That’s Why Nuclear Submarines Are Much Scarier Than You Think
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 май 2024
- That's Why Nuclear Submarines Are Much Scarier Than You Think.
Nuclear submarines are some of the most lethal vessels in the world. When it seems so risky to have miniature nuclear reactors and earth-shattering weapons on board, why would you want them? Well, because they offer massive advantages when stalking and avoiding an enemy and we’re going to take a closer look at what these are.
Check out to our science channel ► Brain Impact: / brainimpact 
Авто/Мото
I served aboard a Thresher Class Nuc sub in the 1960's and then a Diesel sub in the late '60's. The Nuc's were very comfortable. The food great but several months submerged got old. The Diesel got more port time and had a different "feel" to them crew wise. Overall loved going to sea and glad I was never in the surface Navy.
1:49 diesel subs 'run more quietly'.
3:49 nuclear subs 'can be quieter than their diesel equivalents'.
Yeah thats when they run the diesel while snorkling otherwise the D/E is quiet af
diesel subs are much quieter than nuclear when submerged running on battery; on surface running diesel engines they are noisy. Nuclear are very quiet at slow speeds submerged but the faster they go the noisier they get. So the video isn't wrong, just not as clear as it could be. Like baykazdal already said.
Nuclear subs need cooling water; it is a bit noisy.
The narrator is wrong about or maybe misguided about one fact concerning Diesel Electric subs. It is true that while on the diesels they are extremely noisy. As much so as any diesel propelled surface craft BUT when they are operating on battery at very slow speeds THEY ARE VERY QUIET.
Whole video was littered with errors, things that are just wrong or misleading. That was more like an infomercial for a nuclear sub builder.
There's those of us that served, and know, and those of others who didn'f and don't
My son is a NAVY NUKE! I’m definitely a proud NAVY mom! ♥️🇺🇸⚓️☢️
lots of boys on board
😉👍🏻
You’re a beautiful navy mom at that
While in a boomer in the North Atlantic in the late 70’s, I had the opportunity to listen to a sonar track on a Alpha class fast attack sub, & was amazed at how noisy thry truly were? Made me totally respect our technology & made me also feel very safe?
@xnavyro What is a “boomer” in Navy terms or military slang?
@@scotthutchens1556 Ohio class, they carry the big nukes.
@@bfdwarf Thanks for your help! I still have to watch this video, just haven’t had time.
@@scotthutchens1556 Yer Welcome !
It is a Fleet Ballistic Missile Submarine. (FBM). In the 70's, there were 41 for freedom boats. Carrying 16 missiles with Multiple reentry vehicles.. Polaris or Poseidon versions. 16 missiles away, a mushroom cloud and it's miller time. Boomer is slang for the noise the warhead makes upon impact. BOOM.........
I’ve toured 5 of the 6 Oberon class subs Australia had when I was a kid(I still have a chance to bag all 6, HMAS Ovens is now a museum ship), and 1 of the Collins class as an adult thanks to my cousin who was serving onboard after my time in the RAN. I served on surface ships.
The difference between diesel-electric and nuclear power is a game changer for Australia! The lack of indiscretion rate and the time on station because it takes so much less time to reach that station with a huge coastline like ours cannot be overstated! Survivability because of that extra speed giving more manoeuvrability is also crucial.
Edit: just booked flights to Perth this week and I will bag that final Oberon in a little over two months from now! 🤣
Gonna end up costing Australia over $500,000,000,000 by the time your done. Nuke boats never come in on budget and you still have to build the infrastructure to support them. And Australia can’t even man up the Collin’s class subs you have. How you gonna staff up 8 boats with 120 crew?
@@Subdood04 that cost, if correct, would be through-life cost. We’ve learned hard lessons about cost overruns on ship and submarine projects, I just hope the planners have taken this into account and are learning from British and American experience building SSNs.
