Fuck you GAO. (USN Nuclear Cruiser)

[MKSheppard]

Link

U.S. Navy: Nuclear Cruiser Could Be Cheaper Than Non-Nukes
By christopher p. cavas
Published: 7 Aug 2009 18:11 Print | Email

A U.S. Navy draft study has concluded that operating a nuclear-powered cruiser could be cheaper than operating a non-nuclear ship, but the Government Accountability Office (GAO) is disputing that assessment.

The U.S. Navy is mulling a new cruiser propelled by nuclear power, as was the USS South Carolina. (U.S. Navy / PH1 Gregory Pinkley) In an Aug. 7 letter sent to Sens. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and Mel Martinez, R-Fla., GAO analyst Paul Francis said a yet-to-be-approved Navy draft cost analysis showed that nuclear cruisers would be cheaper if oil-price patterns of the past 35 years continue to hold.

But Francis wrote that the Navy didn't include several factors in its calculations - factors that would change the results to show that non-nuclear ships would be cheaper.

They include "present value analysis," a way to calculate the future value of money; alternative scenarios for the future price of oil; and an examination of how a less efficient conventional propulsion system would affect cost estimates.

By including those factors in its calculations and coming up with a different result, Francis wrote, his analysis "demonstrates the sensitivity of the cost estimates to different assumptions, underscoring the need for more rigorous analysis before reaching conclusions."

Francis wrote that although the Navy disagreed with several of GAO's underlying analyses, it agreed with the need to include the new factors in its calculations.

The Navy is considering nuclear power for the new CGX cruiser, which it could buy in 2017. Congress has directed that the ships be nuclear-propelled, but a 2007 Navy analysis reported a nuclear cruiser would cost $600 million to $800 million more than a non-nuke.

The Navy has not commissioned a nuclear-powered warship other than an aircraft carrier or submarine since 1980, and all its nuclear cruisers were taken out of service in the 1990s.

The GAO letter also provided rare confirmation of some of the broad details of the never-released Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) report for the CGX cruiser. The report, begun in 2006, was to have been completed in late 2007, but has been withheld for a variety of reasons as the Navy reviewed its plans for the ship.

Francis reports that the Navy identified six ship design concepts in the CGX AoA: two based on modified DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers; one on a modified DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer; one new conventionally powered cruiser; and one nuclear-powered cruiser. The sixth concept wasn't identified in the letter.

The designs vary in capability, Francis wrote, including the sensitivity of the primary radar, the number of missile cells, and the propulsion system.

The power of the new radar, to be developed from a new Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR), is a key factor in the new ship's ability to meet its mission requirements. Final power needs for the new radar, which is in the earliest stages of development, are as yet unknown, but numerous Navy sources report that the power needs will best be met by providing the cruiser with a nuclear power plant.

[Vympel]

Isn't the GAO just saying 'do more calculations before you decide if it's cheaper'?

[Stark]

If their objection to the cost study is sound, it seems bizarre to criticise them for trying to find the best solution.

Maybe they should have just Asked The Internet?

[MKSheppard]

If their objection to the cost study is sound, it seems bizarre to criticise them for trying to find the best solution.

Because you know, nuclear warships are immeasurably superior to conventional in so many ways it's not even silly? And with the price of OIL inevitably going UP, wouldn't it make sense to factor that into future warship plans?

Besides, it's not like this has happened before -- in teh late 50s, the USN computed that when all costs were factored in, a Nuclear SSN was only 25% more expensive than a Conventional SS. And this also happened before with the CVAN debate involving McNamara; who refused to consider the navy's studies showing that CVANs were incredibly superior to CVAs in terms of bombs and sorties delivered before having to replenish.

[Patrick Degan]

I should think that Peak Oil will force the decision eventually.

[Stark]

Because you know, nuclear warships are immeasurably superior to conventional in so many ways it's not even silly? And with the price of OIL inevitably going UP, wouldn't it make sense to factor that into future warship plans?

I was right - they SHOULD have asked the internet! Anyone with an objection is clearly wrong because...

