Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: terryr@ogccse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Small carrier powerplants
Message-ID: <11428@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 14 Nov 89 23:26:55 GMT
References: <11197@cbnews.ATT.COM> <11370@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Oregon Graduate Center, Beaverton, OR
Lines: 31
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: terryr@ogccse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker)
In article <11370@cbnews.ATT.COM> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>
>From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
>
>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.

I agree that small carriers could be nuclear powered.  Partly due to
the expense of building and maintaining nuclear power plants, and 
partly due to the difficulty in keeping nuclear trained personnel the
navy has shown a reluctance to build small nuclear powered ships.  Look
at the nuclear powered strike cruiser program that was cancelled and
replaced by the aegis conventional powered ships.  All of the navy's
CGN's are much smaller than the small carrier that's been discused, so
there is no iherent limitation.

>Remember, too, that not all of the supercarriers are nuclear.
No they aren't, but look at the Nimitz class and follow ons.  They
show that the navy is dedicated to building only nuclear powered
supercarriers.  

--
Terry Rooker
terryr@cse.ogc.edu