Nuclear Submarine Safety

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Forastero, Mar 11, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Forastero

    Forastero LE Moderator

    Just received a daily media brief in my inbox and this little pearler was buried in it:

    Channel 4: A report by the Defence Nuclear Safety Regulator has raised safety issues about the safety of the nuclear reactors in the Royal Navy’s submarines, including that they could be vulnerable to leaks. Nuclear safety campaigner, John Large, said that the submarines are fighting battle ships so shake around a lot which could cause pieces of the reactor to fall off and potentially cause disaster. It also compared the designs of the PWR2 and PWR3 nuclear reactors. John Large said that the PWR3 is safer as it holds everything together more and therefore less likely to shake about.

    Apparently this John Large character is some sort of self-appointed nuclear safety expert and people have spent a fair amount of time refuting the absolute bollocks that he comes out with for some years. I have to say that if that is the only evidence he can come with for questioning SSBN (is that the right term? I'm not in the Andrew) safety - they shake about a lot - then he is quite clearly not a nuclear safety genius but more of a comedy God.

    I haven't stopped laughing since.
  2. Sounds like the explaination given by a six year old.

    I don't know if its the safety issues of the reactos that should be in question or the safety issues of this blokes mindbox
  3. John Large is a clueless prick. We've run more than one of our boats into very solid bits of Scotland at a rate of knots and bits didn't fall off the reactor.
  4. Not a brilliant self-promotional refuting of evidence but it works, I like it.
  5. Do Nuclear Subs use Pressurised Water (PWR), I thought (maybe misguidedly) that the original UK template reactor was a Magnox CO2 reactor?

    Or maybe I should take more Gin with my cornflakes.

  6. PWR2 - Core H
  7. About 50% correct.
  8. Well Mr pedant, we won't be building any more PWR1's so for the purposes of the enquiry, PWR2 will suffice as 100% correct as to TYPE of reactor we use..
  9. Actually, as I have my pedantic head firmly affixed, PWR would have been the correct answer to the question, but you had to go one better. So, to elucidate for those who are trying to follow:
    The T-boats use the original PWR design, with a core that is designated as Core Z. This is an update of Core C, which in itself is an update of Core B. S-boats, R-boats, and V&C-boats used some or all of these.
    The V-boats were originally PWR2 Core G, but have undergone refits modifying them to Core H (the last of the four is currently still receiving this update). Astutes are Core H.

    So, to sum up, we use PWR.
  10. That clears up another misconception, I was originally told by an old fella that worked up t'North where plutonium meets the Irish Sea that in the UK we used Magnox CO2 as they were cooler running and more difficult to melt.

    Me only having a physics O level only just about stayed with the conversation.
  11. Bouillabaisse

    Bouillabaisse LE Book Reviewer

    Typical fixation on nuclear stuff. Those submarine battleships shake like scotsman in rehab. Makes the gunlaying difficult at the best of times and most submariners die of whole-body white finger at an early age. No one ever mentions that. They also serve who stand and vibrate
  12. I have never seen a nuclear submarine described like a giant submersible rampant rabbit before.

    could explain why people were iffy about HMS Conqueror using the mark 8's in the dust up down south though?
  13. Hopefully Mr Large will appear on here as he did over on RumRation. He seemed to not get the hint that he was having the P*ss ripped out him by Sludgemariner engineery types. They seemed to have the collective opinion of him already mentioned above, an opinionated

    Then again he may have decided to avoid forums where his lack of viable knowledge will be shown up. Pity because I imagine the abuse on here would be much more sustained than over on the other side of the fence.

    Perhaps he could team up with Lewis Page? :)
  14. Seems to me that his knowledge of subs in action is based largely on old WW2 movies where the cast throw themselves around the set while the camera gets shaken. Mind you so is mine.
  15. Especially as you only surface the tip of the barrel and have a bead sight for aiming (HMS M-1, sunk on exercise, all hands lost, 12 November 1925).

    That's because it is a badge of shame that they haven't died of alcohol poisoning like their mates!