I'll be looking forward to seeing the Blue Angel.
Dear Reader and the clown posse will simply mothball half the fleet.
Well at least the Navy doesn’t need the EPA’s permission to put a reactor online...
Galley slaves and tiers of oars. That’s how they’ll do it.
That’s the ticket. CAFE standards for our military. Sheesh.
“socking the Navy with losses”?? Our Armed Forces can’t have “losses” as their are not businesses with generated revenues and costs. They can have budgets and exceed their budgets, but these are not “losses.”
A 50% reduction would be fine if we had more nuclear powered ships, but I suspect Obama is thinking more along the lines of sails and oars.
Build more nukes.
they are going to harness the repressed sexual energy from putting females on subs and power their ships through it.
I'll be looking forward to seeing the Blue Angel.
I have no problem with the Navy incorporating new power systems *if* they are genuinely more efficient *and* don’t affect their war-fighting ability. For example, fuel-cell submarines are showing some real promise - super quiet, can stay under far longer than the old diesel boats, etc.
That said, we could address the Navy’s conventional fuel needs (and likely every other service branch) through the gasification of coal. The technology has been around since before WW I. It wouldn’t be the cheapest way to make gas or diesel, but it would use a resource we have LOTS of here in the States. It would also probably put a lot of people back to work in places like western Kentucky, southeastern Illinois, etc (i.e. coal regions).
And what provides power for the (2) 5,000 bhp AC Electric Motors? Could it be that the main gas turbine power plant? Honestly, are the idiots in charge of the Navy, too? I don't imagine that a ship the size of an LHD is operating off batteries (and batteries need to be charged).