Only mammoth aircraft carriers and stealthy submarines are powered by nuclear reactors in today’s Navy, but the idea of creating nuclear-powered surface warships for the first time in years is getting increased attention from the department and Congress.

The Navy signaled its openness to the idea this month in a report to Congress, according to Navy spokesman Lt. Bashon Mann and Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS), one of the biggest congressional proponents of nuclear-powered warships.

Neither the Navy nor Congress has released the full report, which is supposed to include fossil fuel and nuclear propulsion plant alternatives sized for nearly two dozen combatants, auxiliary and amphibious warships displacing 7,000 to 37,000 tons.

But Mann and Taylor told Inside the Navy the report keeps open the possibility of using nuclear power in a new class of CG(X) cruisers designed to handle missile defense missions.

Mann said the study dismisses the idea of using nuclear power for new big-deck amphibious ships or small surface combatants, but preserves the option for surface warships such as CG(X).

“Life-cycle cost, break-even analyses suggest that nuclear power is not fiscally attractive for near term applications in small surface combatants and amphibious warfare ships, but should be considered for medium surface combatants,” Mann told Inside the Navy.

The Navy is still studying its options for CG(X), he added.

Taylor, chairman of the House Armed Services seapower and expeditionary forces subcommittee, has advocated using nuclear power in new warships to curtail U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

In a Jan. 25 interview, he told ITN the new report contains information that supports his point of view.

“I thought they touched on a number of issues that helped me make my case,” he said.

Taylor said the Navy is “in agreement” with him on the cruisers.

“They said for cruisers [nuclear power] made sense, even though it’s 10 percent more expensive,” he said.

But the Navy is still cautious about the cost of the effort, while Taylor is more enthusiastic, the lawmaker acknowledged.

He explained, “They’re still saying, ‘It’s going to cost more. Can we afford it?’ And I’m saying, ‘Look, don’t you worry about that side of it. Just think about the future. And let’s build us a ship that’s going to last 30 years. And let me make the case that, yes, it’s more than worth the 10 percent extra.’”

Taylor and the Navy disagree on whether new large-deck amphibious ships should use nuclear power.

“I think they were a little off on the large-deck amphibs,” he said.

For these vessels, which tend to spend a good portion of their lives loitering, the Navy “didn’t think [nuclear power] made sense,” he said.

Disputing this conclusion, Taylor complained there are vulnerabilities tied to fossil fuel, including the fleet’s reliance on Navy fuel ships called oilers, as well as the dependence on foreign oil.

“I happen to think that those vulnerabilities are much greater than the Navy is willing to admit and that they did not give enough emphasis to that,” he said.

Taylor said nuclear power not only eliminates the need to fuel up at sea and the vulnerability associated with steaming alongside a tanker, but it also provides power that could support futuristic directed-energy weapons.

The report did not address this point about new weapons, but the Navy probably would not dispute it, he said.

Directed-energy weapons could provide greater self-defense capabilities for not only surface combatants but also amphibious ships, he argued.

“Let’s build a ship with enough power now, so that 15 years from now, if that concept becomes a reality, we have a power plant on board that provides all the power we need for radars, all the power we need for propulsion and, yes, all the power we need for that future weapon system,” he said.

That way, the Navy will truly be able to use new ships for 30 years, he said, provided vessels are designed modularly so electronics and weapons can be replaced as new technology evolves.

Taylor vowed to stress his point about powering future weapons.

He also said he would continue to “drive home the point that we do not need to let the Hugo Chavezs or the Irans or the Iraqs or the oil-producing states of the world hold our Navy hostage.”

He added, “And we sure as heck don’t want to be in the position that every one of our enemies has figured out -- you take out the oilers, you’ve idled the fleet.”

Should the U.S. create nuclear-powered surface warships? Let your public officials know how you feel!