Nuclear Or Conventional Power For Surface Combatant Ships

This report addresses the issues surrounding the controversy over nuclear versus conventional power in major strike force surface combatant ships. The report discusses various cost and effectiveness factors involved and identifies the key issues for congressional attention.

Nuclear or Conventional Power for Surface Combatant Ships?

Contents: (1) Intro. and Issue for Congress; (2) Background: Nuclear and Conventional Power for Ships; Nuclear Power for a Surface Combatant; Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program; Current Navy Nuclear-Powered Ships; CG(X) Cruiser Program; Reactor Plant for a Nuclear-Powered CG(X); Construction Shipyards; Nuclear-Capable Shipyards; Surface Combatant Shipyards; 2006 Navy Alternative Propulsion Study; (3) Potential Issues for Congress: Cost; Development and Design Cost; Procurement Cost; Operational Effectiveness; Ship Construction; Shipyards; Nuclear-Propulsion Component Manufacturers; Environmental Impact; (4) Potential Options for Congress; (5) Legislative Activity for FY 2010. Charts and tables.

There has been a continuing debate over the relative merits of conventional and nuclear power for U.S. warships. Most military experts agree that submarines and large aircraft carriers should have nuclear propulsion. Presently the controversy centers over the desirability of nuclear power for cruisers, frigates, and destroyers that accompany the carriers. Nuclear ships are more capable but cost more, and their relative cost-effectiveness cannot be measured because Navy analysts cannot quantify many benefits of nuclear power. In addition, available data on construction and operating costs do not lend themselves to precise comparisons. The Department of Defense estimates that construction of only nuclear-powered ships could result in about 25 to 35 fewer cruisers, frigates, or destroyers than if the same amount of money were to be spent on comparable conventionally powered ships. The advantages of nuclear-powered ships appear to be highly dependent on the perceived nature of future conflicts.

Some Members of Congress, particularly on the House Armed Services Committee, have expressed interest in expanding the use of nuclear power to a wider array of Navy surface ships, especially the Navy's planned CG(X) cruiser. The Navy wants to procure the first CG(X) in FY2011, and is currently studying design options for the ship, including the use of nuclear power. A 2006 Navy study concluded the following, among other things: ! In constant FY2007 dollars, building a Navy surface combatant or amphibious ship with nuclear power rather than conventional power would add roughly $600 million to $800 million to its procurement cost. ! The total life-cycle cost of a medium-size nuclear-powered surface combatant would equal that of a conventionally powered mediumsize surface combatant if the cost of crude oil averages $70 per barrel to $225 per barrel over the life of the ship. ! Nuclear-power should be considered for near-term applications for medium-size surface combatants. ! Compared to conventionally powered ships, nuclear-powered ships have advantages in terms of both time needed to surge to a distant theater of operation for a contingency, and in terms of operational presence (time on station) in the theater of operation. In assessing whether the ...

This report addresses the issues surrounding the controversy over nuclear versus conventional power in major strike force surface combatant ships. The report discusses various cost and effectiveness factors involved and identifies the key issues for congressional attention.