Is it time to deep six nuclear power in the U.S. Navy?

Sept. 11 (UPI) -- Is there a greater naval heresy than the idea of reducing naval dependence on nuclear power? Just whispering this blasphemy could raise Hyman Rickover from his resting place to lead a fanatical counterattack in its defense.

Since the USS Nautilus (SSN-571) entered service in 1954, the United States has commissioned some 220 nuclear-powered warships: 15 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers (CVNs) and 9 nuclear-powered cruisers, and the remainder attack, ballistic and cruise missile-carrying submarines. The arguments for nuclear power have centered on the nearly unlimited endurance capabilities that made these ships independent of land bases, and in the case of submarines, the ability to remain submerged and undetected. Meanwhile, the United States has kept these nuclear technologies as among its most sensitive and closely held secrets.

Nuclear power has just been extended to Australia through AUKUS, the collective security agreement between Australia, Britain and the United States, under which a total of eight nuclear-powered submarines (SSNs) will be delivered to the Royal Australian Navy over the coming decades. The United States will build up to three Virginia-class submarines, with Britain to co-design and produce the remainder. This constitutes Pillar 1. Pillar 2 will be technology exchanges among the three AUKUS members.

Despite its long history and the AUKUS initiative, nuclear power faces severe challenges. In wartime such as in Vietnam, nuclear carriers had to be replenished every few days for aviation fuel and weapons for the air wings. The same applied to fuel for surface escorts. Once a submarine expended its torpedoes, mines or missiles, it had to be rearmed.

Submarine-building costs, including for infrastructure and associated logistics, are astronomical. USS Columbia , the first Ohio-class replacement, is estimated at $20 billion, which includes some costs for subsequent ships. Further, due to supply chain issues, it takes about nine years to build an SSN. And nuclear infrastructure is expensive to maintain and man.

The current shipbuilding industrial base may not be in crisis yet, but it is close. Moreover, because of logistics issues and shortages in recruiting and training workers with necessary nuclear skill sets, this base cannot currently build enough Virginias to fill the U.S. Navy's needs, let alone those of AUKUS.

Obviously, with the current number of nuclear powered ships in service and those scheduled to be built including for AUKUS, the United States cannot and will not shut down this infrastructure. In fact, sectors of it must be increased just to meet current demands for new construction and overhaul needs. Considering these constraints, costs, and the advent of unmanned underwater vehicles, must all future carriers and submarines be nuclear powered?

Regarding aircraft carriers, the answer is no. Yes, nuclear power obviates the need for fossil fuel storage. Yet, air wings and surface escorts still require underway replenishments. For these reasons, a 2019 Naval War College study called "Breaking the Mold" recommended the John F. Kennedy (II) be the last U.S. nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.

With submarines, the advent of Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) and long-life batteries offers an option. A Swedish AIP submarine transited the Atlantic at 15 knots submerged. In the case of future ballistic missile submarines, AIP and not nuclear power makes sense.

Underwater endurance and the long range of ballistic missiles they carry make detection exceedingly unlikely. And if these missiles can be surface launched, these ships could fire in port. Regarding attack or cruise missile-carrying submarines, certainly to reduce not only costs but other expensive drivers of nuclear power like people and infrastructure, should every attack boat continue to be nuclear propelled?

The initial reaction to such a transformative idea will not be positive. A number of years ago, the idea of using AIP in an Albacore hull that could sail at over 35 knots was rejected with no review. Yet, given the harsh realities of budget and manpower limits and the revolutionary advancements in AIP and battery technology, there is no rational reason to stop an objective and thorough examination of whether nuclear propulsion is needed for all future submarines and large aircraft carriers.

Unless there is profound change, the irony is the more that is spent on defense, the more the U.S. Navy shrinks indicating future trends. These force reductions will continue unless the nation and its leaders have the courage to change how business is done or at least examine if change is even possible. Nuclear power need not be deep-sixed. But its future application must be reviewed.

Harlan Ullman is UPI's Arnaud de Borchgrave Distinguished Columnist, a senior advisor at Washington's Atlantic Council, the prime author of "shock and awe" and author of "The Fifth Horseman and the New MAD: How Massive Attacks of Disruption Became the Looming Existential Danger to a Divided Nation and the World at Large." Follow him @harlankullman. The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.