The manning issue you mention concerns me as well. I think the Collins class manning issue have largely been fixed now, but you’re right. Six boats with a complement of around 55 is a far smaller number. Certainly there will need to be greater financial incentives for people to was to become submariners, but maybe other incentives like doubling of existing “long leave”. This will all be costly. There is also the fact that SSNs are sexier than SSKs, so that could draw more volunteers…
Only two types of ships in the world, Submarines and Targets. 😂
Only 2 types of craft. Aircraft and targets.
As an old navy man, nuclear subs or for that matter conventional subs were rarely even thought about. You know out of sight out of mind. They were like the Ace in the hole weapon. I was in a fighter squadron aboard a carrier. We always had a sub or maybe two with us when we were at sea. I only saw a sub one time while at sea. I served during the Vietnam war from 1965-1969. So it was a wartime situation. No nonsense and always ready to do complete your mission. The urgency that prevails in your mind is different when not at war. I always thought that the submarine was the most destructive force there was. Badass is what they were to me.
My lowly regular dude self had the epic opportunity to tour a Virginia class sub off the coast of Annapolis. Very unique trip with a Navy destroyer captain. I will never forget being within 30 feet of the nuclear marked bulkhead, the black curtains over no/go areas, and the amazing choice of baked goods in the galley. Going through the hatch was exhilarating.
I stood watches in the scrubber room next to the reactor. Probably why my bum has always been a little redder than the rest of me
I always wondered why they made everyone smoke in AMR1. That where the scrubbers are, but now you're getting cigarette smoke and a little extra radiation exposure to go with it.
You had me at the baked goods. Baked with nuclear energy, eaten with love.
Reminds me of the Movie Crimson Tide with Gene hackman !
k19 is an example of nuclear power station failure
Different reactor design. The current reactors are very safe as long as you keep idiots away from them.
@@coreydean6540 and you build them with the right bits, and the right tech. but navys dont like new tech. and governments like to cut corners even on nuclear reactors. like a few soviet ones just sunk off the coast of russia. it was cheap.
The Soviets cut corners on everything. They were cheap. Remember the Soviet Union went broke. This is why they never built an aircraft carrier.
@@chrisoakey9841
diesel subs dont snort, they snorkel.
The Brit’s call it “snorting”. We call it snorkeling. Same thing.
How do diesel subs get rid of exhaust gas when submerged?
@@georgemala4046 they snorkel. think of it as an intake and an exhaust pipe that runs up through the conning tower of the ship.
Awesome ❤
I remember my days in "A"gang on the 598. Great guys
Retired Sonar. 3 boats. 626, 738, 737.
Fun video, make more.
There was a reason for a sub carrying nuclear warheads vs conventional cruise missiles, it’s called deterrence.
K19 rings a bell, no?? That was not a nuclear sub???
Sweden, "hold my beer"
1:50 "diesel subs run more quietly." 3:50 "Nuclear subs quieter than their diesel equivalents." Does anyone proofread these scripts?
Both statements are true. Diesel subs are very quiet submerged and running on battery, even quieter than nuclear. Nuclear are all around quiet but get noisier the faster they go. Diesel on the surface running engines are very noisy. So there you go.
@@dap777754 Thanks for the explanation. I would have thought they would clarify that in the video.
The UK is the only country that has sunk another ship (in war) with a nuclear sub.
1:07 hire a friggin' proofreader. "presuraised"?
4:26 “No known nuclear meltdowns on submarines”; K-19?
The value of a sub is determined by its ability to fulfill the missions it is asked to fulfill at as little cost as possible.
Script: Minute 1:49 says diesel subs run more quietly than nukes. At minute 3:51 it says nukes run quieter than diesel equivalent, with an audible example. Which is true? The latter (barely), but it also depends on the propeller. Overall an informative video, thanks!
I spent 20 years on American subs. When they are submerged on their batteries, diesel boats are extremely quiet, quieter than older nuclear boats. The newer generations of nuclear boats are as quiet or are slightly quieter.
