Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mit-eddie!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military From: sun!Central!uokmax!jkmedcal@uunet.UU.NET (Jeff K Medcalf) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: news tidbit regarding the Enterprise Message-ID: <8127@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 11 Jul 89 01:28:06 GMT References: <8095@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: No, it isn't really. Lines: 33 Approved: military@att.att.com From: Jeff K Medcalf >From: vixie!decwrl!decvax!midnight.MV.COM!rml (Roger M. Levasseur) > >that will be much newer, but having much the same capabilities. >Looking at the 12th edition of The Ships and Aircraft of the US >Fleet, each class of ship measures up to be nearly the size, >same manning requirements, and capabilities. Any comments? > > -roger Actually, size is misleading. The Enterprise has eight reactors, compared to the current two on Nimitz and Improved Nimitz classes. This translates into more stowage for avgas and munitions, and also more fuel for the escorts, which are not always nuclear. In addition, the newer flat tops have better damage control, more efficiently laid out command suites, and better radar coverage (since Enterprise has the flat island structure for the old phased array radar she used to carry). Furthermore, a ship 30 years old is not as strong as a new ship, which could be vital when the ship is hit. I think also that there has been a scheme developed recently which would deflect the shaped charges of many antiship missiles, but which cannot be retrofitted. -- I dream I'm safe jkmedcal@uokmax.UUCP In my hotel womb Jeff Medcalf Soft and so nice It's a wonderful womb <-The Church, "Hotel Womb"