Naval Reactors History Database (nrhdb)
Favorites (0)
Search:
2013 in date [X]
rss icon RSS | Modify Search | New Search | nrhdb Home
Results:  4 itemsBrowse by Facet | Title
Sorted by:  
Page: 1
Date
collapse2013
collapse10
22 (1)
Type
Text (4)
1Title:  FY 2014 Naval Reactors budget request Add
 Summary:  This document contains the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) congressional budget request for FY 2014, which includes a request for $1.246 billion dollars for Naval Reactors. The request notes that Naval Reactors manages "96 operating reactor plants. This includes 72 submarines, 10 aircraft carriers, and 4 research, development, and training platforms (including the land-based prototypes)" (643). It also describes several milestones for the Naval Reactors program for the previous fiscal year, including the commissioning and construction of Virginia-class submarines. Two planned milestones for FY 2014 are stated: The "cumulative completion of 99% of the Gerald R. Ford-class next-generation aircraft carrier reactor plant design" and the "cumulative completion of 22% of the Ohio-class Ballistic Missile Submarine Replacement (Ohio replacement) reactor plant design" (642). The significant advances that will be achieved by the new plant design for the Gerald R. Ford-class (the A1B reactor) are mentioned in the request. Compared with the A4W reactor plants that power Nimitz-class carriers, the A1B "increases core energy, provides nearly three times the electric plant generating capability, and requires half the number of reactor department sailors" (643). Support for three major projects is included in the NNSA request: The Ohio-class development; refueling and overhaul of the S8G prototype; and, recapitalization of spent fuel processing equipment at the Idaho National Laboratory's Expended Core Facility (ECF). The ECF's mission and the importance of this recapitalization project are described in detail: "The ECF provides the infrastructure to unload shipping containers and transfer, prepare, temporarily store, and package naval spent nuclear fuel for disposal" (664). While maintenance and repair operations are performed for the ECF infrastructure, the recapitalization work is needed to ensure that the ECF can meet the demands for spent fuel processing and to avoid any "mission-compromising interruptions" that would threaten operations of the nuclear fleet (664). 
 Source:  http://nnsa.energy.gov/aboutus/budget 
 Date:   2013 
 Subject(s):  Expended Core Facility | Naval Reactors 
 Type:  Text 
 Format:  PDF 
 Similar items:  Find
2Title:  Navy response to Freedom of Information Act request following fire on board USS Miami Add
 Summary:  This document is the U.S. Navy's response to a Freedom of Information Act request placed by WCSH 6, a Portland, Maine NBC affiliate television station. The request was placed as part of the station's investigative reporting following a May 2012 fire on board the USS Miami, an attack submarine that was undergoing an Engineering Overhaul (EOH) at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard at the time of the fire. The response document includes information on the scope of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program and the current size of the Navy's nuclear fleet. It also provides a high-level description of pressurized water reactors and the barriers in place to prevent the release of radioactivity from nuclear-powered submarines and ships. Two sections at the conclusion of the document address fires on board nuclear-powered warships. 
 Source:  http://www.wcsh6.com/assetpool/documents/130522055829_NavyResponse.pdf 
 Date:   2013 
 Subject(s):  USS Miami (SSN-755) | Naval Reactors 
 Type:  Text 
 Format:  PDF 
 Similar items:  Find
3Title:  The United States Navy Nuclear Propulsion Program: Over 151 million miles safely steamed on nuclear power Add
 Summary:  An informal and informative history of joint Department of Energy-Department of the Navy Nuclear Propulsion Program. 
 Source:  http://nnsa.energy.gov/sites/default/files/nnsa/04-14-inlinefiles/2014-04-09%202013_Naval_Nuclear_Propulsion_Program.pdf 
 Date:   2013 
 Subject(s):  Naval Reactors 
 Type:  Text 
 Format:  PDF 
 Similar items:  Find
4Title:  Navy Ohio replacement (SSBN[X]) ballistic missile submarine program: Background and issues for Congress Add
 Summary:  This report, written by naval affairs specialist Ronald O'Rourke, describes the Ohio ballistic missile submarine replacement (ORP) or SSBN(X) program. The goal of this program is "to design and build a new class of 12 ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) to replace the Navy's current force of 14 Ohio class SSBNs." In the summary, he cites the September 2013 congressional testimony of Admiral Jonathan Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations, who described the SSBN(X) as "the top priority program for the Navy." The first SSBN(X) submarine is expected to be procured in FY 2021. One issue outlined by O'Rourke is the impact of sequester funding cuts on the SSBN(X) program. In May 2013, the Navy noted that the March 2013 sequester cuts "have not altered the Navy's plan to procure the lead boat in FY2021, but have added schedule and technical risk to the program" (17). A late 2013 or early 2014 sequester cut, on top of the 2013 reductions, would have a damaging impact on the SSBN(X) program and on the nation's strategic defense posture, "delay[ing] the planned start of construction on the first SSBN(X) from FY 2021 to FY 2022. This would cause us to be unable to meet U.S. Strategic Command presence requirements when the Ohio-class SSBN retires..." (18). O'Rourke lists the procurement estimates for the SSBN(X): 12 billion for the lead boat in the class (2013 dollars) and an "average procurement cost of boats 2 through 12 in the Ohio replacement program at about $5.4 billion each in FY2010 dollars." However, he describes the variables that could impact SSBN(X) costs, including the construction level for Virginia-class nuclear-powered attack submarines: "If shipbuilding affordability pressures result in Virginia-class boats being removed from the 30-year shipbuilding plan during the years of SSBN(X) procurement, the resulting reduction in submarine production economies of scale could make SSBN(X)s more expensive to build than the Navy estimates" (20). 
 Source:  www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R41129.pdf 
 Date:  22 October 2013 
 Subject(s):  SSBN(X) | Naval Reactors 
 Type:  Text 
 Format:  PDF 
 Similar items:  Find

nrhdb Home