" Since some are wondering why a nuclear submarine would need refueling…It needs marine diesel for its Caterpillar 3512B V-12 marine diesel engine which it uses as an auxiliary generator."
Right they switch over from nuke power to diesel near port usually and close to Japan nuke ships used to actually be a political worry but I don't know if thats something they still worry about. I was more surprised by the Fukushima disaster simply because of it being a nuclear power plant in Japan than the reason it was a disaster in the first place. Based on assumption that they still have deep feelings against nuke anything, even power, when I heard the disaster was because they ignored engineers and safety concerns and put it as close to ocean as possible (to keep it as far from Japan itself, I assumed) actually made sense to me based on my limited past experience with their political issues against nuke power in general.
They intentionally put it too close at sea level. The next one down the coast was fine despite getting hit by the same tsunami because that municipality listened to engineers and built it where it wouldn't be IN the ocean when water levels were raised slightly.
It wasn't a matter of being near the ocean, it was a failure to understand because fear makes people choose stupidity over logic.
Some nuclear subs do need refueling every 10 years or so, but those are the older ones.
Nuclear power plants generally replace 1/3 of their rods every 18 months - a process known as refueling. (I participated in a couple of those myself).
The USS Virginia (SSN-774), the lead ship of the Virginia-class nuclear-powered attack submarines, does not need refueling during its operational lifetime. The Virginia-class submarines are designed with a "life-of-the-ship" nuclear reactor core, meaning they are fueled with enough highly enriched uranium (typically over 90% uranium-235) to last their entire planned service life—approximately 33 years—without requiring a refueling overhaul.
This is a significant advancement over older classes like the Los Angeles-class, some of which needed refueling every 10-15 years. The USS Virginia, commissioned in 2004, is expected to operate until around 2037 without ever needing to swap out its reactor fuel. The exact endurance depends on operational tempo, but the design eliminates mid-life refueling, reducing downtime and maintenance costs. So, no, the USS Virginia won’t need to be refueled—its nuclear core is good to go from commissioning to decommissioning. (From Grok)
I don't know about the diesel aux generator u/OregonAngel2 mentioned, but I 100% buy it because aux power is essential for safety reasons.
the fuel needed would be for auxiliary systems—specifically, marine diesel fuel like NATO F-76 or marine gas oil (MGO). Nuclear submarines carry diesel generators as backups to provide emergency power if the reactor is shut down or to supplement electrical needs for onboard systems (e.g., lighting, electronics, or battery charging) while docked. These generators require conventional marine distillate fuel, which is exactly the type of product a bunker fuel supplier like Haltbakk Bunkers would provide during a port call. A Virginia-class sub, for instance, might use a few thousand liters of diesel for such purposes during a stop, depending on the duration and operational demands.
A private Norwegian company, Haltbakk Bunkers, reportedly refused to refuel U.S. Navy vessels in Norway. This decision was made public around March 1, 2025, following a controversial meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Haltbakk Bunkers, a significant marine fuel supplier in Norway, cited ethical concerns and dissatisfaction with U.S. policy, specifically referencing the White House event as a motivating factor. The company announced it would not supply "a single liter" of fuel to U.S. military forces docking in Norwegian ports until Trump is no longer in office, urging other European suppliers to follow suit.
However, the Norwegian government, through Defence Minister Tore Sandvik, clarified on March 2, 2025, that this was a private company's decision and not reflective of official policy. Sandvik emphasized that Norway, a NATO member, would continue to provide fuel and support to U.S. Navy ships, ensuring no disruption to allied operations. While some reports suggest this refusal impacted specific vessels, like a Virginia-class submarine, the broader operational impact appears limited as the U.S. Navy can refuel through other suppliers or locations in Norway. The company's move is largely seen as symbolic, given its estimated supply of about three million liters of fuel to U.S. forces in 2024, often through intermediary suppliers rather than direct NATO contracts.
I have a suggestion, since all these European fuckwits want to show their asses in support of little Z.... pull all troops out of Europe. Close the military bases. Cut off all foreign aid and funding to any European country that stands by the asshole. Take back whatever weapons we have over there.
Basically, take our toys and go home. Fuck 'em all. And, if Russia attacks any of them, sit back and laugh. I really don't give a shit anymore. The only ones worth saving are Hungary, with Orban (who is clearly on our side), and... was it Slovakia? I think they were the other ones who said they weren't supporting the little tyrant anymore. Let's have deals with them and forget the rest.
