01 April 1998
Pentagon Spokesman Ken Bacon briefed. ................ ................ Q: Can I ask you about another GAO report? There's a draft report that's circulating that suggests that the cost of buying, overhauling, maintaining and operating nuclear aircraft carriers is gravely in excess of what it costs for a conventional carrier, but, as we found in this recent deployment, both seem to work equally well when it's time to use them. Can you comment on whether the Department is at all considering whether they should use conventionally fueled carriers in the future? A: First if all, this argument -- conventional versus nuclear carriers -- is one of the oldest arguments, one of the oldest themes of GAO reports in the history of the U.S. military, probably. I'll bet David Martin, who's been around here some time, can remember five or eight times in the last 20 years when this issue has been raised by somebody in Congress or outside of Congress. I won't force him to count the number of times. But it is an old chestnut. But just because an argument is an old chestnut, doesn't mean it's not worthy of more study. Clearly the analysis depends on a number of variables such as the price of oil which changes over time. But let me just say several things about this particular report. The Navy is convinced that nuclear carriers make more sense than conventional carriers. One of the reasons it's convinced is that nuclear carriers are more flexible, they can steam for longer periods of time without support, they can carry 50 percent more supplies such as ammunition, food, etc., so they have much greater independent sustainability than conventionally powered carriers do. In a world where we provide the worldwide military presence, and where our ability to use ports is not always certain, I think the Navy feels that's a very valuable margin of enhanced performance. Having said that, Secretary Dalton did say on the Hill recently, I think last week, that the Navy, of course, will once again study the comparative economic merits between nuclear and conventionally powered carriers. So one of the reasons that this is an old chestnut issue is that it always lends itself to restudy, and it will be restudied again. I think every time there's a new class of carriers on the drawing board or contemplated being on the drawing board, people raise this question as to whether it's appropriate to continue building nuclear versus conventionally powered carriers. Q: The price difference that was cited of over $9 billion over the 50 year life of a carrier, is that about what your estimates are? Does that overstate... A: No, that overstates the case, and I can't tell you exactly what the Navy's estimates are. I'm sure they'd be able to give you clear estimates on that. But the Navy insists that the margin is much different. But the question is, what do you want to pay for improved maneuverability? What do you want to pay for improved combat power? What do you want to pay for improved sustainability? I think the Navy has made the decision that paying more for nuclear carriers pays off in terms of enhanced battle effectiveness. ............. (end transcript)