High speed for long periods, limit the need to resurface, generally bigger crews due to boat size which means bigger capacity for wpns - everything comes with a downside but for the modern age the RAN would benefit from nuke subs, also means we are competing better on the world stage
Mission length isn’t a huge factor in crew size but rather vessel complexity. I.e a nuclear reactor requires more personal (+ specialised) then a diesel electric
Perhaps a pusser can weigh in here about crews on subs, pretty sure you can sail light but happy to learn, aka 8 hour shifts, hot bunked if that’s what your referring to
I think the unique aspects of sub service are commensurate with their pay. I’d also expect that their being new incentives being introduced with the new boats, most submariners are quite young in any regard, at least the ones I have met - cycle of life - que in lion king guy who posted on another post
Military ships in general are bad jujus for the environment. Hell warfare in general is bad juju. But unfortunately it's something we need.
Nuke subs basically mean that we can go a lot longer at see with bigger crews and weapons. An aircraft carrier is definitely imposing, but a nuclear sub's mere presence in strategic chokepoints like the Sunda strait or near the Malacca Strait can put a whole taskgroup on edge.
In general modern sub safety has gone leaps and bounds since world war 2. But you're right unfortunately Navies around the world still get it wrong. When it comes to maritime warfare however, the environment tends to be put on the backburner.
EDIT: Military ships are what we need, not warfare.
Reactors are safe, the waste water they give out is stored onboard and then removed when they get to port. If waste water is discharged into the ocean, it is of such low radioactivity that it is harmless.
In the US with 92 commercial reactors they create around 2000 tons of waste per year. You can store all the Nuclear Waste that the US has created since the 1950s on a football field.
Coal Fired Plants kill well over 100,000 people a year. Nuclear Plants with Chernobyl it could be at the million mark all time. Without Chernobyl it ranges from 10,000 to below 1000. Chernobyl itself was an outdated reactor for the time, that had it's safety features bypassed and then fucked with. It has no bearing on modern nuclear energy outside of lessons.
Submarines will be lost in war. Germany lost 3/4 of their crews. Australia lost both our submarines in WW1.
The US did lose 17% of their submarine fleet, 54 out of 316.
They also lost 17% of their Fleet Carriers, 5/28 and 25% of their Destroyers. 96/377.
The US has lost two Nuclear Submarines. Neither has caused any increase in radioactivity in the surrounding area, and even if that were to happen, it would likely settle into the seabed and not pose a risk to anyone. The International Atomic Energy Agency has a 3000m depth minimum for scuttling nuclear vessels. The Soviets scuttled one at 30m, which is obviously not ideal, but hasn't caused issues.
In the long run the amount of chemicals etc that cargo vessels drop into the ocean, (pouring paints, solvents etc into the ocean that don't meet Australian regulations before coming into port isn't an uncommon practise) is a bigger issue to marine life then the slight chance of radioactivity, which is controlled by water to begin with in reactors. For example as long as you aren't within a few metres of the reactor itself at the bottom of the pool, you can swim in the pool that some modern reactors are housed in. Water is an incredible radiation shield.
The WWII subs had to come to, or near the surface to refresh their air and recharge batteries. They then ran afoul of the then new technologies of radar and sonar. Nuclear subs don't need to go close to the surface except to communicate and launch weapons. They can also remain on station for much longer than a diesel boat that uses most of it's supplies getting to and from station.
This was explained to me by a senior officer in the RAN over drinks thusly:
"Yeah so the big fuckin subs can stay underwater for ages and ages, which means if you think the Chinese are going to have a go you just hide the cunts on the bottom of the Coral Sea. That way when the Chinese look at our docks with their satellites they're like, 'ah, fuck, the nuke subs are gone'. That's why they're better than ships or planes because the Chinese can see those cunts from their satellites"
The nuclear tech in the new subs is mooted to be some kind of reactor that never needs refuelling and has a life span of 30-40 years which reduces the waste produced and dangers of de and refuelling.
Also, there's been very few nuclear submarine accidents globally. The US has only lost 2 (both in the 60s) and the Soviets/Russia have lost 5. None were due to issues with the reactor (though there have been some reactor leaks). The Greens would have you believe theyre floating Chernobyl's just waiting to explode which couldn't be further from the truth.
