Obama's commission proposes cutting social security

[Phantasee]

Have there been any recent studies comparing operating cost between otherwise similar ships, with one set being nuclear powered and the other conventionally?

[Mr Bean]

Have there been any recent studies comparing operating cost between otherwise similar ships, with one set being nuclear powered and the other conventionally?

Even if operating costs were better for conventional ships the fact that nuke ships are limited by how long the hull will last, not how big the gas tank is is such a huge strategic/tactical advantage.

As it is I'm sure Sheppard will be along to explain how Nuclear ships are very cost effective.

[Ritterin Sophia]

The most recent I can find is from 1998 by the General Accounting Office.

Link PDF File
The important part is Appendix II

For fiscal year 1963, DOD requested a conventionally powered carrier.
A prolonged debate to change the propulsion of the carrier, later
named the U.S.S. John F. Kennedy (CV-67), to nuclear power,
followed. The campaign to support nuclear power was led by the
Chairman of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, the Secretary of
the Navy, and the Chief of Naval Operations. Opposition to
nuclear-powered carriers eventually weakened, and all aircraft
carriers since have been nuclear-powered, beginning with the U.S.S.
Nimitz (CVN-68) in the fiscal year 1967 program. Including the
U.S.S. Enterprise (CVN-65), a total of eight nuclear-powered
carriers have been built and two more are under construction.\1
In an April 1963 memorandum to the Secretary of Defense, the
Secretary of the Navy concluded that ¹nuclear propulsion permits a
significant increase in the beneficial military results for a given
expenditure and that we must exploit and take maximum advantage of
it. . .and that all new major warships should be nuclear-powered.º
The Navy staff's comparative analyses showed that the costs of a
nuclear task force would be about the same as a nonnuclear task force
with its fuel replenishment and escort ships. The advantages of
nuclear propulsion in surface warships were summarized in an
enclosure to the memorandum:
"As a nation with an overseas strategy, nuclear propulsion in
our combatant surface ships adds an essential new dimension to
their versatility and effectiveness in war or deterrence of war.
Increased range and staying power, plus a reduction in
vulnerability provided by nuclear propulsion, will make naval
forces much stronger and more useful as instruments of national
policy and power."
The specific advantages accruing to nuclear propulsion, according to
the Navy study, were
-- virtually unlimited high-speed endurance;
-- optimized prepositioning of (nuclear) fuel (the reactor cores
reduce the quantity and total costs of conventional fuel which
must be prepositioned and protected);
-- reduced vulnerability to atomic fallout because nuclear-powered
ships do not depend on a constant intake of large amounts of air
for boilers;
-- increased shipboard electric power for new radars, sonars, and
missile systems that would otherwise reduce the operating range
of conventionally powered ships; and
-- elimination of stack gases.
In the language of the memorandum the meaning of "virtually unlimited
high-speed endurance" was elaborated
-- Nuclear-powered forces can be sent at high sustained speeds to
distant areas of operations and arrive ready to go into
action--they do not have to refuel before engaging the enemy.
-- Independent operations of nuclear ships can be conducted in
those areas where simultaneous deployment of the usual
replenishment forces may require an unacceptable amount of time
or risk. The necessary logistic support ships can start later
and/or transit more slowly and still arrive in time for
replenishment of aviation fuel and ammunition.
-- The requirement of oil-fueled forces to take into account the
risk of loss of fuel oil facilities either at the source or en
route to the refueling rendezvous is eliminated.
-- Absence from the restrictions imposed by fueling requirements
significantly reduces the vulnerability of the force by
eliminating the requirement to slow down to conserve fuel and to
refuel. These required refuelings reduce the tempo of any
offensive and defensive effort.
-- The nuclear-powered forces require less overall replenishment
and have much greater freedom in the selection of location and
time for the replenishment rendezvous. Nuclear propulsion also
reduces the size of the logistic support force and its escorts.
-- Nuclear-powered ships can be kept in an area of minimum
vulnerability with respect to the enemy submarine threat until
required to move into another action area. They can proceed at
a high sustained speed using such indirect routes and
circumvention to increase enemy submarine tasks as may be
indicated by the overall tactical situation.
The Defense Secretary's February 1963 memorandum also asked the Navy
to comment on specific topics. The Navy's comments regarding
worldwide deployments, underway replenishments, future shipbuilding
programs, and force structure reductions are summarized below.
-- Worldwide Deployments
Nuclear propulsion will greatly facilitate fast initial reaction,
rapid transit, readiness for combat on arrival, and strike group
operations with reduced task group vulnerability and logistic support
requirements.
The improved efficiency of coverage of potential trouble areas
associated with nuclear-powered task groups can be capitalized on by
either (1) better coverage, using the same numbers of groups as with
conventional forces or (2) comparable coverage, using fewer groups.
The potential exists to compensate for the increased costs of
individual nuclear-powered ships by obtaining more effectiveness or
by reducing force levels as these nuclear ships are delivered to the
fleet.
As they are delivered to the fleet, the nuclear-powered ships will be
phased into those assignments where transit distances may be long and
logistic support somewhat limited. For example, a nuclear-powered
task group could perform a high speed transit of about 5,000 miles
from 10 to 50 percent faster than a conventionally powered group,
depending upon the level of fuel support received by the
conventionally powered carrier groups.
The costs of achieving this capability with a nuclear force would be
approximately the same as with a nonnuclear force with its fuel
replenishment and escort ships.
-- Replenishment
Underway replenishment is the most reliable and effective method of
restocking naval forces with large quantities of consumables in
combat or in peacetime deployment to remote areas. This kind of
support, however, cannot be relied on in armed conflict situations or
in areas characterized by inadequate or nonexistent bases.
By eliminating the requirement for ship propulsion fuel, requirements
for replenishment of aviation fuel and ordnance will become the
controlling factors, varying directly with the level of aircraft
activity and/or combat operations.
Design and operational evaluations will continue to be directed
toward minimizing dependence on nuclear-powered ships upon logistic
support by increasing consumables storage, such as was done in the
case of the CVAN-67 design for aviation fuel and ordnance.
-- Future shipbuilding programs
The application of nuclear propulsion is toward a goal of all nuclear
attack carrier groups. The greatest advantages of nuclear power
accrue when the entire task group is so equipped. However, the
advantages to screen ships themselves are significant. An
alternative would be to use a nuclear-powered carrier with a
conventional screen; however, in this case, the operational and
logistics gains will be less if the nuclear-powered carrier must
function as a part-time oiler and is still tied to the logistics of
her escorts.
-- Force reductions
Nuclear-powered task groups will provide improved efficiency of
coverage of potential trouble areas. The benefits thereby can be
capitalized on, in part, by a reduction in carrier task groups or by
increased effectiveness.
A general transition to nuclear propulsion should permit some
reduction in total numbers of ships required to meet the Navy's
widespread, worldwide commitments.
--------------------
\1 The Harry S. Truman was commissioned in July 1998.