I noticed that same inconsistency. Thanks for pointing it out!
@@armcchargues8623 - Inside of subs *STINK!*
Both are true. Diesel subs , while running on the surface or snorkeling in diesel electric mode are very noisy however when they are submerged and running on battery they are exceptionally quiet and not easily detected.
Battery is really quiet but nuclear is ultra quiet and can run for 7 years. Batteries have to be recharged which means using an extremely noisy diesel engine. Ohio class submarines are the quietest. You basically are listening for no sound to find them. How do I know? I was a sonar tech on SSBN 730 for 2 years. We had a fake war against an aircraft carrier battle group. They never found us. We found everything they had and "sunk them" 4 times each in a 24 hour battle.
The TOTAL weapon !!
4 minutes in and already four contradictions.
Swedish Gotland class uses Diesel Stirling engine that are near silent and vibration free. It can stay submerged for ~3 weeks. Probably why, in exercises, it was able to sneak through a US carrier group (incl subs) and "sink" the aircraft carrier and then slip away completely undetected. So much for the nuclear subs!
Ya, ya, we hear about that all the time.
@@peppertrout Probably why the US leased one from Sweden for a year.
@@KangoV Yes, probably.
Ya, but then after the 3 weeks we sink it, so much for that sub too.
My BS meter is pegged.
A lot of bad information in this video
Can you do a video about advanced ultra-quiet ethanol powered fuel cell submarines Europe and India have?
🎉🎉🎉 Good luck
Diesel subs are quieter than nukes? Really?
When they are on battery, yes..
It's a bit confusing, because diesel subs have two modes: Diesel (quite noisy) and battery (very quiet).
So diesel subs can be both noisier *and* quieter than nuclear subs.
You did not mention the very silent fuel cell technology, which is even more silent than diesel driven submarines
When I was going to join the navy they wanted me on the reactor on one of these. 😂 not a chance!
"...more than 25 knots".
🤐
Wish the text placed on the video at various points was better edited, numerous (embarrassing) spelling errors…Several technical errors too…a diesel-electric sub in battery propulsion mode is extremely quiet. Other non-nuclear submarine propulsion technologies are very stealthy too. Other statements in the video are misleading or wrong…a check of open source literature would correct these errors. Hope the makers of the video take the time to make corrections but somehow I doubt they actually care. That’s the way things go these days…
True. Many laughable errors.
A steam turbine, nice to see cutting edge 19th century technology in use.
I'm pretty sure the propeller isn't supposed to be photographed and published.
Why are diesel subs called quiet 1:50, then nuclear subs are called quiet at 3:50. Both can't be true.
Diesel elect were quieter running on battery. And the old nikes screamed in comparison. With new props pump jet and tiles the new nukes are quiete now.
I used to work on them !!!!
Spelling on the info screens is just terrible. Gives video a scammy feel
British RN ones are not scary because 5 of our 7 are out of commission being repaired in dock & are not expected to go to sea soon due to shortage of crews
Australia is buying a few of those Virginia class subs … but these subs look a bit cramped. We like a lot of space, so I can’t imagine ours will be as cramped … I think we’ll need the subs with the spa bath, massage room and tiki bar (next to the Sip 'n Dip Lounge of course) … - Also, would it be asking too much for a back yard with a bit of grass to play a bit of cricket? Oh - and enough space for a BBQ and beer fridge? (We promise to clean the BBQ every day and mow the lawn every other week.)
Sorry, but I can't put much credence into a "report" by someone who spells "pressurized" as "pressuraised". And who has no clue how a naval reactor works. And yes, I know of which I speak, USN nuclear power program, 1976 - 1984.
I was wondering about the 320 C... water.
Speeds are inconsistent as well.
You have contradicted yourself on more than one occasion in the dialogue with this video. Near the beginning it is stated that there is one reactor, then shortly thereafter, it is stated to be powered by reactors, plural. Also, the first mention of diesel powered submarines involved a statement that they can be quieter then nuclear, then about midway through (3:52), the opposite is stated. Presenting facts should be the primary endeavor of your dialogue, followed immediately by not contradicting yourself. Regardless, cheers from a former submariner in the US Navy!
