EXCLUSIVE: How do you dismantle a nuclear sub? 

Beat me to it, was going to say exactly the same

Its not hard to dismantle RN subs theres only 8.

@@thecurlew7403 you mean 11.

@@wolf6543211 Oh 11 my dear heaven 1 for each ocean of course undetected they could do harm but if i had chargevi would have 16.

🤣🥰🤣

Hopefully when your grandchildren are old enough they may start dismantling them and see auld rusty .

Things always happen really slow in a naval dockyard - it has always been so.

The US is even worse if it’s any consolation… =(

@@captiannemo1587 And then there are all those old Soviet boats........significant problem there.

@A Twinspark Gaining regulatory licence?

Did you know someone onboard called Trevor Pringle he was one of our neighbours in MQ in Rosyth when I was growing up he had served on Revenge

@@380Scania Sorry mate his name does not ring a bell. I was a back afty. Was in MQs at Helensburgh.

Same for me, but 86-89

@@paulhill1665 We had a pusser hill when I was on her. I was a back afty.

@@goldenlabradorskye very common name I was in the MCC, and I was not called Mary!

🤣🥰🤣

@Spudman Drive it about for a bit then burn it out

hard and not cheep

@@thomas82311 we didn’t win many wars with that kind of attitude did we?

@@stephenmcdonnell5702 nuclear?

@@stephenmcdonnell5702 hms alliance and hms courageous (sort of)

Yeah it would be, if the UK would bother saving one. They hardly have any museum ships from ww1 forward. Why ? Because they just scrap them with out a 2nd thought

A 20 year time lapse, all crammed into a 7 day video

Its not economical

Plus the reactors are designed to operate in constant submersion in sea water. The logistics of putting one on land and retrofitting it to run outside of a sub isn’t cost effective. Also, they are still pretty secret. You cant just roll it into civilian use without broadcasting to the world “this is how the Royal Navy powers their subs!”

@@realburglazofficial2613 They have been sat in seawater since decommissioning could have been pumping power into the grid for at least some of that time.

@@normanboyes4983 the Subs are completely self contained. There’s no way to get the power generated by the reactor outside of the boat. It’s not like a battery that you can unplug from one thing and plug into another. The reactor runs on Submarine specific systems, it also powers Submarine specific systems. You can’t run the reactor as a power station without running the entire Sub, you can’t run the Sub without crewing it. It would be prohibitively expensive to do.

Dude watch the video, they literally explain why

The longer you leave them, the more the radioactive materials decay and the less radiation you have to deal with. Leave them for 30 years and 90% of the radioactive problem has decayed away, making them much easier to dismantle.

You don't rush anything involving radiation

@@Sierraomega1991 No not a rush but, of up most importance !

'...Leave them for 30 years and 90% of the radioactive problem has decayed away' Doubt.

Good idead and I like your thinking but sadly no. These reactors are unsutable. Britain is a world leader in Smr (small modular reactors). Look them up, I'm sure you'll me happy.

Hms courageous (her sister ship) is being preserved at the moment

@@Chris-m-m02 courageous didn’t sink the Belgrano though

@@HRHooChicken yes but courageous is still in better condition then conqueror

I would be to

@@adamatch9624 if you was Christine

I’d love to be Christine 🤪

Their fuel is depleted and they can not be refuelled unlike French submarines

@@russellmiles2861 Not quite true.......the UK boats have a significantly longer reactor life than any of the others (including the US boats) so refueling is unnecessary during the service life of the boat.

the six still in service where actually recommissioned.. albeit years ago

@@Revup1 So true, I work for Rolls-Royce and the PWR 1 & 2 reactors would last long enough but the PWR-3 would still be going strong long after I'm gone.

Everything else is in there

@@doughvictor2893 Except fish 🐠

@@interabang Victoria's have got all the fish

@@interabang the canal into Ettingshshall from the old Stewerts and Lloyds had got a few horses in it

Partially true. The reactor compartment is sealed as a unit and sent on a long barge trip to Hanford for permanent disposal.

I wouldn't want the very highly enriched fuel these things burn anywhere near a country with the security issues that South Africa has.

No the US has not, the US Navy removes the whole Reactor Compartment and dumps it in a storage facility in Washington state. The UK will be the first to re-process the entire submarine reactor compartment included .

If the UK had a Hanford, probably we'd have done exactly that... But we don't

@@rrpa what’s Hanford?

