Interesting story here of the difference of opinion between the Navy and the GAO on the economics of nuclear power in the next generation Cruiser (CG(X)). Apparently, GAO has seen the Navy's Propulsion Analysis of Alternatives (A0A) for the CG(X), and in a letter to Senators Kennedy (D-MA) and Martinez (R-FL), takes issue with a purported Navy finding that operating a nuclear cruiser could prove cheaper in the long run than a conventionally powered variant.
I don't know what the right answer is here, but I do know that it is in the Navy's best interests to work with GAO, CBO, and DOD to come up with a common cost model across government for the acquisition of ships. Much of the monkey-business with ship costs and the concomitant loss of confidence in the Navy on the Hill has come from interested parties cherry-picking variables in a way that makes their case more persuasive. If the Navy were directed to figure costs in a manner approved by Congress, then theoretically the arguments would solely be over cost and value--rather than how costs were figured and why cost estimates were so imprecise.
Bryan McGrath
No comments:
Post a Comment