New Fast-Attack Nuclear Submarines to be Named Arizona and Oklahoma

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

I don't understand why you think that an undesirable thing.
Because it would only be a matter of time before it ended up on the bottom polluting it with radiation and nukes for the next several millennia?
 
Eh, The Hunt for Red October kindled a lot of people's interest in submarines, mine included. Kind of hard not to have a bit of a soft spot for the big lug after that, especially since they were thankfully never used for their intended purpose.


As far as drains on expenses, well, the Belgorod inheirits the title of world's largest submarine after that, and they went overboard on the bizarre Bond villain crap for that one.
 
Because it would only be a matter of time before it ended up on the bottom polluting it with radiation and nukes for the next several millennia?
If you believe Ballard and the Navy, sunken submarines don’t leak.

Of course, I’ve been around a few Navy reactors, they are built pretty robust.
 
If you believe Ballard and the Navy, sunken submarines don’t leak.

Of course, I’ve been around a few Navy reactors, they are built pretty robust.
Well, I think they were referring to the Thresher and Scorpion specifically. Some of the Soviet nuclear boats that have gone down have had documented radioactive contamination around the wrecks. If I recall, seawater is generally pretty good at attenuating radiation; the issue is primarily when the sediment gets contaminated.
 
If you believe Ballard and the Navy, sunken submarines don’t leak.

Of course, I’ve been around a few Navy reactors, they are built pretty robust.
I don't believe a word out of Ballard's mouth most of the time.
 
I don't believe a word out of Ballard's mouth most of the time.
From what I've read the USN has made repeated visits to both Thresher and Scorpion over the years (Scorpion having the added issue that she went down with a pair of Mark 45 nuclear-armed torpedoes onboard). There are a total of seven known nuclear submarine wrecks remaining on the seabed; in addition to the two US casualties there are five ex-Soviet boats down there (not counting K-141 Kursk, of which all but the bow was salvaged and scrapped) plus at least four reactor compartments that were dumped in the Barents Sea. Of those, K-27 (which was scuttled by the Soviets in 1982 after decommissioning) and K-278 Komsomolets (which sank after a fire in 1989) had Norwegian and Russian monitoring programs to check for radioactive contamination. K-278 apparently did have localized contamination from both the reactor and the two nuclear-armed torpedoes onboard.
 
After doing some research, I think we DO have one boat to spare for Australia. The USS Boise suffered a debilitating fire onboard while she was in refit. Now there might be funds to restore her to service. Loan her to the Aussies for a Australian version of Down Periscope but with a nuclear reactor instead of old diesels.
 

Back
Top Bottom