Agreed. It's not the worlds first, by any stretch. The US removes the fuel, the assemblies, and any other component with radiation, then seals up the reactor core It's like saying the UK is the worlds first ship recycler using only 10mm wrenches and working on Tuesdays(obvious sarcasm), or changing one process, when you need to add technicalities you aren't first. The US also removes many parts of the reactor but uses the compartments to use a high pressure keep the nuclear molecules at bay. Worlds first would be discovering how to not have any contamination when recycling. "It’s a meticulous process. First, the defunct sub is towed to a secure de-fueling dock where its reactor compartment is drained of all liquids to expose its spent nuclear fuel assemblies. Each assembly is then removed and placed in spent nuclear fuel casks and put on secure trains for disposal at a long-term waste storage and reprocessing plant. In the US, this is the Naval Reactor Facility at the sprawling Idaho National Laboratory, and in Russia the Mayak plutonium production and reprocessing plant in Siberia is the final destination." "Although the reactor machinery - steam generators, pumps, valves and piping - now contains no enriched uranium, the metals in it are rendered radioactive by decades of neutron bombardment shredding their atoms. So after fuel removal, the sub is towed into dry dock where cutting tools and blowtorches are used to sever the reactor compartment, plus an emptied compartment either side of it, from the submarine's hull. Then thick steel seals are welded to either end. So the canisters are not merely receptacles: they are giant high-pressure steel segments of the nuclear submarine itself - all that remains of it, in fact, as all nonradioactive submarine sections are then recycled."

Our navy is older than your country. So, yeah.

In 1930s and 1940s Deutsche Marks?

They were a lot cheaper, but then 2/3rds of them never came home and now clutter up the ocean floor!

The remaining nuclear material in those subs is quite low level by now and really wouldn't cause much of a problem in the situation you describe.

Costs a lot to keep ships above ground as their hulls were meant to have pressure pushing inward(the water) and overtime the rivets will pop as the hull tries to expand outward since it has no pressure to counter act it as they were designed and built this way. This is why we dont have ships stored on dry land for long periods of time without issues occurring and why you see people store old boats they arent working on in the water. You have to build foundation to put inward pressure on the hull. TLDR: Short answer money.

Also the Secrets Act limit is 50 years _minimum._ So, while yes the reactors are probably completely obsolete and most of the world are operating something better, they are still very much top secret. Also, @That Car Guy the rivets wont pop over time. Yes they are designed to survive the crushing pressure of the ocean, but the hull would only expand outward if the inside is pressurised. Submarines don’t counteract the external pressure by applying internal counter pressure, that would kill the crew and pop them like grapes. They are built like vacuum chambers, the external pressure is handled _structurally_ without adjusting the internal pressure above 1 atmosphere.

@@realburglazofficial2613 Always that one person trying to argue. It's literally how hulls are designed, they need inward pressure on the hull otherwise they start to peel away do to their shape design. This is how ships of all kinds handle so much pressure and movement. They thought they could get away with dry docking the HMS Warrior for example... Didn't go that way. Ships hulls deform out of water and need a lot of bracing. This is what they thought: "In the event, it was decided to dry-dock her, it being felt that her composite construction, with sharp rise of floors, would allow her to remain out of the water for an indefinite period without the hull losing shape. It was also believed that very light bilge and breast shores would suffice to support the hull and yet allow the ship's lines to be appreciated (Click here for Illustration 10), and that with her unique construction of iron, teak and elm, and being permanently out of the water, there would never be a need for major repairs to the hull in general, nor to the keel in particular." This is what actually happened... "In the case of H.M.S. Warrior it was decided to keep the vessel afloat in Portsmouth Harbour." Dry docking kills ships and is super expensive to keep them going, hence why we don't have many museum ships.

@@ThatCarGuy I’m not arguing, I’m merely debating from what I understand about submarine engineering and design that your view may not be _entirely_ correct. They don’t deform in water because the weight of the hull is evenly distributed across the water its in. It’s buoyancy is regulated so that, in the water, a submarine doesn’t actually weigh much which puts minimal stress on the superstructure of the sub. It’s not so much that a sub needs constant external pressure to maintain its shape, but more that a submarine’s hull can’t support it’s own weight out of water. In water, a submarine’s weight is supported by a minimum of about 80% hull submersion. In dry dock, the submarine’s weight is supported by around 10 points of contact on the keel. Laying in a hammock is far comfier than laying on a single plank of wood because of weight distribution. It’s the _increased_ pressure on a smaller surface area that kills ships in dry dock, not the lack of pressure of the water.