Last I heard, Poland was super based and red pilled, and going to be the country that saved Europe, but it’s been more than 2 days (several months actually) so I have no idea now.
we were only there for their benefit in the first place! American companies and their CEOs are sick of being philanthrapists and do-gooders. Trade is what loser countries have to do anyway.
If there was anything on board a Nuclear Submarine that required fuel. I’d imagine it’d be like an Emergency Generator that’d have enough juice to surface the Sub in the event of an emergency with the Reactor. Maybe run a comms system and a few lights.
Though granted I don’t know if it has a Generator. That’s just an assumption that would make sense imo.
Sorry. You can't run a Diesel engine deeply submerged. No air. There should be enough compressed air in the storage tanks to surface the submarine. That is how it is surfaced ordinarily.
Nuclear submarines do not need to refuel, they run small nuclear reactors which power steam turbines. The whole point of creating nuclear subs is that they run quiet and do not need to refuel.
Similarly, the Virginia-class SSN submarines, first commissioned in 2004, have reactors that do not need refuelling for their 33-year service life.
However, after their operational lifespan, they undergo a refuelling and overhaul process, which includes replacing the expended nuclear fuel.
They were first build 20 years ago, so none of them need refueling until 2037.
Honestly Norway, your media is legit more derp than the ms in America.
Unless it's a power out emergency, maintenance or testing I don't believe it's to often emergency diesel generators are fired up on a nuke sub while on maneuvers.
Logistically you would think we would have already planned for sub tenders for such scenarios.
They can only get the air when surfaced. it doesn't matter "how often" this happens, but it does matter that you have the capability when you need it. It's like a fire extinguisher. Having it full and ready is more important than how often it is used. Clearly, they were low on fuel or they would not have requested the offload.
I would say that being a member of NATO and Norway being a member of NATO should have been all the planning necessary. The sub approached this as established (past) operating procedure, so the refusal was a new element. Rude awakening.
Look who we have in charge of DOD now. Look who he fired his first week. Do people think he's going to promote more of the same? Or Generals/Admirals that would rather rip out their own guts and strangle you with them, than surrender?
$20 says sailing orders are being changed right now, so any nuclear ship sailing will be ordered to live with the stores they have on board for the duration, until they reach safe port.
That Norway company just screwed a whole swath of global foreign naval support companies.
I give them until Monday that they will be changing their tune…lol…these people are stupid…how about we stop all them Norwegian cruise ships from entering our ports or make them apply for B1/B2 visas instead of being a part of the ESTA program…
Throwing the biggly biggest Bull Shit flag possible on this story. It's a nuclear powered vessel. It doesn't need refueling unless they are supplying core rods of Uranium for reactors... LOL
This was barely touched upon, but I would have to suppose that this would be a violation of the terms and obligations of the NATO treaty. Norway is not supposed to have any beef with the United States. I think Trump needs to have a candid phone call with King Harald V.
Excellent. Let's pull out of that communist hellhole they call Europe completely. This time. When it all goes to hell, we won't go in and save their asses.
Oh really? The DOGE boys need to look at past invoices from this company. Me thinks they might be a little more than slightly inflated. I wonder too if HB has anything to do with those Norwegian missing children?
Also. Since when are american nuclear submarines (basically the most advanced weapons platforms the US currently has) being 'refueled' (more accurately, resupplied) by PRIVATE COMPANIES? What happened to navy tenders?
Maybe the crew wanted to order some pizza and the norwegian company said no?
Congress, declining recruitment numbers, force drawdowns, switch to the all Volunteer model, incompetent handling of budgets. And an over abundance of Friendly Ports. Not to mention an over reliance on private companies and contractors.
Means the Fleet Tender numbers got cut substantially. We’ve got a grand total of 42. 15 Oilers. 1 Ammunition Ship. 4 Combat Support Ships. 14 General Purpose Freighters. 4 Tug boats. 4 Rescue/Salvage boats. And 2 Hospital Ships.
Split between 5 Transport commands. Which are in turn split between supporting the various Navy Commands. And the Carrier Battle Groups regularly have at least 1 supply ship attached for deployments. Meaning there’s functionally 34 ships to support the rest of the Navy. Supplemented by contracted Merchant Ships on a temporary basis
Norway should immediately lose any and all funding from the US as well as any other type of support.
