Ebook: Navy Nuclear-Powered Surface Ships: Background, Issues, and Options for Congress

Congressional Research Service, USA. CRS Report for Congress RL33946, September 29, 2010. - 33 с.Атомные надводные корабли ВМФ: Предыстория, проблемы и варианты для конгресса. Отчёт Исследовательской службы Конгресса США, 29 сентября 2010. На англ. яз.A 2006 Navy study on the potential for applying nuclear-power to Navy surface ships other than aircraft carriers concluded the following, among other things:
In constant FY2007 dollars, building a Navy surface combatant or amphibious ship with nuclear power rather than conventional power would add roughly $600 million to $800 million to its procurement cost.
The total life-cycle cost of a nuclear-powered medium-size surface combatant would equal that of a conventionally powered medium-size surface combatant if the cost of crude oil averages $70 per barrel to $225 per barrel over the life of the ship.
Nuclear-power should be considered for near-term applications for medium-size surface combatants.
Compared to conventionally powered ships, nuclear-powered ships have advantages in terms of both time needed to surge to a distant theater of operation for a contingency, and in terms of operational presence (time on station) in the theater of operation.Introduction.
Background.
Nuclear and Conventional Power for Ships.
Nuclear and Conventional Power in Brief.
Nuclear Power for a Surface Combatant.
U.S. Navy Nuclear-Powered Ships.
Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program.
Current Navy Nuclear-Powered Ships.
Earlier Navy Nuclear-Powered Cruisers.
Initial Fuel Core Included in Procurement Cost.
Section 1012 of FY2008 Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 110-181).
CG(X) Cruiser Program.
The Program in General.
Reactor Plant for a Nuclear-Powered CG(X).
Proposed Cancellation of Program.
Construction Shipyards.
Nuclear-Capable Shipyards.
Surface Combatant Shipyards.
Recent Navy Studies for Congress.
2005 Naval Reactors Quick Look Analysis.
2006 Navy Alternative Propulsion Study.
Potential Issues for Congress.
No Apparent Near-Term Shipbuilding Program Opportunities.
Assessing Whether Any Future Ship Classes Should Be Nuclear Powered.
Cost.
Operational Effectiveness.
Ship Construction.
Ship Maintenance and Repair.
Crew Training.
Port Calls and Forward Homeporting.
Environmental Impact.
Legislative Activity for FY2011.
FY2011 Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 5136/S. 3454).
House.
Senate.
FY2011 DOD Appropriations Bill (S. 3800).
Senate.
Prior-Year Legislative Activity.
FY2010 Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2647/P.L. 111-84).
House.
Senate.
Conference.
FY2009 Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 5658/P.L. 110-417).
House.
Senate.
Compromise.
FY2008 Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4986/P.L. 110-181).
House.
Senate.
Conference.
FY2006 Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1815/P.L. 109-163).
Tables.
Unrefueled Cruising Ranges and Transit Distances.
Earlier Navy Nuclear-Powered Cruisers.
Contacts.
Author Contact Information.