Norwegian fuel supplier refuses U.S. warships over Ukraine
Haltbakk Bunkers will cease supplying fuel to U.S. forces in Norway and American ships docking in Norwegian ports, citing dissatisfaction with recent U.S. policy towards Ukraine.ukdefencejournal.org.uk
You two have come up with sources I can at least evaluate. Only one of them makes a slight reference to submarines, but does not go into detail. The submarine part still makes no sense to me, but the rest is seems straightforward enough.
Norway fuel giant 'refuses to fill US submarines' after Trump-Zelensky clash
Norwegian petroleum giant Haltbakk Bunkers has declared it will no longer help the US Navy.www.express.co.uk
While some submarines have backup diesel Engines... I seriously doubt this is one of them. And do not believe they would leave Norfolk without backup fuel regardless. The US got rid of Diesel engines in their subs, they are dangerous and often cause fires and boats sank.
Almost no ships in the US Navy run on Diesel. I don't remember actually being on one that did. Of course I was on subs and a Carrier... So... Those run on nuclear energy...
Wouldn't they carry enough diesel for that generator that they would almost never use? Why would they surface, and use the generator?
They don't surface and run diesel engines. Our navy is not the Russian navy...
A lot of my family had been Navy, so when I was younger I considered going Navy, but then I toured a Navy Sub... I am a taller individual, and quickly realized a claustrophobic individual. I admire you for your service, and thank you for your service.
Exactly. They might surface in an American port at the beginning or end of a deployment, but when deployed they stay underwater.
LOL Yeah, you're a genius, I've seen your bullshit too. Like your take of the 14th Amendment, that's insight into your low-resolution thinking. Maybe you'll grow out of it, maybe not.
Yeah, I was just being a smartass, I'm aware. The OP claimed it was stranded and out of fuel. I didn't click on it, it's click-bait.
Agree. I just think the article, while accurate about some ships, was wrong about this one.
I was just pointing this out, not trying to analyze it.
Sorry, it is not your fault that it is not making sense to me. For all I know it it my fault.
For example, the sub is likely required to run its diesel so many hours per month just to make sure it works, and the crew knows how to operate and maintain it while its running. Even if in port, this would be something they have to do and then refuel afterwards for. Part of that refueling is because there is buoyancy and trim to be maintained on a sub more so than on a surface ship.
Running a diesel generator underwater would kill everyone on the sub. These subs spend months underwater. Coming to the surface to run a diesel generator would give away their position. Besides, diesel generators are comparatively loud, and just that gives away their position.
Once again, these nuclear submarines must stay underwater for months. They cannot just go into a foreign port once a month for diesel fuel.
Fast attacks do quite frequently, but usually as part of a carrier battlegroup visit where the carrier gets all the publicity. Boomers? No. They go out, hide for like 6 months then return to port.
Any nuclear submarine is designed to spend decades without refueling. They do not need to go into port once a month to refuel. There is something off about this story. Other points is that only one article from a reputable source even mentions the sub, and that is very vague about it, the subs name keeps changing, and the other sources about it are Russian propagandists.