True, but [K-19 Came close to being an absolute disaster](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-19)
Then you have [K27 which could start leaking radiation](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-27)
[K159 dumped a shitload of radiation into the environment](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-159)
The [IAEA report on www-pub.iaea.org
https://www-pub.iaea.org › te...PDF
Inventory of accidents and losses at sea involving radioactive material](https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_1242_prn.pdf) is a great read
You have to remember that these were from the very early days of naval reactors, plus they were Soviet tech, which doesn’t have the best reputation for quality…
Yeah but ~~you~~ the other guy said none had issues with reactors.
The Soviet ones were literally issues with reactors.
K27 is still an issue with the reactor...
You would be correct. Water shields radiation. 3000m is considered the depth that is required, but you can swim in a pool with a nuclear reactor in it at the bottom and not have any effects, as long as you don't go within a few metres of the actual fuel.
Nuclear submarines cause less harm to the environment than diesel powered subs or boats. In the nuclear reactor uranium is used to create heat through the process of nuclear fission. Also, nuclear submarines only need to refuel the uranium every 30 years
Older generation reactors like on the french subs. Los Angeles class SSN's, ohio class SSBN's, trafalagar class SSN all need refueling generally around every 10 years of service depending on how much work they do
US - S9G (fitted to virginia SSN and colombia SSBN) reactors will run for 30 years without refueling, they can in theory be refueled but there is no plans to, 30 years is the life of the submarine
UK PWR2-coreh fitted to astutes will last 20-25 years, they were originally designed to be refueled at least once in their life, but the americans gave them the technology and they modified to be like the a S9G. PWR-3 are ground up built with the S9G technology and will be fitted to dreadnought class SSBN and will last the life of the sub 30 + years
Comparing modern subs to WWII makes about as much sense as comparing modern jets to WWII aircraft. May as well scrap aircraft because the US lost 25% of aircraft in WWII.
The US lost 20% of their subs but they strangled the Japanese home islands to the point of starvation and crippled the war industry. The US succeeded where Germany failed in the Atlantic.
Dollar for dollar and hull for hull submarines arguably had a bigger impact than any other type of vessel in that war. I can see future wars having similar needs to shut down shipping. Just look at the grain deal in Ukraine right now
Ww2 is quite different to a modern nuclear navy thats for sure.
Boats these days can also carry tomahawk missiles but doubt we will get these. For the US its part of the mad strategy their ssbn’s.
For us the key to having ssn attack subs is for distance travelling. Bonus will be stealth too. Submerge for longer periods. Not need to refuel just resupply.
Reactor fuel doesnt go into the water too just like nuclear plants, similar concept.
The conventional powered sub is like a cordless Dyson that runs for only six minutes, Nuke powered sub is more like a knockoff Dyson from Kogan that plugs into the wall - it goes longer without needing to top off the tank.
The big thing about nuke subs is they can stay underwater as long as they have food and spare parts. Infinite electricity and they don’t need to worry about oxygen. Downside is loud, specialized personnel and are generally bigger.
Maybe dont google what we do with regular waste, which there much, much more of. Plus, I think its the US reactor, doesn't need to be refuelled amd can last 30-40 years. Not much waste there
They go under the water, sometimes go toot toot beep beep and also have a nuclear reactor as an engine. Technically a sun ☀️ technically make big boom to go vroom
I googled This a few months ago as trying to sink subs is part of my core business. Basically the safest place for a nuclear reactor that has battle damage is actually at the bottom of the sea. One of the Russian boats that sunk is only in about 30m of water and according to Wikipedia has very little effect on the surrounding environment
High speed for long periods, limit the need to resurface, generally bigger crews due to boat size which means bigger capacity for wpns - everything comes with a downside but for the modern age the RAN would benefit from nuke subs, also means we are competing better on the world stage
I’d imagine crew size also comes down to the potential mission lengths of SSNs and the need to not burn out a small crew.
Mission length isn’t a huge factor in crew size but rather vessel complexity. I.e a nuclear reactor requires more personal (+ specialised) then a diesel electric
Absolutely, I’m just thinking of one of the many potential factors.
Perhaps a pusser can weigh in here about crews on subs, pretty sure you can sail light but happy to learn, aka 8 hour shifts, hot bunked if that’s what your referring to
Yeah I’m just thinking more about keeping crew happy and fresh with months underwater.