​@@realburglazofficial2613 "They don’t deform in water because the weight of the hull is evenly distributed across the water its in." Correct due to water pressure. "It’s not so much that a sub needs constant external pressure to maintain its shape, but more that a submarine’s hull can’t support it’s own weight out of water." Which is why it costs so much to make into a museum. You need a lot of bracing as stated above to support the structure that water pressure otherwise would have. To make the USS Iowa into a museum would have cost the US 20 million just to start, not counting yearly upkeep. "It’s the increased pressure on a smaller surface area that kills ships in dry dock, not the lack of pressure of the water." They don't just decay from points of contact, their rivets literally start to pop out as the HY-80 or 100 steel is molded to an angle and so strong, without water pressure the rivets pop. This is why we keep older ships docked, as it's so much cheaper and easier on the hull. The UK has 20 submarines docked, not dry docked as it's cheaper and easier to maintain the hull as the hull needs water pressure. "Royal Navy now has more retired submarines in storage at Devonport than it does in service. The National Audit Office (NAO) report reveals the Royal Navy now has twice as many submarines in storage as it does in service, and thee MoD has failed to dispose of any of the 20 boats decommissioned since 1980"

The Russians get the Americans to pay for the dismantlement off their boats maybe the UK should do that too on safety grounds

@@Pvt_Badger0916 Russia gets usually Japan USA Norway and the UK to pay for some yes but they do the work themselves which is the key in this instance

@@TheSubHunter1 so other countries pay the Russians to dismantle their nuclear powered submarines because their shipyards are corrupt and not carry out the works needed to decommission these submarines that they build and operate for years . damn right they should carry out and offer the workforce to carry out the work needed their not paying for it ..

@@Pvt_Badger0916 close the Russian shipyards have the ability to cut them up that’s for sure however the last boat cut up with foreign cash was 2009 since then the Russians have financed several on their own

Didn't you watch the video? Other countries cut the reactor compartment out of the boat and keep it intact. This is a different method and involves dismantling the reactor itself.

The US France and Russia only cut the ends off - that's not 'disposal'. What it says here is that the UK is attempting to go further and cut up the whole thing including the reactor. That means only having to store a small chunk of radioactivity, not a massive tube of radioactivity.

@@cheezybeanz1049 firstly, the US and French have long operated both nuclear surfaces ships and submarines. They both remove the reactors and also the nuclear fuel. Which is then reprocessed so they have smaller quantity of highly reactive material which is placed in permanent storage facilities. They do the same with civil reactors. This is not complicated as reactors must be designed to insert and extract fuel rodes. We can put this video down to pre-election propaganda where successive UK government (Labor and Tory) have not allocated the funds required. This video even acknowledges the plan is far from complete with no identified long term storage facility. That fact that UK governments have left nuclear submarines some of which are over half a century old sitting in seawater is a disgrace. There are simply no French or US nuclear powered ships that have been decommissioned in such a state. In the case of aircraft carriers they lift out the compete reactors very quickly. The are defueled and dismantled. With regard submarines, the hull must be broken open to remove the reactor. Again, they are placed in dry dock and this quickly done. The carriers and ships also need to have removed huge qualities of hazardous but not nuclear waste: heavy metals, fuel and oil, cabling, etc etc. This is nothing unusual with ship breaking. That the UK has failed to do that.The length of time makes this matter harder and more costly. This is national disgrace which only the Russians are as reckless with people's lives in breaking up nuclear submarines

The other countries have the facilities built to be able to dismantle the submarines, we have to build, set to work and commision these facilities to a safe standard. The time the submarines were built and way they were maintained complied to the current regulations at the time, todays regulations and working methods are completely different

WRONG. SO, I believe I am right in saying that there has been a long existing plan to dismantle UK boats in the UK, however when we became even more intimate with the EU back in 1992/3 that plan didn't meet the EU standards (even though the US and France were dismantling their boats). Interestingly the UK is back to dismantling its first boat since leaving the EU....coincidence, I think not! There was also a plan to send UK boats to the US for dismantling, but the costs were ridiculous, and the US facilities are backed up with their own cold war boats, so that solution would have taken even longer. Unlike Russia, the UK boats are at least maintained and safe. A few years ago when the Russian Navy failed to pay its energy bills to keep the boats safe the Energy company turned off the power. The State authorities had to send in the Russian Naval Infantry to have the power turned back on....lest a few old cold war Alfas and Novembers went critical! I believe I am also right in saying that the UK boats have been defuelled.