3:15 "27 KNOTS | 37 KM/h" This is not quite right as 27 knots = 50 km/h. Also note that SI (metric) unit symbols are case sensitive and "KM" would be kelvin-mega, which is not what you meant.
It’s also made by Newport News shipbuilding..
30 Knots top speed right.... Maybe in 2nd gear.
That's what I thought
They will never give out the real speed .
that's 35 mph which is about right. Takes enormous, enormous amounts of power to go any faster. Not likely.
@@dap777754Try around 50 knots submerged. Surface speed is around 30 or so tops.
@@Rem1061 You have to tell me how you know this. Otherwise sounds like Jules Verne.
Remember, a nuclear engine is not the same as a nuclear weapon.
how are diesel "quieter"?
when submerged and running on battery. Diesels cannot operate their engines underwater, for obvious reasons.
Diesel is more quiet than nuclear? Umm I do believe you've got that backwards...
They’re very quiet running on batteries.
Dude spelled Pressurized, with an A...
Death from below……..
Nuclear sobs are a huge part in MAD.
It’s amazing how much manmade junk is on the ocean floor.
They have their place.
Better to have em and not need em than to need em and not have em.
What about the kursk meltdown?
That was caused by their own torpedo(es) exploding inside the vessel, not a nuclear meltdown.
Lots of small issues with this video. As others have pointed out, he flat out says diesel subs are quieter at one point, then nuclear are quieter at another. And while both may be true depending on if the diesel sub is running on its diesel engines or batteries, saying one then the other without further explanation just makes you sound stupid. And he points out that nuclear subs can run for 30 years without refueling, then just a few seconds later says the only thing that holds it back are the needs of the crew and "running out of fuel." I'm sure he meant to say "food" instead of "fuel" there, lazy editing. And near the end when he talks about Australia's switch to nuclear submarines and the types of missions, he mentions "protecting" power ashore instead of "projecting." It's just little things, but when there's so many of them, it makes the whole production of the video seem second rate. Just listening to the video once before posting it could have caught all of this.
After watching this clip - I find them much safer than I thought.
Wrong title.
In the early years of submarines they were considered the most hazardous of any ship type. No mroe. They are now rated much higher than surface ships in survivability. There is only one limit to how long a sub can stay down. Food for the crew!!!! Fuel doesn't count because it is good for aobut 25 years.
wouldn't the turbine(s) power a generator and in turn power the rest of the vessel, including the prop motor?
A Direct Current electric motor is infinitely, quickly, variable and very, very powerful with instant reverse. Also, the voltage used is variable as is the arrangement of batteries. If you're on the run, batteries in series full speed ahead will do. I served aboard diesel electric and not one of the HUGE F**KING engines were connected to the props. Easier to go silent, too. Even a few turns a minute you're still moving.
In some designs yes they have an electric drive on the shaft, others use steam.
Yup. Depends upon the navy. US, Brits etc use direct steam @@AndrewinAus
All U.S. nuclear subs use electric motors to power the shaft.
Like SUBs but don't want sink in one God Bless those who serve in them!!!
Five boomers and one tender, miss my time serving.
Bubbleheads Rule!
Two types of subs in US fleet. Attack subs and Boomers. Boomers carry ICBMs and are part of the nuclear triad.
3 now, SSN, SSBN and SSGN.. SSGN being the new guy.. Basically a repurposed Ohio class converted to carry conventional missiles.
@@noneofyourbusiness7600 sure...only 4 modified Ohio class.