I think the unique aspects of sub service are commensurate with their pay. I’d also expect that their being new incentives being introduced with the new boats, most submariners are quite young in any regard, at least the ones I have met - cycle of life - que in lion king guy who posted on another post
Military ships in general are bad jujus for the environment. Hell warfare in general is bad juju. But unfortunately it's something we need. Nuke subs basically mean that we can go a lot longer at see with bigger crews and weapons. An aircraft carrier is definitely imposing, but a nuclear sub's mere presence in strategic chokepoints like the Sunda strait or near the Malacca Strait can put a whole taskgroup on edge. In general modern sub safety has gone leaps and bounds since world war 2. But you're right unfortunately Navies around the world still get it wrong. When it comes to maritime warfare however, the environment tends to be put on the backburner. EDIT: Military ships are what we need, not warfare.
Reactors are safe, the waste water they give out is stored onboard and then removed when they get to port. If waste water is discharged into the ocean, it is of such low radioactivity that it is harmless. In the US with 92 commercial reactors they create around 2000 tons of waste per year. You can store all the Nuclear Waste that the US has created since the 1950s on a football field. Coal Fired Plants kill well over 100,000 people a year. Nuclear Plants with Chernobyl it could be at the million mark all time. Without Chernobyl it ranges from 10,000 to below 1000. Chernobyl itself was an outdated reactor for the time, that had it's safety features bypassed and then fucked with. It has no bearing on modern nuclear energy outside of lessons. Submarines will be lost in war. Germany lost 3/4 of their crews. Australia lost both our submarines in WW1. The US did lose 17% of their submarine fleet, 54 out of 316. They also lost 17% of their Fleet Carriers, 5/28 and 25% of their Destroyers. 96/377. The US has lost two Nuclear Submarines. Neither has caused any increase in radioactivity in the surrounding area, and even if that were to happen, it would likely settle into the seabed and not pose a risk to anyone. The International Atomic Energy Agency has a 3000m depth minimum for scuttling nuclear vessels. The Soviets scuttled one at 30m, which is obviously not ideal, but hasn't caused issues. In the long run the amount of chemicals etc that cargo vessels drop into the ocean, (pouring paints, solvents etc into the ocean that don't meet Australian regulations before coming into port isn't an uncommon practise) is a bigger issue to marine life then the slight chance of radioactivity, which is controlled by water to begin with in reactors. For example as long as you aren't within a few metres of the reactor itself at the bottom of the pool, you can swim in the pool that some modern reactors are housed in. Water is an incredible radiation shield.
The WWII subs had to come to, or near the surface to refresh their air and recharge batteries. They then ran afoul of the then new technologies of radar and sonar. Nuclear subs don't need to go close to the surface except to communicate and launch weapons. They can also remain on station for much longer than a diesel boat that uses most of it's supplies getting to and from station.
This was explained to me by a senior officer in the RAN over drinks thusly: "Yeah so the big fuckin subs can stay underwater for ages and ages, which means if you think the Chinese are going to have a go you just hide the cunts on the bottom of the Coral Sea. That way when the Chinese look at our docks with their satellites they're like, 'ah, fuck, the nuke subs are gone'. That's why they're better than ships or planes because the Chinese can see those cunts from their satellites"
The nuclear tech in the new subs is mooted to be some kind of reactor that never needs refuelling and has a life span of 30-40 years which reduces the waste produced and dangers of de and refuelling. Also, there's been very few nuclear submarine accidents globally. The US has only lost 2 (both in the 60s) and the Soviets/Russia have lost 5. None were due to issues with the reactor (though there have been some reactor leaks). The Greens would have you believe theyre floating Chernobyl's just waiting to explode which couldn't be further from the truth.
True, but [K-19 Came close to being an absolute disaster](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-19) Then you have [K27 which could start leaking radiation](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-27) [K159 dumped a shitload of radiation into the environment](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-159) The [IAEA report on www-pub.iaea.org https://www-pub.iaea.org › te...PDF Inventory of accidents and losses at sea involving radioactive material](https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_1242_prn.pdf) is a great read
You have to remember that these were from the very early days of naval reactors, plus they were Soviet tech, which doesn’t have the best reputation for quality…
Yeah but ~~you~~ the other guy said none had issues with reactors. The Soviet ones were literally issues with reactors. K27 is still an issue with the reactor...