@@russellmiles2861 the french have decommissioned a total of 7 nuclear powered submarines since the 1970's 1 of which is in Cherbourg as a museum ship yet doesn't say how or what they did with the others or there fate or how they scrapped them . the only surface ship that is nuclear powered is the Charles de Gaulle which spends more time in port then it has at sea and the french nuclear submarines are relatively young in their service life before decommissioning so that would mean that French reactors are inefficient or the rods need and reactors need refuelling at some point in their service lifes

UK population isn't growing, only immigration is .

You just proved yourself wrong in the same comment xD. Cutting the Reactor compartment and moving it away from the submarine isnt the same as cutting up whats inside the Reactor compartment (the nuke). The UK is on about cutting up inside the Reactor compartment including the RPV.

Exactly, the US has been doing this for almost 30 years now. This isn't a worlds first. Here are a list of some, I can keep going too. And this are only submarines, not ships or carriers I could also add. ex-Seawolf (SSN-575) 1 October 1996 30 September 1997 ex-Skate (SSN-578) 14 April 1994 6 March 1995 ex-Swordfish (SSN-579) Unknown 11 September 1995 ex-Sargo (SSN-583) 14 April 1994 5 April 1995 ex-Seadragon (SSN-584) 1 October 1994 18 September 1995 ex-Skipjack (SSN-585) 17 March 1996 1 September 1998 ex-Triton (SSRN-586) 1 October 2007[15] 30 November 2009 ex-Halibut (SSGN-587) 12 July 1993 9 September 1994 ex-Scamp (SSN-588) 1990 9 September 1994 (the first) ex-Sculpin (SSN-590) 1 October 2000 30 October 2001 ex-Shark (SSN-591) 1 October 1995 28 June 1996 ex-Snook (SSN-592) 1 October 1996 30 June 1997 ex-Permit (SSN-594) 30 September 1991 20 May 1993 ex-Plunger (SSN-595) 5 January 1995 8 March 1996 ex-Barb (SSN-596) Unknown 14 March 1996 ex-Tullibee (SSN-597) 5 January 1995 1 April 1996 ex-George Washington (SSBN/SSN-598) Unknown 30 September 1998† ex-Patrick Henry (SSBN/SSN-599) 1 October 1996 31 August 1997 ex-Robert E. Lee (SSBN/SSN-601) Unknown 30 September 1991 ex-Pollack (SSN-603) 9 February 1993 17 February 1995 ex-Haddo (SSN-604) Unknown 30 June 1992 ex-Jack (SSN-605) Unknown 30 June 1992 ex-Tinosa (SSN-606) 15 July 1991 26 June 1992 ex-Dace (SSN-607) Unknown 1 January 1997 ex-Ethan Allen (SSBN/SSN-608) Unknown 30 July 1999 ex-Sam Houston (SSBN/SSN-609) 1 March 1991 3 February 1992 ex-Thomas A. Edison (SSBN/SSN-610) 1 October 1996 1 December 1997 ex-John Marshall (SSBN/SSN-611) 22 July 1992 29 March 1993 ex-Guardfish (SSN-612) Unknown 9 July 1992 ex-Flasher (SSN-613) Unknown 11 May 1994 ex-Greenling (SSN-614) 30 September 1993 18 April 1994 ex-Gato (SSN-615) Unknown 1 November 1996 ex-Haddock (SSN-621) 1 October 2000 1 October 2001 ex-Sturgeon (SSN-637) Unknown 11 December 1995 ex-Whale (SSN-638) 20 October 1995 1 July 1996 ex-Tautog (SSN-639) 15 March 2003[15] 30 September 2004 ex-Kamehameha (SSBN/SSN-642) 1 October 2001 28 February 2003 ex-James K. Polk (SSBN/SSN-645) 16 February 1999 15 July 2000 ex-Grayling (SSN-646) 18 July 1997 31 March 1998 ex-Pogy (SSN-647) 4 January 1999 12 April 2000 ex-Aspro (SSN-648) 1 October 1999 3 November 2000 ex-Sunfish (SSN-649) Unknown 31 October 1997 ex-Pargo (SSN-650) 1 October 1994 15 October 1996 ex-Queenfish (SSN-651) 1 May 1992 7 April 1993 ex-Puffer (SSN-652) 20 October 1995 12 July 1996 ex-Ray (SSN-653) 15 March 2002 30 July 2003 ex-Sand Lance (SSN-660) 1 April 1998 30 August 1999 ex-Lapon (SSN-661) 15 March 2003[15] 30 November 2004 ex-Gurnard (SSN-662) Unknown 15 October 1996 ex-Hammerhead (SSN-663) Unknown 22 November 1995 ex-Sea Devil (SSN-664) 1 March 1998 7 September 1999 ex-Guitarro (SSN-665) Unknown 18 October 1994 ex-Hawkbill (SSN-666) 1 October 1999 1 December 2000 ex-Bergall (SSN-667) Unknown 29 September 1997

Watch the video and read the text.

