Naval Reactors History Database (nrhdb)
Favorites (0)
Search:
Budgetary information in subject [X]
1998 in date [X]
rss icon RSS | Modify Search | New Search | nrhdb Home
Results:  2 itemsBrowse by Facet | Title
Sorted by:  
Page: 1
Subject
Budgetary information[X]
Naval Reactors (2)
Date
1998[X]
Type
Text (2)
1Title:  FY 1999 Naval Reactors budget request Add
 Summary:  This is the FY 1999 budget request for the Naval Reactors program. It describes the organization's mission ("'cradle to grave' responsibility for Naval nuclear propulsion work"). It provides detailed information on Naval Reactors operations at that period of time, and describes NR's areas of development to achieve improved power densities and extended core life. The evaluation and servicing section describes NR's requests to support defueling or dismantling the S1C, D1G, A1W, and S5G prototype plants. 
 Source:  www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/eng/navalr.pdf 
 Date:   1998 
 Subject(s):  Budgetary information | Naval Reactors 
 Type:  Text 
 Format:  PDF 
 Similar items:  Find
2Title:  Navy aircraft carriers: Cost-effectiveness of conventionally and nuclear-powered carriers Add
 Summary:  This 1998 GAO study analyzes the cost-effectiveness of nuclear-powered carriers compared with their conventional counterparts. Chapter 3 focuses on a primary finding, that .life-cycle costs for nuclear-powered aircraft carriers are greater than for conventionally-powered carriers. (74). This includes construction and modernization costs; support and operations costs; and, costs after decommissioning (.because of the extensive work necessary to remove spent nuclear fuel from the reactor plant and remove and dispose of the radiologically contaminated reactor plant and other system components. (74). The report notes that the Department of Defense .disagreed that comparing the life-cycle costs of conventionally powered carriers such as the U.S.S. John F. Kennedy with Nimitz-class nuclear-powered carriers was appropriate because of differences in the age, size, and capabilities of the carriers. (96). Chapter 4 describes the benefits of having a United States carrier homeported in Japan and the maintenance facility support that would be required to support a nuclear-powered carrier to be based there. (Note that the USS George Washington, CVN-73, has been based in Yokosuka, Japan since 2008.) Overall, the study provides a good analysis of the costs and benefits associated with naval nuclear propulsion for the carrier fleet. The last conventionally-powered carrier, the USS Kitty Hawk, was decommissioned in 2009; as of today, all United States Navy carriers are nuclear-powered. This study was published at a time when the best path for propulsion systems was being carefully analyzed. The chart on page 23 that compares the specifications of the USS John F. Kennedy (conventional) versus the USS Nimitz (nuclear) has several critical data items. In terms of aviation fuel capacity and ordnance capacity, the nuclear-powered carrier is vastly superior. In other ways not listed, such as sustained speed and the elimination of stack gases, the nuclear-powered carrier is again superior. 
 Source:  http://www.fdsys.gov/ 
 Date:   1998 
 Subject(s):  Budgetary information | Naval Reactors 
 Type:  Text 
 Format:  PDF 
 Similar items:  Find

nrhdb Home