Department of Defense Appropriations for 1970Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, 91st Congress, First SessionPart 2: Operation and MaintenancePages 442-444 (PDF Excerpt) |
Mr. Andrews. When you overhaul these subs will you put in new cores?
Captain Morgan. Yes, sir.
Admiral Shifley. For some regular overhauls they would be recored.
Mr. Andrews. A new core is contemplated in the Adams and the Clay?
Captain Morgan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Andrews. What about the cost of cores now?
Captain Morgan. The cost of cores, themselves, is included in the procurement account. The cost of the installation of the cores is in this budget.
Mr. Andrews. Do you know about the cost?
Captain Morgan. I do not have the accurate figure as to how much the cost of cores has increased between last year and this year. We will have to provide it.
Mr. Andrews. What about mileage, do you get more mileage from these new cores?
Admiral Shifley. That is going up, the trend is up. I can get you a statement on that.
Mr. Andrews. Put a chart in the record at this point to show what progress has been made over the last 10 years.
(The information follows:)
|
COMPARISON OF NUCLEAR CORE COST AND PERFORMANCE |
||||||
|
Ship type |
Initial cores(s) |
Present replacement core(s) |
||||
|
Cost (millions) |
Miles steamed |
Dollars (per mile) |
Cost millions |
Anticipated miles |
Dollars per mile |
|
|
Submarine (1 reactor) |
$4.1 |
62,000 |
$66 |
$4.0 |
400,000 |
$10 |
|
Aircraft carrier (8 reactors) |
$61.1 |
207,000 |
$343 |
$80.0 |
935,000 |
$85 |
|
Frigate (2 reactors) |
$10.2 |
309,000 |
$33 |
$11.5 |
700,000 |
$16 |
|
OCRers Note: This appears to show comparisons between 1962 (Initial Cores) and 1969 (Replacement Cores) for the following craft: 1 x S5W (SSN-593/594 Thresher/Permit) |
||||||
Naval nuclear power unit prices have increased by approximately 10 percent in the last year. These increases were due to escalation in the price of special reactor materials as well as increasing labor costs. However, there has been a marked increase in the life of naval nuclear power units in recent years so that, even with the increasing price of power units, the net cost per unit of energy has declined significantly since the beginning of the nuclear power program.
Admiral Shifley. Ideally, Admiral Rickover I believe is working toward being able to provide cores with a new ship that would last the entire life of the ship.
Mr. Andrews. He has told us about that. Also, if I remember correctly, the price of the cores has been decreasing from what they were when you first started using them and you get more mileage out of them.
Admiral Shifley. Yes, sir.
Mr. Andrews. Therefore, your cost of operation has come down?
Admiral Shifley. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Andrews. Has the cost of operating the nuclear-powered submarine gotten closer to the cost of operating a conventional type sub?
Admiral Shifley. It is getting closer but nuclear power is still more expensive than fossil fuel power.
Mr. Andrews. And better?
Admiral Shifley. Yes, sir, much better. As a matter of fact, the advantages, particularly in the submarine, to be gained from nuclear power are just so many fold higher than and better than a conventional submarine that it is difficult to make a comparison.
Mr. Andrews. I wish you would have some of your men put in the record a statement about the experience you have had operating the nuclear-powered submarines vis-a-vis the conventional type, the overall difference in the cost, and compare present-day statistics with 10 years and 5 years ago.
Admiral Shifley. I will be happy to do that.
Mr. Andrews. I have always thought it is much, much cheaper in the long run to have an atomic-powered Navy craft whether under the sea or on the sea.
Admiral Shifley. I will be happy to provide that, sir.
Mr. Andrews. You might consult Admiral Rickover.
Admiral Shifley. I will ask him if he wouldn't like to contribute to this.
(The information follows:)
Cost of Nuclear Power Versus Conventional PowerThere is some difficulty in choosing conventionally powered submarines that are “comparable” to nuclear powered submarines for purposes of an operating cost comparison. Even when such factors as length, weight, crew composition, electronics and weapon characteristics can be reasonably matched, the contrasts dominate. Every conventional submarine must return to the atmosphere after relatively short submerged periods in order to continue operating whereas the submerged endurance of nuclear powered submarines is limited only by the endurance of its crew. The conventional submarine is severely limited in speed when either totally submerged or snorkeling as compared to top speed on the surface whereas the submerged speed of a nuclear powered submarine equals or exceeds the top surface speed of a conventional submarine. In addition, the conventional submarine is fuel limited to a maximum cruising radius measured in thousands of miles. In essence, we are comparing two weapons systems with completely different tactical and strategic capabilities regardless of the "match" in size, armament or electronics. Nevertheless, during the last decade, the average cost of operating nuclear powered submarines has decreased relative to the average cost of operating the most similar diesel electric submarines. The table below shows the reduction in the ratio of operating costs for nuclear powered submarines compared to the operating costs of diesel electric submarines. The average operating costs are based primarily upon overhaul costs, alteration costs, nuclear core costs and core reprocessing costs. The cost of fossil fuel, supplies and equipage, and unscheduled repairs was considered in the analysis but the overall impact on the ratio was relatively minor. Personnel costs were excluded since the crew allowance for the nuclear and conventional submarines in these classes is virtually identical. The following comparisons were made: The SS 563 fast attack class with the SSN 478 Skate class and the SS 580 fast attack class with the SSN 585 Skipjack class. |
|
RATIO OF AVERAGE ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS |
|
1. Submarine being compared: Skate SSN class (SSN 578, 579, 583, 584) to the fast attack SS class (SS 563, 564, 565, 566, 567, 568).Average nuclear cost as a percentage of average diesel cost |
|
|
Fiscal Year |
Percent |
|
1961 |
356 |
|
1965 |
205 |
|
1970 |
196 |
2. Submarines being compared: Skipjack SSN class (SSN 585, 590, 591, 592) to the fast attack SS class (SS 580, 581, 582).Average nuclear cost as a percentage of average diesel cost |
|
|
Fiscal Year |
Percent |
|
1962 |
219 |
|
1965 |
237 |
|
1970 |
197 |