@@matthewmorgan6814 I did, what is the point you are trying to make? do you want me to go into the health physics of submarine disposal? there is a reason she is waffling and not really saying much apart from numbers and dates, the same reason I won't go into detail, however I would love to know what you think I am missing! Do tell!

It’s DECOMMISSIONED aka not useful

Take out Putin and half the problem is solved, me thinks most Russians don't like him and are too afraid to speak up.

@@DoughnutsInspace ? What’s a HUNK O SCRAP going do

UK had four SSBN's Russia over 100.

Yeah, nothing beyond layman's terms explained, yet as nervous as anything

I get the impression they’re trying to prove that all components can be recycled and just bury the RPV , pressuriser and maybe the coolant pumps

Try watching the video.

200 subs?

The US has been dismantling and safely storing hazardous material on land. On the UK and Russia have left nuclear submarines in dock, rusting in sea water. The UK still has no final plan to store waste materials. Franch and the UK have created safe facilities on land for permanent storage. This is just propoaganda

@@adamatch9624 Roughly 200. That includes the old boats that have already been decommissioned, the ones currently in commission and the planned new construction. All will eventually need to be processed by the SRP. There are just over 60 pre-688 fast attack boats (Skipjack, Skate, Sturgeon, Permit-class), 41 Polaris/Poseidon boomers ("41 For Freedom"), 62 Los Angeles (688/688i), 18 Ohio class Trident SSBN, 3 Seawolf, 66 planned Virginia SSN and 12 Columbia SSBN. Only 38 of the Virginia have been built or funded and the Columbia class hasn't even been fully funded. Final numbers may change due to budgets and defense needs. The Virginia/Seawolf boats won't even enter SRP for at least another 30 years. I think it's safe to say we will be in the nuc recycling business for at least the rest of the century.

No they haven’t it’s as if you ignored the video. The us take it all out and keep it intact the uk is dismantling it

@@adamatch9624 It's not the world first, the US among many nations have been doing this for years. It's like saying the UK is the worlds first ship recycler using only 10mm wrenches and working on Tuesdays(obvious sarcasm), or changing one process, when you need to add technicalities you aren't first. The US also removes many parts of the reactor but uses the compartments to use a high pressure keep the nuclear molecules at bay. Worlds first would be discovering how to not have any contamination when recycling. "It’s a meticulous process. First, the defunct sub is towed to a secure de-fueling dock where its reactor compartment is drained of all liquids to expose its spent nuclear fuel assemblies. Each assembly is then removed and placed in spent nuclear fuel casks and put on secure trains for disposal at a long-term waste storage and reprocessing plant. In the US, this is the Naval Reactor Facility at the sprawling Idaho National Laboratory, and in Russia the Mayak plutonium production and reprocessing plant in Siberia is the final destination." "Although the reactor machinery - steam generators, pumps, valves and piping - now contains no enriched uranium, the metals in it are rendered radioactive by decades of neutron bombardment shredding their atoms. So after fuel removal, the sub is towed into dry dock where cutting tools and blowtorches are used to sever the reactor compartment, plus an emptied compartment either side of it, from the submarine's hull. Then thick steel seals are welded to either end. So the canisters are not merely receptacles: they are giant high-pressure steel segments of the nuclear submarine itself - all that remains of it, in fact, as all nonradioactive submarine sections are then recycled."

@@adamatch9624 my friend does this and he’s in New York

Dude clearly did not watch the video 😂 they literally said it

Watch till the end mate

Short Attention Span Syndrome strikes again .... Outstanding 😏

I think they mean the actual reactor, I believe the Americans just bury the entire section.

@@arfon2000 No, they defuel it, drain and clean all of the coolant, then cut out the reactor compartment in one complete section, then build a dry storage containment system around it. It then gets taken to the Hanford nuclear reservation for long term storage, in this case ~100 year's or so. That's why all US Navy nuclear powered ship's get decommissioned in Bremerton Washington; Hanford is the intended final repository. Based on calculations and past experience, the rest of the reactor compartment will be cool enough that the system can be deconstructed conventionally and recycled at that time.

@@7891ph you basically just typed what I said in more detail.

@@arfon2000 It's the lack of details that had me respond.