1998年4月01
五角大楼发言人肯·培根了 . ................ ................问:我能问你另一份GAO报告的情况吗?循环的报告草案,建议购买的成本,改革,维护和操作核航母严重超过传统航空公司的成本,但是,我们发现在最近的部署,都似乎同样工作的时候使用它们。你能否评论交通部是否在考虑未来是否应该使用常规燃料的航母?答:首先，这个争论——传统航母与核动力航母——是最古老的争论之一，可能是美国军方问责局报告中最古老的主题之一。ReportsReports我打赌大卫·马丁(David Martin)在这里已经呆了一段时间，他能记得在过去20年里，这个问题曾被国会内外的某些人提过5到8次。我不会逼他数的。但这是老生常谈了。但是，仅仅因为一个论点是老生常谈，并不意味着它不值得更多的研究。显然，这种分析取决于许多变量，如随着时间而变化的石油价格。 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)