As it is I'm sure Sheppard will be along to explain how Nuclear ships are very cost effective.

Indeed, I'm sure unlike mine Shep is aware of some obscure graph that goes into painful detail found in the forgotten depths of the National Library where he had to ward off colossal spiders and tomb wights to get a scan of it.

[MKSheppard]

Link

We had several specific examples of rapid reaction during the first few days of our combat operations. The first occurred as we were proceeding from Subic Bay to our station off the southeast coast of South Vietnam. We received word of a submarine sighting by an underway replenishment (UNREP) ship some 145 miles from our position. The UNREP ship was without ASW protection so we were directed to detach a ship to provide assistance. BAINBRIDGE was without question, the obvious and, in fact only choice. Within less than 5 hours she had transited the 145 mile distance and was actively performing ASW search in the suspect area. Most probably our earliest concern with BAINBRIDGE would have been several days later when we may have had to send an ammunition ship to replenish ordnance if she had had any extensive ASW engagements. If the ordnance usage were relatively light, our next concern may have been weeks hence when we decided to send along some fresh vegetables.

In contrast, the two conventionally powered destroyers also accompanying us required nearly five hours time to close ENTERPRISE, top off with black oil and then depart to the submarine contact area. By the time they arrived, some 10 to 20 hours had elapsed. Then, of course, the immediate and necessary problem of keeping them in fuel oil began. Regardless of the amount of combat operations they engaged in, an oiler UNREP ship would have been a twice a week necessity. Again, the inconvenience and added expense is obvious.

Some five days later this situation repeated itself when an additional destroyer was required to be moved rapidly from our Task Group north to the Tonkin Gulf area, a distance of about 500 miles. Again, BAINBRIDGE was the logical choice. Twenty hours after she was directed to detach, she arrived on station fully prepared to execute all missions assigned. Not so a conventional destroyer. The average oil burner would probably have required refueling soon after arrival in the Gulf area. Continued frequent refueling would, of course, then have continued as the norm.

[Uraniun235]

what is it with you and high tech weaponry Shep? why would we need cgns?

Are you kidding? Every ship that's built with a nuclear reactor means less oil consumption. We should make as many of our ships nuclear as is practical.

