By Jen DiMascio

Without a commitment this year to mandate that future Navy cruisers should be powered by nuclear propulsion systems, Congress might miss its opportunity to make the change, the leaders of a House panel on Navy issues argue.

Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) and Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.), the chairman and ranking member of the House Armed Services seapower subcommittee, have long been supporters of nuclear propulsion systems and this year added language to the defense authorization bill that would require the systems on future ships.

As the conference on the authorization bill nears its conclusion, the provision on nuclear-powered vessels remains one of the remaining sticking points in the subcommittee conference.

Bartlett was eager to promote the merits of nuclear propulsion last week.

The move makes sense operationally and economically, he said. For instance, the nuclear-powered carriers have a 30-year supply of fuel, but the Navy’s escort vehicles with diesel engines have only a three- to five- day supply, making them reliant on refueling ships and sometimes dangerous foreign ports.

The Navy’s own studies show that destroyers and cruisers are cheaper over their life span when oil is $60 or $70 dollars per barrel, and the cost of oil is more likely to rise over time. Moreover, the cost of producing nuclear plants would reduce as the nation builds more of them, he said.

But there are complications with requiring a move away from conventional engines.

The up-front cost of going nuclear is a main deterrent, especially as lawmakers seek to increase the size of the shipbuilding budget to buy 10 or more ships per year.

In addition, the Navy prefers basing the design of the hull on the conventionally powered DDG-1000, according to a Congressional Research Service report updated in June.

Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), a former Navy secretary, said last week he supports the idea–“in theory.” Over the long term, it is more affordable to buy nuclear, he said, but that might not be enough.

“The question for me is practicality at this point,” Webb said. “My understanding is the Navy wants to look hard at the practicalities of it, and we should allow them to do that.”

The Navy in May discussed an analysis that would look at specific warfighting requirements and the role of industry in developing nuclear cruisers (Defense Daily, May 4).

But the results of additional studies won’t change the long-term benefits of buying nuclear ships, Bartlett argued.

Lawmakers need to weigh in on the decision while they still have a chance, because the Navy is in the process of locking in the design for the next cruisers, Bartlett said.

“We won’t have another chance for 30 years,” he said, because the service is buying 30 years worth of cruisers. “It will be increasingly more difficult to talk about this in the future, because they will have their design more locked in, and it will cost more to change. So this is the right time.”

Taylor agreed, saying that he learned the hard way on the DDG-1000 program that once the Navy blesses a design, the service will argue that changing the propulsion system would lead to a delay.

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), who leads the Senate Armed Services seapower panel, said last week he was prepared to talk with Taylor about the issue but did not have a comment on the topic right now.

“What I’ve done to date has me moving in another direction, but I haven’t talked to [Taylor],” Kennedy said.