0:06 Right off the bat, that is an Ohio Class submarine. I made 4 strategic deterrent patrols on the U.S.S. Henry M. Jackson (Gold crew) SSBN 730 from 1993 to 1995. I was a sonar tech and we figured out one day with the missile techs, that we could kill nearly everyone on this planet 5 times over with just our ship. 24 missiles. Each missile had up to 8 nuclear warheads. Each warhead had approximately 150 kilotons of destructive power. For perspective, the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 12 kiloton bombs. The Ohio class had 1 primary mission. Stop other countries from launching nuclear missiles at the U.S. and our allies. We could launch missiles in 15 minutes at targets 3000 miles away. With our nuclear powered engine, we could go anywhere and no one would ever know.
The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were definitely in the kiloton range, not megaton.
I sincerely hope you miss-typed; I doubt Trident warheads have three times the power of Tsar Bomba…each?!
@@jaybee9269 Oops it was kiloton not megaton. Great catch, I served 30 years ago on the Henry M. Jackson. I forget stuff.
@@rodneyking4183 >> Thank you for your service! If I’d been a healthy-enough kid, submarines would have appealed to me no end.
it is good some men do not need the sun light. I was in the navy top side.I need sun light an to see the open sky... Lets hope that we do not KILL the EARTH...
SNORKELING not "snorting"
It varies between navies. I trained in England and got crap for a while back in Canada for using British terms. Canada uses American sub terminology. We snorkeled. Things are just so crispy clear through the periscope... what you can see up top. Never use the word "close" on a submarine. Rhymes with "BLOW" and could cause a deadly situation. SHUT the valve.
I think your CapsLock button got stuck there for a moment. Depending on which naval force you are talking about both terms could be correct. The term harks back to the German U Boats which had an attachment for exchanging air called a 'schnorkel' the UK abbreviated it to 'snort' the US went with snorkel.
You may be correct, I served 23 years as a submariner, and this RUclips article was about US submarines. I'd never heard any foreign submariners call it snorting, but it may never have come up.@@AndrewinAus
@@fredericklynch7113 There is definitely a lot of commonality between allied nations and terminology but some difference certainly exist the one that first comes to mind for me is the pronunciation of lieutenant “lootenant” roughly in the US etc and often “leftenant” in the UK and other Commonwealth countries. The snorting vs snorkelling derivation was just what I had read.
The Brits use the term “snorting”. From their perspective they snort air from the surface through the induction mast to support diesel operation. Not sure if they use this term when they are ventilating the ship. From the US Navy perspective, we draw air from the surface through a snorkel-like induction mast to support diesel generator operation, so we call it snorkeling. When drawing air into the ship to freshen the atmosphere (not running the diesel generator) we call it “ventilating.
Scarier than "we think"? Tell me oh wise one, how do you know what we think or are you just hoping no one will notice your false assumption?
LUV your accent. Exspecially about France . . . in my PANTS.
Your top speed comments leave something to be desired, but I guess military secrets are being protected?
They should ban them altogether.
There are a few of them rotting away on the bottom of the sea and who knows what will happen in the future with just one of them.
If a Chernobyl happens with one of them, you can kiss planet earth good bye.
With Chernobyl they could control it, but if that happens on the bottom of the sea, no way that something could be done about it.
what the hell was that thumbnail?????
Looked like a photo shopped image.
I was a Sonar Tech aboard the USS Henry M. Jackson SSBN 730. An Ohio class Trident sub.... I have seen many of these submarine videos on RUclips. Most are filled with erroneous information. Apparently one need not have any personal knowledge of submarines to create videos as if the creator is an expert.... I have no clue as the who the creator of this video may be, but their submarine knowledge is no better than their spelling. Um, it is spelled "pressurized" or "pressurised." You weren't close. Only one spelling of "equipped" and you got that wrong as well.... Hard to accept submarine expertise from those who can't even spell
200 years of progress only to be still using the steam engine lmao
Srea turbine-not steam engine
sorry, should be steam turbine ,not srea
Why in the hell did you leave the background playing while you are giving the sounds of each sub's sound. You create bad AI.
YESSYESUNITEDSTATES!!!!!!!!
