Expansion simultaneously of both the naval nuclear program and the domestic nuclear industry.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/11/navy_nuclearwarships_071118/

Expansion simultaneously both the naval nuclear program and the domestic nuclear industry.

Can anyone imagine the magnitude of the new experienced worker, operators and the professional people needed for the expansion of the navy nuclear program and the nuclear Renaissance at the same time? Both the domestic nuclear industry and the Naval nuclear programs are sitting on the edge of collapse…

I like to talk about the submarines training, operation and maintenance budgets…their trends. I think the function of the submarines force is to feed the shipyards with submarine projects. So our primary function of the submarine fleet is to make money for the ship yards and to keep them in business….that ultimately feeds the corrupt political campaign contribution system in Washington.

There is very little interest in funding the support systems of submarines and naval reactors…bettering the peoples associated with maintaining the fleet…and those systems that better supports the bureaucracy.

All our money goes into the metal shell of the submarine…our war fighting strategy is primarily about keeping the shipyards and defense establishments well fed...fed like pigs...the nuclear ship yards…not in making these submarines more effective fighting machines relevant for our times.


Lawmakers: Nuclear power is Navy’s future

Bipartisan effort would wean fleet off of fossil fuels
By Zachary M. Peterson - Staff writerPosted : Sunday Nov 18, 2007 8:58:44 EST
The Navy should be required to use nuclear propulsion to fuel all large surface ships beginning with its next-generation cruisers, two top members of the House Armed Services Committee said.
Reps. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., and Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., told Navy Times on Nov. 7 that nuclear power is the “right way to go” for future Navy surface ships in light of the rising cost of fossil fuels and the benefit of being able to spend more time at sea without having to refuel.
Language in the House version of the 2008 defense authorization bill calls for nuclear power to be used in all large vessels, which would include destroyers and cruisers. The Senate version of the bill contains no such provision.
Taylor said Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., strongly supports the nuclear power measure in the House bill and is fighting to keep it. However, some senators have argued that requiring nuclear propulsion on surface ships would be too costly for a service already struggling with its shipbuilding plans.
But Bartlett and Taylor argue it is cheaper to go nuclear in the long run.
The Navy could be at “the edge” of nuclear power becoming cheaper with the cost of oil at nearly $100 dollars per barrel, Taylor said.
“If you look at the enormous cost escalation we’ve seen with the [Littoral Combat Ship program] because we’re dealing with unknowns and something that is new and different, nuclear propulsion has been around a long time,” he said. “The cost of a nuclear power plant is a known entity.
“Oil is a limited commodity,” Taylor added.
Bartlett said he thinks the Senate has been hesitant to support the measure “solely because of the upfront costs.”
Upfront cost estimates for nuclear-powered ships range from $600 million to $800 million more than conventional ships.
The price would come down with orders for nuclear-powered ships, Taylor said.
Right now, only two U.S.-based shipbuilders are certified by the Navy to build nuclear-powered ships: Northrop Grumman’s Newport News facility in Virginia, which builds aircraft carriers and submarines, and General Dynamics’ Electric Boat division in Connecticut and Rhode Island, which builds submarines.
Taylor said that if the measure becomes law, other shipyards, such as Northrop Grumman’s Ingalls shipyard in his district in Mississippi and General Dynamics’ Bath Iron Works facility in Maine would be encouraged to become nuclear-certified.
Measure targets CG(X)
The first Navy ship that would be affected by the measure would be the next-generation cruiser, CG(X). The service plans to build 19 of the ships between fiscal 2011 and fiscal 2023.
Nuclear cruisers would not be a first for the Navy, which deactivated the last of its nuclear cruiser fleet, the California, in 1998. The ship was built by Newport News Shipbuilding in the early 1970s.
“Operationally, these [surface ships] are supporting carriers and submarines that are fueled for 30, 33 years and these ships are fueled in three to five days,” Bartlett said. “Operationally, it makes a whole lot of sense to go nuclear.”
Current warships could be at risk because they are dependent on oilers to refuel at sea, Bartlett said.
With the increase in electric technology onboard future naval vessels, it makes sense to go nuclear to ensure ships have enough organic power generation, he added.
Barlett said he had a “long talk” with Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead, and the congressman said he thought cost was the only argument the CNO had against nuclear propulsion for surface vessels.
When life-cycle costs are considered, however, Bartlett said the additional cost upfront is “easily explained to the American people.”