 7.1x10^11 ergs/g of uranium is required. Factoring implosion efficiency (30%), the high explosive (if it is TNT) must have a mass 56 times that of the material being compressed. Reports in the unclassified literature of compressions of four and higher can thus be safely discounted.
полная версия страницы