Germany 🇩🇪 new clas submarines kwaet against diesel - electric !?! Hidrogen - electric submarines !!! ... sailor and U-boot comander ... Walter Müler 🇩🇪 ...
What a big waste of money. War War War that's all these politicians and military think of, why don't we just live in peace or is that a concept to sensible.
Well if Russia ,China ,N.Korea,Pakistan etc did not exist it could happen.
@@grahamprice3230 That's the problem I agree, to many idiots on the planet but that's the way mankind has been since we arrived, we're to stupid to exist peacefully. So into oblivion we go again and won't have learned a thing as usual.
I know the U.S. don't like the fact the U.K. won't share their stealth coating of their subs with them.
Lmaoo you think
Wow ! You must have some security rating !! Well .. I'll help ... it's old disco carpeting, sticky and smelly & almost impregnatable !!
Obviously your name sums up perfectly you Knowledge of subs.@@stupitdog9686
We have our own…thanks all the same.
by now there must be 100s of listening devices permanently stationed throughout the world's oceans. I suspect most countries know where all the enemy subs are at any moment.
Thankfully, that is not correct. Our enemies are really scared of our nuclear subs because they don't know where they are. Unless of course they turn up on the surface for a photo op somewhere.
I don't know where you get your information from, but a nuclear submarine is NOT quieter when under power than a diesel submarine. Also, saying that a nuclear missile launched from a submarine reaches its destination in 15 minutes and from land-based takes 30 minutes is completely nonsensical. The distance to the target is what determines how long it takes a missile to reach its destination. Your researchers and writers need some proper education.
The French are also nuclear
MORE scarier? Impossible. When only one fitting gives up, it is fifty fifty chance it is in the radio active circuit. And who is going to do the repair? Right, the hero who will be dead within a year, no idea why. And the Navy loves these hero's. They don't tell the entire world how crap the installations are. Your heating at home is better! But only the dead hero's know the truth, I am just a liar. Do you get the pattern?
“Snorting?” WTF? “Snorkeling,” FFS.
It is called snort ventilating
@@Freebird67 By whom? I will freely admit to not being a submariner, but I've done a lot of (non-fiction) reading over the past 30+ years and have never heard or read that term anywhere. How does it even make sense?
No, it's called snorkeling.@@Freebird67
The Brits use the term “snorting”. We (USA) use snorkeling. Same thing.
@@markhobbs5849 Yeah, figured out the same thing part lol!
Kursk had a reactor problem?.
No Kursk had a torpedo problem. There was a problem with a poorly maintained torpedo that basically used hydrogen peroxide as a component in the fuel mix. It is suggested a leak of the H2O2 coming into contact resulted in a rapid exothermic reaction that resulted in an explosion that blew the front off the submarine.
I predict a new propulsion and guidance technology that will utilize the "skin" and structure of the sub and the ability to alter shape for guidance and maneuverability.
Propulsion may come in the form of centrifugal inertia variable mass propulsion designed and integrated with a specialized gyroscope.
Never heard about fuel cells or Stirling motor-driven subs? They are harder to detect than the nuclear ones with their hundred-megawatt boilers.
But I know, the US always does the right!
Are you talking about submerged or surface? Your observation and statement is based on?????
@@clay1883 submerged, of course.
WHY did you clickbait a thumbnail using a GERMAN TYPE 212 SUB? I HATE that kind of deceit.
"PRESURAISED"???????! It's hard to give credibility to such a technical article when you can't even spell like a fifth-grader!
Nuke subs need to be fast; they are so noisy that they need to be able to escape their own signature!
WRONG!!!
I am from Oz and we should have invested in the nuclear subs years ago. As it is, it won't be until mid 2030's by the time we get one or two. With the rising hawkishness of China, Russia and North Korea, it might be all over by then. Prayerfully not.
It’s pronounced nucular!
My son is a NAVY NUKE! I’m definitely a proud NAVY mom! ♥️🇺🇸⚓️☢️