Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Small carrier powerplants
Message-ID: <11370@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 13 Nov 89 16:11:26 GMT
References: <11197@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: news@cbnews.ATT.COM
Lines: 21
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
>From: terryr@ogccse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker)
>A related discussion is the cost of operating the ships.  Smaller 
>carriers would not probably be nuclear powered.  In a simple 
>analysis, this results in cheaper operating costs.  But after
>considering all the support requirements (less time on station
>for refueling, more support vessels to carry the extra fuel, more
>escorts for the oilers, etc) they may cost much more...

Actually, there is no inherent reason why they couldn't be nuclear powered.
You do not need something the size of a supercarrier for nuclear power to
be practical.  Most nuclear submarines are much smaller than even the
smallest carriers.  This is a political and financial issue, not a
technical problem with the small-carrier concept.

Remember, too, that not all of the supercarriers are nuclear.

                                     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
                                 uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu