Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: bash@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (thomas.w.basham)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: nuclear powered ships
Message-ID: <11863@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 1 Dec 89 04:20:20 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 27
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: bash@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (thomas.w.basham)

>From: siyt@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (p.jayne)

>The subject of nuclear powered surface ships has come up in other
>contexts, but not as a direct topic.  The idea of nuclear powered
>submarines is too clear to question, but I'm curious about surface
>ships.  The navy has had lots of experience by now.  Do nuclear
>ships pay for themselves in fuel savings (vs. reactor maint.) alone?
>What are the other advantages -- more time on station?  What about
>disadvantages?  At what point does ship size become a factor?
>	Paul Jayne


>From what I've read, CVNs are the big winner.  The space gained
by not having to carry fuel for the ship makes more room for fuel
for the aircraft, weapons, etc.  I suppose any nuclear powered ship
would have more available space than it's conventional counterpart.

Tom
-- 
Tom Basham      AT&T Bell Laboratories    (312) 979-6336  
att!ihlpb!bash	                  
bash@ihlpb.ATT.COM          If you can't beat 'em, infiltrate and 
                            destroy them from within.


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com