Well, it was the NR running on Rickover fumes that eliminated the diesel boat and permanently lock the Sub force into sub 50 numbers. They only way to plus up the sub numbers by 2030 is to buy a $hit ton of U 212 class AIP boats and base them in the first island chain. At this point you need down range shooters. They don't all have to be fast, deep ocean hunter killers.
NR did not lock the submarine force at 50, that was a CJCS, Powell, decision based on budget. When Seawolf got so expensive, NR had a cheaper slower power plant on the drawing board.. hence the VA class..
Oh, that’s right, he wants to shut down research, development, and manufacturing of our nuclear weapons; and guidance systems, close Los Alamos National Laboratory; and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory as well as shutting down the Navy’s reactor labs. My bad.
Nukes, reactors, LANL, LLNL all predate Congress/Carter's creation/implementation of the DOE in 1977. Just like public schools and universities existed before the Department of Education.
Bad analogy. The argument against the Dept. of Education is that education is a responsibility of the 50 States, each of which has an educational system in place. One can make a good case that the Department of Education is an expensive federal intrusion into an area best suited to state control, and that it should be eliminated as wasteful and duplicative of state efforts.
The Department of Energy, which ought to be called the Department of Atomic Energy, has no corresponding state agencies. Florida’s reactor is a tiny facility, it’s not Los Alamos. States don’t design atomic bombs. We can’t have 50 sets of civilian atomic pile operating rules and regulations.
Advocating for the elimination of the Department of Energy, which houses programs which are federal responsibilities, like the development of atomic weapons, is ignorant and stupid. A candidate for President who says “eliminate the Department of Energy,” is showing his lack of knowledge and is unqualified for the position.
Your argument that that DOE exists for the purpose of centralized federal control of atomic technology is ahistorical. DOE exists as a result of the oil crisis and lobbying powers wanting to reshuffle the deck chairs. Unified control of nuclear technologies under the DOE is an illusionary artifact. As to being stupid AND ignorant, I'll at least cop to stoopid since that is arbitrary.
I expect what he means (I haven't looked into it) is get rid of the non-NNSA parts of Energy, that pour money into stuff like slar and wind that will never do more than supplement base load.
NNSA is semi-independent within Energy as it is, so stripping all the other parts of Energy and leaving the nuclear weapons and naval ractors alone is an idea that would make sense coming from a GOP candidate. De Santis should be more cear about it.
Excellent article. Naval Reactors long ago exhausted Rickover's fumes and is now living in a Tom Clancy fantasy world.
Well, it was the NR running on Rickover fumes that eliminated the diesel boat and permanently lock the Sub force into sub 50 numbers. They only way to plus up the sub numbers by 2030 is to buy a $hit ton of U 212 class AIP boats and base them in the first island chain. At this point you need down range shooters. They don't all have to be fast, deep ocean hunter killers.
PT boats are cheaper and can sling torpedos all day (and night) long.
But are they survivable? At least the U212 can survive long enough to clear the battle space when they run out of torps.
Missile corvettes. 57mm, RAM launchers, 16 NSMs, and UAV for IRST.
The world looked a lot different when the LA class was launched.
That was the world of "oh man, the Soviets have 400 submarines and we only have 100, that's not nearly enough!"
NR did not lock the submarine force at 50, that was a CJCS, Powell, decision based on budget. When Seawolf got so expensive, NR had a cheaper slower power plant on the drawing board.. hence the VA class..
The Florida Governor running for President has made shutting down Naval Reactors one of his campaign promises.
No, he said he would shut down the Department of Energy. There is a difference.
Oh, that’s right, he wants to shut down research, development, and manufacturing of our nuclear weapons; and guidance systems, close Los Alamos National Laboratory; and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory as well as shutting down the Navy’s reactor labs. My bad.
Nukes, reactors, LANL, LLNL all predate Congress/Carter's creation/implementation of the DOE in 1977. Just like public schools and universities existed before the Department of Education.
Bad analogy. The argument against the Dept. of Education is that education is a responsibility of the 50 States, each of which has an educational system in place. One can make a good case that the Department of Education is an expensive federal intrusion into an area best suited to state control, and that it should be eliminated as wasteful and duplicative of state efforts.
The Department of Energy, which ought to be called the Department of Atomic Energy, has no corresponding state agencies. Florida’s reactor is a tiny facility, it’s not Los Alamos. States don’t design atomic bombs. We can’t have 50 sets of civilian atomic pile operating rules and regulations.
Advocating for the elimination of the Department of Energy, which houses programs which are federal responsibilities, like the development of atomic weapons, is ignorant and stupid. A candidate for President who says “eliminate the Department of Energy,” is showing his lack of knowledge and is unqualified for the position.
Your argument that that DOE exists for the purpose of centralized federal control of atomic technology is ahistorical. DOE exists as a result of the oil crisis and lobbying powers wanting to reshuffle the deck chairs. Unified control of nuclear technologies under the DOE is an illusionary artifact. As to being stupid AND ignorant, I'll at least cop to stoopid since that is arbitrary.
https://books.google.com/books?id=yLI_AAAAIBAJ&pg=PA1&dq=department+of+energy&article_id=3599,4251060#v=onepage&q=department%20of%20energy&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=aHY0AAAAIBAJ&pg=PA1&dq=department+of+energy&article_id=6147,1938346#v=onepage&q=department%20of%20energy&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=iL0qAAAAIBAJ&pg=PA9&dq=department+of+energy&article_id=5726,2594470#v=onepage&q=department%20of%20energy&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=Ib88AAAAIBAJ&pg=PA8&dq=department+of+energy&article_id=3300,556230#v=onepage&q=department%20of%20energy&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=04FDAAAAIBAJ&pg=PA9&dq=department+of+energy&article_id=1405,5752126#v=onepage&q=department%20of%20energy&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=w29QAAAAIBAJ&pg=PA2&dq=department+of+energy&article_id=5947,3498213#v=onepage&q=department%20of%20energy&f=false
I expect what he means (I haven't looked into it) is get rid of the non-NNSA parts of Energy, that pour money into stuff like slar and wind that will never do more than supplement base load.
NNSA is semi-independent within Energy as it is, so stripping all the other parts of Energy and leaving the nuclear weapons and naval ractors alone is an idea that would make sense coming from a GOP candidate. De Santis should be more cear about it.
Show me.