Navy Aircraft Carriers:

Cost-Effectiveness of Conventionally and Nuclear-Powered Carriers

NSIAD-98-1: Published: Aug 27, 1998. Publicly Released: Aug 27, 1998.

Additional Materials:


Richard Davis
(202) 512-3000


Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800

Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO: (1) compared the relative effectiveness of conventionally powered and nuclear-powered aircraft carriers in meeting national security requirements; (2) estimated the total life-cycle costs of conventionally powered and nuclear-powered carriers; and (3) identified implications of an all-nuclear carrier force on overseas homeporting in Japan and overseas presence in the Pacific region.

GAO noted that: (1) its analysis shows that conventional and nuclear carriers both have been effective in fulfilling U.S. forward presence, crisis response, and war-fighting requirements and share many characteristics and capabilities; (2) conventionally and nuclear-powered carriers both have the same standard air wing and train to the same mission requirements; (3) each type of carrier offers certain advantages; (4) for example, conventionally powered carriers spend less time in extended maintenance, and as a result, they can provide more forward presence coverage; (5) by the same token, nuclear carriers can store larger quantities of aviation fuel and munitions and, as a result, are less dependent upon at-sea replenishment; (6) there was little difference in the operational effectiveness of nuclear and conventional carriers in the Persian Gulf War; (7) investment, operating and support, and inactivation and disposal costs are greater for nuclear-powered carriers than conventionally powered carriers; (8) GAO's analysis, based on an analysis of historical and projected costs, shows that life-cycle costs for conventionally powered and nuclear-powered carriers (for a notional 50-year service life) are estimated at $14.1 billion and $22.2 billion (in fiscal year 1997 dollars), respectively; (9) the United States maintains a continuous presence in the Pacific region by homeporting a conventionally powered carrier in Japan; (10) if the U.S. Navy transitions to an all-nuclear carrier force, it would need to homeport a nuclear-powered carrier there to maintain the current level of worldwide overseas presence with a 12-carrier force; (11) the homeporting of a nuclear-powered carrier in Japan could face several difficult challenges, and be a costly undertaking, because of the need for nuclear-capable maintenance and other support facilities, infrastructure improvements, and additional personnel; and (12) the United States would need a larger carrier force if it wanted to maintain a similar level of presence in the Pacific region with nuclear carriers homeported in the United States.

Dec 3, 2019

Oct 31, 2019

Jul 9, 2019

Jun 27, 2019

Jun 7, 2019

Jun 4, 2019

May 30, 2019

May 9, 2019

Apr 17, 2019

  • justice icon, source: Comstock

    Priority Open Recommendations:

    Department of Justice
    GAO-19-361SP: Published: Apr 10, 2019. Publicly Released: Apr 17, 2019.

Mar 21, 2019

Looking for more? Browse all our products here