Besides, it's not like this has happened before -- in teh late 50s, the USN computed that when all costs were factored in, a Nuclear SSN was only 25% more expensive than a Conventional SS. And this also happened before with the CVAN debate involving McNamara; who refused to consider the navy's studies showing that CVANs were incredibly superior to CVAs in terms of bombs and sorties delivered before having to replenish.

Irrelevant. If they're right, and the calculations used to determine the nuclear solution is cheaper are wrong, then it should be looked at again. It's not a case of 'agree with me = correct, disagree with me = wrong'. It's about facts. They even hilariously shoot themselves in the foot by saying they expect oil prices to follow current patterns, which may well be totally wrong.

[MKSheppard]

Irrelevant. If they're right, and the calculations used to determine the nuclear solution is cheaper are wrong, then it should be looked at again. It's not a case of 'agree with me = correct, disagree with me = wrong'. It's about facts.

You mean like with the CVA/CVAN argument in the 1960s, Stark?

In April 1963, the “First Navy” study was given to McNamara. It concluded that “nuclear propulsion does permit a significant increase in the beneficial military results for a given expenditure,” and that CVA-67 and all other future major warships should be nuclear powered.

Of course, Strange took that report and shoved it into his desk and ordered another study to be done.

The “Second Navy” study arrived on his desk in September 1963 and was quite detailed and focused on the lifecycle cost differential between oil and nuclear powered task forces. It concluded that there was only a 3% cost differential in favor of the oil burning task force; but the advantages of a nuclear task force were so great as to outweigh the slightly increased cost.

Advantages? Well…in the words of the Navy in 1964:

“a nuclear CVAN-67 is designed to carry ammunition, aircraft fuel, and propulsion fuel for conventional escorts sufficient to deliver at least 60% more airstrikes than a conventional CVA-67 before replenishing.”

So what does Strange do?

Why of course he rejects it totally, gins up some supporting data of his own from OSD, and asserts:

“I am absolutely certain of one thing, that the six conventional task forces are superior to five nuclear task forces.”

He then continued to reject any further analysis of the CVA(N)-67 issue by the Navy and ordered it to be constructed as a oil-burner in a memo to SecNav Korth on October 9, 1963.

One of the key scenarios OSD ginned up to discredit the nuclear powered carrier was that of a High Speed Run across the Atlantic.

The Director of Defense Research and Engineering in OSD, Harold Brown assumed that the conventionally powered carrier had 100% availability and absolutely perfect positioning of underway replenishment ships.

These assumptions kept the oil-burning CV only 4 hours astern of the CVN after five days of high speed running.

Unfortunately, Admiral Hayward, who did do high speed runs on both CVNs and CVs, reported that during his transit of the Atlantic on a conventional carrier, the sea was so rough that underway replenishment wasn’t possible, nor could he bring his escorts alongside for refuelling from the carrier.

This led to the carrier burning aviation fuel in its boilers to make its destination.

[Winston Blake]

alternative scenarios for the future price of oil;

The fact that they even have to consider this range of future scenarios for oil, just to get simple cost estimates, shows that nuclear power is the only reliable option. However, there isn't any point arguing when we don't really know what we're talking about. The sensible thing to do is to try to find the paper and take a look at their premises and reasoning ourselves. Can civilians get ahold of USN 'draft studies'?

This led to the carrier burning aviation fuel in its boilers to make its destination.

A successful trip which thus proves that CVNs are unnecessary.

[Shroom Man 777]

They even hilariously shoot themselves in the foot by saying they expect oil prices to follow current patterns, which may well be totally wrong.

But STRAK, it's not like oil is gonna get any CHEAPER, is it? What if the Mohammedians get hissy over the Jews and stage an EMBARGO? Or if oil doesn't turn out to be very... renewable?

[CmdrWilkens]

Isn't the GAO just saying 'do more calculations before you decide if it's cheaper'?

It seems that the GAO is saying "if you did the math right oil is cheaper." While that may or may not be correct teh question is how much cheaper (or more expensive) over the ship's lifecycle and what design features will you have to compromise on in order to have the bunker space and associated equipment vice a nuclear system.