And, I would refuse to allow Norwegian cruise ships to dock in the US, along with immediately revoking any Norwegian visas and refusing entry to any Norwegian nationals.
This is a very, very childish and idiotic move by the Norgays. Trump always specialises in cruel and disproportionate over-reactions to pettiness like this. I suspect HB will find themselves unable to travel to the US and any exports will be subject to endless customs exchanges. They will rue the day.
Good thing it's nuclear and doesn't actually need fuel.
ARRRRGH BEAT ME TO IT!!! lol
" Since some are wondering why a nuclear submarine would need refueling…It needs marine diesel for its Caterpillar 3512B V-12 marine diesel engine which it uses as an auxiliary generator."
Right they switch over from nuke power to diesel near port usually and close to Japan nuke ships used to actually be a political worry but I don't know if thats something they still worry about. I was more surprised by the Fukushima disaster simply because of it being a nuclear power plant in Japan than the reason it was a disaster in the first place. Based on assumption that they still have deep feelings against nuke anything, even power, when I heard the disaster was because they ignored engineers and safety concerns and put it as close to ocean as possible (to keep it as far from Japan itself, I assumed) actually made sense to me based on my limited past experience with their political issues against nuke power in general.
those plants need a fuck ton if water for cooling their reactors. All plants are located near large bodies of water. Ocean water is a common source.
They intentionally put it too close at sea level. The next one down the coast was fine despite getting hit by the same tsunami because that municipality listened to engineers and built it where it wouldn't be IN the ocean when water levels were raised slightly.
It wasn't a matter of being near the ocean, it was a failure to understand because fear makes people choose stupidity over logic.
Some nuclear subs do need refueling every 10 years or so, but those are the older ones.
Nuclear power plants generally replace 1/3 of their rods every 18 months - a process known as refueling. (I participated in a couple of those myself).
The USS Virginia (SSN-774), the lead ship of the Virginia-class nuclear-powered attack submarines, does not need refueling during its operational lifetime. The Virginia-class submarines are designed with a "life-of-the-ship" nuclear reactor core, meaning they are fueled with enough highly enriched uranium (typically over 90% uranium-235) to last their entire planned service life—approximately 33 years—without requiring a refueling overhaul. This is a significant advancement over older classes like the Los Angeles-class, some of which needed refueling every 10-15 years. The USS Virginia, commissioned in 2004, is expected to operate until around 2037 without ever needing to swap out its reactor fuel. The exact endurance depends on operational tempo, but the design eliminates mid-life refueling, reducing downtime and maintenance costs. So, no, the USS Virginia won’t need to be refueled—its nuclear core is good to go from commissioning to decommissioning. (From Grok)
I don't know about the diesel aux generator u/OregonAngel2 mentioned, but I 100% buy it because aux power is essential for safety reasons.
Damn! Thats a lot of energy! These reactors could fuel a small city for 20 years ?
Wow! I did not know that!
to be fair, they basically are small cities at this point.
Just to Clarify...
the fuel needed would be for auxiliary systems—specifically, marine diesel fuel like NATO F-76 or marine gas oil (MGO). Nuclear submarines carry diesel generators as backups to provide emergency power if the reactor is shut down or to supplement electrical needs for onboard systems (e.g., lighting, electronics, or battery charging) while docked. These generators require conventional marine distillate fuel, which is exactly the type of product a bunker fuel supplier like Haltbakk Bunkers would provide during a port call. A Virginia-class sub, for instance, might use a few thousand liters of diesel for such purposes during a stop, depending on the duration and operational demands.
A private Norwegian company, Haltbakk Bunkers, reportedly refused to refuel U.S. Navy vessels in Norway. This decision was made public around March 1, 2025, following a controversial meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Haltbakk Bunkers, a significant marine fuel supplier in Norway, cited ethical concerns and dissatisfaction with U.S. policy, specifically referencing the White House event as a motivating factor. The company announced it would not supply "a single liter" of fuel to U.S. military forces docking in Norwegian ports until Trump is no longer in office, urging other European suppliers to follow suit.
