2008 Election | The Pub | The Field Mess | The Staff College | Bookmark WAB


Go Back   World Affairs Board > Military Forums > Naval Forces
Register FAQ WAB RSS Feed Forum GuidelinesMembers List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!

The World Affairs Board is one of the premier forums for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include foreign & defense policy, international security, military developments, weapons proliferation, terrorism, international strategic affairs, and politics. Our membership includes many from military, defense industry, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-20-2007, 20:07 PM   #1 (permalink)
PubFather
Senior Contributor
 
Join Date: 04-25-06
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 1,198
Country:
More ships...!!

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.
__________________
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit - Scottish Motto

"They that approve a private opinion, call it opinion; but they that dislike it, heresy; and yet heresy signifies no more than private opinion” Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan

PubFather is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 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.
rickusn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2007, 23:16 PM   #3 (permalink)
ArmchairGeneral
Devil's Advocate
Senior Contributor
 
ArmchairGeneral's Avatar
 
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
ArmchairGeneral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2007, 04:17 AM   #4 (permalink)
SnowLeopard
Military Professional
 
SnowLeopard's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-18-06
Location: Texas
Posts: 720
Quote:
Originally Posted by PubFather View Post
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")
SnowLeopard is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply




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


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


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:37 AM.


Rochen is the business hosting sponsor of World Affairs Board and a provider of reseller web hosting services.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC8