More ships...!!

PubFather · 01-20-2007, 20:07 PM

Quote:

Taylor Urges Larger, Nuclear Fleet
By ANDREW SCUTRO

The future U.S. surface fleet should be bigger than it is today and it should be nuclear powered, according to Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., the new chair of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee (HASC) seapower and expeditionary forces subcommittee.
While ground vehicles and aircraft will always rely on conventional power sources, surface vessels are big enough to support nuclear reactors, Taylor said in a speech to the national symposium of the Surface Navy Association in Washington on January 10.
“We really do have a choice when it comes to ships,” he said. Taylor, who represents a major shipbuilding region in Mississippi, previously served as the ranking Democrat of the Projection Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee. Taylor urged that the future surface fleet be nuclear-powered, in part, because of America’s dependence on foreign oil. He also noted the vulnerability of conventionally-powered surface fleet in a time of war, while American submarines and aircraft carriers have nearly unlimited endurance due to their nuclear propulsion.
Taylor also spoke of his intent to support a bigger fleet despite rising shipbuilding costs. He cited the potential threat from an increasing powerful China.
“Numbers do matter,” he said.
In a somewhat partisan moment, he said the Bush Administration has not been honest about the material costs of the Iraq war and bemoaned the fact that the Navy has shrunk by 50 ships under the current president despite increases in non-Iraq related defense budgets.
“I want to turn that around,” he said.

DefenseNews.com - Taylor Urges Larger, Nuclear Fleet - 01/10/07 17:43

This sounds like electionering to me but for US posters - does this have a chance of happening? It might be a very interesting development. Nuke powered vessels would be more expensive initially, but perhaps offer life-time cost savings, i.e, no fuel and fewer tankers required.

rickusn · 01-20-2007, 20:14 PM

LOL

We can hardly build the programs in place now.

A nuclear-powered surface combatant? Not a chance IMHO.

And amazingly enough we have lost 50 ships since the Bush jr has been President.

ArmchairGeneral · 01-21-2007, 23:16 PM

We tried that once. Enterprise, Long Beach, Bainbridge, and Truxtun. The first "all nuclear" CBG. A little too expensive for the benefits.

SnowLeopard · 01-22-2007, 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PubFather

This sounds like electionering to me but for US posters - does this have a chance of happening? It might be a very interesting development. Nuke powered vessels would be more expensive initially, but perhaps offer life-time cost savings, i.e, no fuel and fewer tankers required.

However, they are like steam boiler ships in that it takes hours to come up to steam to be able to move. Even if you don't take the plants off line, there is still quite a manpower issue to contend with. Now, I don't know what the manpower requirement for a nuclear plant is, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was quite intensive.

With a GT plant, one turns a key and they are off and going.
-------------------------------------------------
("In six seconds, I can be at Mach 1."--Hawke torturing the passenger holding on to the helicopter's nose, (wtte), "AirWolf")

01-20-2007, 20:14 PM	#2 (permalink)
rickusn *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-09-03 Posts: 1,317	LOL We can hardly build the programs in place now. A nuclear-powered surface combatant? Not a chance IMHO. And amazingly enough we have lost 50 ships since the Bush jr has been President. Last edited by rickusn : 01-20-2007 at 20:24 PM.

01-21-2007, 23:16 PM	#3 (permalink)
ArmchairGeneral Devil's Advocate *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 05-03-06 Location: The boonies of NC, USA. Posts: 2,746 Country:	We tried that once. Enterprise, Long Beach, Bainbridge, and Truxtun. The first "all nuclear" CBG. A little too expensive for the benefits. __________________ "Apocalyptic thought is curiously pleasurable." -Theodore Dalrymple

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
World Navies in Review	rickusn	Naval Forces	7	06-14-2007 23:51 PM
Battleship History Article	rickusn	Battleships Forum	3	01-17-2007 11:16 AM
2003 CONOPS chp 8-9 & appendix's	Defcon 6	Naval Forces	1	07-06-2006 22:38 PM
World Navies Edited and Updated	rickusn	Naval Forces	6	03-25-2005 22:02 PM
Greatly Revised Rankings	rickusn	Naval Forces	2	03-20-2005 06:51 AM

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)