However, the Norwegian government, through Defence Minister Tore Sandvik, clarified on March 2, 2025, that this was a private company's decision and not reflective of official policy. Sandvik emphasized that Norway, a NATO member, would continue to provide fuel and support to U.S. Navy ships, ensuring no disruption to allied operations. While some reports suggest this refusal impacted specific vessels, like a Virginia-class submarine, the broader operational impact appears limited as the U.S. Navy can refuel through other suppliers or locations in Norway. The company's move is largely seen as symbolic, given its estimated supply of about three million liters of fuel to U.S. forces in 2024, often through intermediary suppliers rather than direct NATO contracts.
They probably mean replenishment.
I have a suggestion, since all these European fuckwits want to show their asses in support of little Z.... pull all troops out of Europe. Close the military bases. Cut off all foreign aid and funding to any European country that stands by the asshole. Take back whatever weapons we have over there.
Basically, take our toys and go home. Fuck 'em all. And, if Russia attacks any of them, sit back and laugh. I really don't give a shit anymore. The only ones worth saving are Hungary, with Orban (who is clearly on our side), and... was it Slovakia? I think they were the other ones who said they weren't supporting the little tyrant anymore. Let's have deals with them and forget the rest.
And put all the troops in Greenland.
Or we could just buy diesel from Russia.
They're right next door. Probably have better prices.
What about Poland?
Didn't Poland come out yesterday in support of the little twerp?
Dunno tbh, it’s why I’m asking.
Last I heard, Poland was super based and red pilled, and going to be the country that saved Europe, but it’s been more than 2 days (several months actually) so I have no idea now.
Just looked it up. Poland decided they support the tyrant:
https://www.profilenews.com/en/despite-the-escalating-tensions-between-trump-and-zelensky-poland-reaffirms-its-support-for-ukraine/
So they’re “bad” again?
It’s so hard to keep up with this.
we were only there for their benefit in the first place! American companies and their CEOs are sick of being philanthrapists and do-gooders. Trade is what loser countries have to do anyway.
LOL Yea, was thinking the same. Trump is just going to say "why are we protecting you again?"
According to one comment:
Correction: The name of the submarine is USS Delaware (SSN-791).
It’s a Virginia-class nuclear attack submarine.
Time to watch The Hunt For Red October
Love that movie!
Yeah... see the world through a periscope... no thanks... LOL
I couldn't... claustrophobic
because of the submarine mention! smart!!
This is a big deal. A private company pushing Europe into shaky grounds.
Geezzzze I didn't have Norway fucking around in my bingo card for March
Norway can't refuel our nukes. Dumb
Read more...and carefully. It had nothing to do with the nuclear power system.
If that’s the case, The US should stop providing protection for Norway. Didn’t they just join NATO?
Ok - I'm genuinely confused. WTF does England have to do with this?
Ooops, I miss identified the tiny little flag in the post. Thanks for pointing it out.
kek. np
If there was anything on board a Nuclear Submarine that required fuel. I’d imagine it’d be like an Emergency Generator that’d have enough juice to surface the Sub in the event of an emergency with the Reactor. Maybe run a comms system and a few lights.
Though granted I don’t know if it has a Generator. That’s just an assumption that would make sense imo.
u/#correct
One is none, so there is always a backup power plant
This goes for all ships, except single engine dinghies
Dinghies backup power = oars
Yes, lol
Sorry. You can't run a Diesel engine deeply submerged. No air. There should be enough compressed air in the storage tanks to surface the submarine. That is how it is surfaced ordinarily.
What is our history of foreign aid to Norway? There goes that ally facade.
I call bullshit.
Nuclear submarines do not need to refuel, they run small nuclear reactors which power steam turbines. The whole point of creating nuclear subs is that they run quiet and do not need to refuel.
I confirm bullshit:
They were first build 20 years ago, so none of them need refueling until 2037.
Honestly Norway, your media is legit more derp than the ms in America.
thank you for your info!
Los-Angeles class subs needed refueling every 10-15 years.
Read elsewhere on this page. It was for a backup Diesel generator for surface operation.
Perhaps Norway should rethink this if our sub is out there to prevent damage to undersea cables?
Refueling a nuke sub out at sea? How does that make any sense?
Diesel fuel for the backup generator for surface operations.
Unless it's a power out emergency, maintenance or testing I don't believe it's to often emergency diesel generators are fired up on a nuke sub while on maneuvers.
Logistically you would think we would have already planned for sub tenders for such scenarios.
They can only get the air when surfaced. it doesn't matter "how often" this happens, but it does matter that you have the capability when you need it. It's like a fire extinguisher. Having it full and ready is more important than how often it is used. Clearly, they were low on fuel or they would not have requested the offload.