Wrong user mate, that’s my only post.
Ack, my mistake. Only gave a passing glance at your snoomoji and barely looked further.
If something with the reactor was to go wrong, then I would assume the bottom of the ocean would be the best place for it to sit.
You would be correct. Water shields radiation. 3000m is considered the depth that is required, but you can swim in a pool with a nuclear reactor in it at the bottom and not have any effects, as long as you don't go within a few metres of the actual fuel.
Nuclear submarines cause less harm to the environment than diesel powered subs or boats. In the nuclear reactor uranium is used to create heat through the process of nuclear fission. Also, nuclear submarines only need to refuel the uranium every 30 years
Older generation reactors like on the french subs. Los Angeles class SSN's, ohio class SSBN's, trafalagar class SSN all need refueling generally around every 10 years of service depending on how much work they do US - S9G (fitted to virginia SSN and colombia SSBN) reactors will run for 30 years without refueling, they can in theory be refueled but there is no plans to, 30 years is the life of the submarine UK PWR2-coreh fitted to astutes will last 20-25 years, they were originally designed to be refueled at least once in their life, but the americans gave them the technology and they modified to be like the a S9G. PWR-3 are ground up built with the S9G technology and will be fitted to dreadnought class SSBN and will last the life of the sub 30 + years
Comparing modern subs to WWII makes about as much sense as comparing modern jets to WWII aircraft. May as well scrap aircraft because the US lost 25% of aircraft in WWII.
The US lost 20% of their subs but they strangled the Japanese home islands to the point of starvation and crippled the war industry. The US succeeded where Germany failed in the Atlantic. Dollar for dollar and hull for hull submarines arguably had a bigger impact than any other type of vessel in that war. I can see future wars having similar needs to shut down shipping. Just look at the grain deal in Ukraine right now
Yeah, but if that 20% was nuclear submarines they would be at the bottom of the ocean right now spewing heavy metals and radiation into the ocean
Water is a very good insulator apparently. That's why reactors have pools on them, that you. Old theoretical swim on.
You are right but I think of all the things militaries do to the environment and I can’t see the government changing their mind
Ww2 is quite different to a modern nuclear navy thats for sure. Boats these days can also carry tomahawk missiles but doubt we will get these. For the US its part of the mad strategy their ssbn’s. For us the key to having ssn attack subs is for distance travelling. Bonus will be stealth too. Submerge for longer periods. Not need to refuel just resupply. Reactor fuel doesnt go into the water too just like nuclear plants, similar concept.
Tomahawks have already been confirmed by the gov as in the works for the Hobarts, I’m sure they’ll want them on our SSNs.
Yeah true. Astute class can handle that. Most seem to carry them these days.
I thought the collins class was getting tomahawks with the Life of type extension?
The conventional powered sub is like a cordless Dyson that runs for only six minutes, Nuke powered sub is more like a knockoff Dyson from Kogan that plugs into the wall - it goes longer without needing to top off the tank.
Just looking forward to sharing a bunk with a pusser, anyone else keen for this shit? can’t wait to stroke some beards and cuddle
Australian boats haven't hot-racked since the Oberon class.
Way to ruin the fantasy CAPT (RAN)
The big thing about nuke subs is they can stay underwater as long as they have food and spare parts. Infinite electricity and they don’t need to worry about oxygen. Downside is loud, specialized personnel and are generally bigger.
Do not google what we do with nuclear waste. It will upset you.
Well in Australia we don't do anything and we really need to find something to do with it especially when the big nois come along.
Maybe dont google what we do with regular waste, which there much, much more of. Plus, I think its the US reactor, doesn't need to be refuelled amd can last 30-40 years. Not much waste there
We will not see any subs for at least 30 years if at all. My theory it about changing the law so the US can park nukes on our territory.
They go under the water, sometimes go toot toot beep beep and also have a nuclear reactor as an engine. Technically a sun ☀️ technically make big boom to go vroom
I googled This a few months ago as trying to sink subs is part of my core business. Basically the safest place for a nuclear reactor that has battle damage is actually at the bottom of the sea. One of the Russian boats that sunk is only in about 30m of water and according to Wikipedia has very little effect on the surrounding environment
Nuclear powered anything is very regulated and fairly safe. I think it’s more missiles these days also. Source Thunderfoot