[Ritterin Sophia]

what is it with you and high tech weaponry Shep? why would we need cgns?

Are you kidding? Every ship that's built with a nuclear reactor means less oil consumption. We should make as many of our ships nuclear as is practical.

It also means further nuclear reactor development which translates well to making newer and better civilian power plants.

According to Shep's link the USN was within a ten year period able to increase reactor efficiency by 900%, simultaneously tripling the reactor output for 1/3rd the cost.

[SVPD]

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding something, but the price of oil has increased considerably since that writing that Schatten posted, right?

I should think that most of the debate over the costs of nuclear ships in the 1990s and earlier would now swing more in favor of nuclear power.

[Lonestar]

The local radio station is talking about how the commission also recommends charging entry fees to the Smithsonian.


I think this is awful.

[LMSx]

The local radio station is talking about how the commission also recommends charging entry fees to the Smithsonian.

I think this is awful.

If the reason for that proposed fee is to reduce the deficit...it's such a lunatic distraction from the actual cause of future budget deficits (MEDICARE SPENDING) that it puts those panicked about earmarks to shame! That's just pointless inflicted pain so it sounds like we're Doing Something.

[Dominus Atheos]

I think the idea with that is to make federally-operated attractions self-sufficient so they don't impact the budget at all.

[Raptor 597]

One of the first steps I would do to deflate spending is take a massive chainsaw to the Army, specifically the Grow the Army plan. Any units deployable to Afghanistan would be receive priority manning until the conflict was over with. All units currently deployed in Iraq would stay for the duration until September except for those being withdrawn; what I'm saying is any units (especially Heavy BCTs) on orders to deploy would not and those units would be reduced to 66%-75% manning. All surplus manning of MOS qualified personnel would funnel into those units, and I'd also look at reassigning those with the most deployments to TRADOC or HBCT duties unless they are too far into a unit deployment cycle. Also, I'd continue with BRAC, but I would scrap the 5th Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Stewart, Georgia, the 5th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division at Fort Carson, and the 6th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division at Fort Bliss who are all supposed to be activated by 2011. It's funny that all those IBCTs will be activated only after Iraq is over, and if further cuts would desired I would demobilize one of either 1st ID, 3rd ID, 4th ID or 1st AD as they are the most redundant units in the Army after Afghanistan.

And I would slow the pace of FCS and see where further research and development takes us. My main problem with the Army inflating is all the long term monetary support involved i.e. - pay, medical, equipment maintenance, disability and retirement for soldiers and families, and base maintenance and upgrades. The Marines I would support in reducing as well and making them more subservient to the Navy. I just witnessed so much waste when I was in the Army I can't truly support it being any larger in a peacetime setting. Honestly, I'm concerned more with the long term sustainability of the Navy and Air Force since their programs are so expensive to replace once demobilized, and our true defense lies with naval and air power projection.

[SirNitram]

To move off the topic of the military, a different member of the same comission proposed their plan. Mysteriously, it is not plastered over everything.

Link

The Schakowsky plan is based on five key elements:

1) Increased economic stimulus to spur growth in the immediate term

· Provide $200 billion to invest over the next two years in measures to create jobs and spur economic growth, including passing the Local Jobs for America Act; and funding for education and law enforcement; Unemployment Insurance, Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (FMAP) and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program extensions; and infrastructure.

· Adopt the President’s proposals to eliminate overseas tax havens and incentives for outsourcing


2) Smart, targeted spending cuts

· Non-Defense Discretionary – $8.55 billion in savings through increased efficiency and cuts to programs that benefit large corporations that don’t need assistance.

· Defense Discretionary – $110.7 billion in cuts from the 2015 defense budget, including efficiency savings, reducing our troop levels, cutting weapons systems we don’t need, and scaling back the wartime increases in the size of the military.

3) Mandatory spending cuts

* Health Care – at least $17.2 billion in savings by implementing measures to bring down the cost of health care to the federal government and lower health care inflation overall.
* Other – $7.5 billion in savings by cutting agriculture subsidies in half, and redistributing federal support to offer greater benefits to small family farms reduce subsidies to large corporate agribusiness.

4) Reductions in tax expenditures

* Raise $132.2 billion by closing tax subsidies for companies that ship American jobs overseas.

5) Increases in revenues

* Raise $144.6 billion in revenue through progressive reforms to the estate tax, treating capital gains and dividends as regular income, and enacting a cap and trade proposal that includes protections for lower-income people.
* Enact President Obama’s budget proposal to let the Bush tax cuts for the top 2 brackets expire and return to 2009 estate tax levels.
* Non-tax revenue – raise $7 billion by addressing places where the private sector is currently under-paying.