I would say that being a member of NATO and Norway being a member of NATO should have been all the planning necessary. The sub approached this as established (past) operating procedure, so the refusal was a new element. Rude awakening.
Another example of not thinking ahead.
Look who we have in charge of DOD now. Look who he fired his first week. Do people think he's going to promote more of the same? Or Generals/Admirals that would rather rip out their own guts and strangle you with them, than surrender?
$20 says sailing orders are being changed right now, so any nuclear ship sailing will be ordered to live with the stores they have on board for the duration, until they reach safe port.
That Norway company just screwed a whole swath of global foreign naval support companies.
Welp, time to pull out of NATO. They need the USA a LOT more than we need them.
Then can't even start WWIII without us.
I give them until Monday that they will be changing their tune…lol…these people are stupid…how about we stop all them Norwegian cruise ships from entering our ports or make them apply for B1/B2 visas instead of being a part of the ESTA program…
Throwing the biggly biggest Bull Shit flag possible on this story. It's a nuclear powered vessel. It doesn't need refueling unless they are supplying core rods of Uranium for reactors... LOL
The Bullshit Flag is at full staff indeed. Car lot sized
Needs to be at half staff as dead-in-water. As elsewhere explained here, it was Diesel fuel for a backup generator needed for surface operations.
This was barely touched upon, but I would have to suppose that this would be a violation of the terms and obligations of the NATO treaty. Norway is not supposed to have any beef with the United States. I think Trump needs to have a candid phone call with King Harald V.
Good excuse to ditch the worthless NATO!
Excellent. Let's pull out of that communist hellhole they call Europe completely. This time. When it all goes to hell, we won't go in and save their asses.
These idiots blame Trump and Vance.
https://x.com/HexdlineNews/status/1895909091756912675
They're about to Find Out
Norway big mad after we took Greenland 😆
Oh really? The DOGE boys need to look at past invoices from this company. Me thinks they might be a little more than slightly inflated. I wonder too if HB has anything to do with those Norwegian missing children?
Nuclear submarine.
"Refuel".
yea, how does that work exactly?
Also. Since when are american nuclear submarines (basically the most advanced weapons platforms the US currently has) being 'refueled' (more accurately, resupplied) by PRIVATE COMPANIES? What happened to navy tenders?
Maybe the crew wanted to order some pizza and the norwegian company said no?
Or maybe the article is just BS>
Congress, declining recruitment numbers, force drawdowns, switch to the all Volunteer model, incompetent handling of budgets. And an over abundance of Friendly Ports. Not to mention an over reliance on private companies and contractors.
Means the Fleet Tender numbers got cut substantially. We’ve got a grand total of 42. 15 Oilers. 1 Ammunition Ship. 4 Combat Support Ships. 14 General Purpose Freighters. 4 Tug boats. 4 Rescue/Salvage boats. And 2 Hospital Ships.
Split between 5 Transport commands. Which are in turn split between supporting the various Navy Commands. And the Carrier Battle Groups regularly have at least 1 supply ship attached for deployments. Meaning there’s functionally 34 ships to support the rest of the Navy. Supplemented by contracted Merchant Ships on a temporary basis
maybe try googling nuclear submarine refuel.
Norway should immediately lose any and all funding from the US as well as any other type of support.
And, I would refuse to allow Norwegian cruise ships to dock in the US, along with immediately revoking any Norwegian visas and refusing entry to any Norwegian nationals.
Good, cut all aide to Norway and withdraw from NATO. The EU would slow walk aide to us if we needed them.
I see. So Norway no longer supports it's NATO partners?
This is a very, very childish and idiotic move by the Norgays. Trump always specialises in cruel and disproportionate over-reactions to pettiness like this. I suspect HB will find themselves unable to travel to the US and any exports will be subject to endless customs exchanges. They will rue the day.
They probably wanted to get fuel for the diesel generators on board.
Guess this company (and Norway) want to go woke and go broke.
Makes no sense. Nuclear submarines don’t refuel. They go home for that. Otherwise, great news.
Story is bullshit
https://greatawakening.win/p/19Adl79b2S/
so stupid, we are only there to "protect" that very same country from Russia. time to peace out and let them all sink on their own bullshit.
Pretty sure they already changed the article to "US warship"
A private company? Mmmmmkay