Editing 78-15-B3 (section)

= Nuclear Carrier =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
When the defense bill was vetoed the reason given was the provision in that
bill for construction of a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier. The veto message stressed
the greater cost of a nuclear carrier as compared to the conventional kind. That
was a little less than accurate for a number of reasons, one being that the cost
of the nuclear carrier included fuel for 13 years. Adding fuel cost to the price
of the conventional carrier for those 13 years brings it into the Nimitz-class
price range--but not its battle effectiveness.

What makes the veto hard to understand though is a report to Congress ordered
by the Carter administration making an unanswerable case in support of the giant
carriers.

In fact, there were two studies--submitted early last spring, both of which were
thorough analyses of naval force planning. One was the "Sea based Air Platform", a
study comparing the cost-effectiveness and "survivability" of small, medium and
large aircraft carriers. The second was the "Sea Plan 2000", a study which analyzed
the mission and the needs of the U.S. Navy from now till the end of the century.

The administration delivered these studies without deleting or repudiating a
single recommendation or finding. Then ignoring the studies completely, it submitted
a 1979 Navy budget providing for no carriers at all and a shipbuilding
program be reduced by half.

To say that Congress was surprised is an understatement. The first study said
that the Nimitz-class carrier is individually the most effective and survivable
ship. Its massive armor plate, structural strength and compartmentalization make it
capable of absorbing a great many enemy hits and still keep on fighting. This is
not true of the smaller ships.

The "Sea Plan 2000" study found that our surface ships and carrier battle groups
will become less vulnerable over the next ten or more years. This is laid to the
expectation that three U.S. developments will more than match Russia's advances in
cruise missiles, attack bombers and submarine threat. They are the F-14/Phoenix
fleet air defense system; the introduction of a close-in defense against missiles
that get through the fighter barrier, and improvements in our anti-submarine warfare.

Over and above all, the studies demonstrated that a navy of 13 carriers, and
600 ships in all could take on the vastly improved and increased Soviet navy in its
own waters and win. We are far short of those numbers right now.

Admiral Holloway, who has just retired as Chief of Naval Operations, had
recommended the giant carrier. Secretary of the Navy Clayton said, if Congress
would authorize a big carrier he would build it with enthusiasm.

It is hard to understand the complete reversal of the administration, when its
own studies and arguments were aimed at convincing Congress the nuclear carrier was
needed. Congress was convinced, but the President said, "April Fool", and the Soviets
smile happily.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.
</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>10/31/[[Radio1978|1978]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV-370]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD></TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

</TD></TR>
</TABLE>