Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucla-cs!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: hplabs!ron@hpfcso.hp.com (Ron Miller)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: nuclear powered ships
Message-ID: <12017@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 6 Dec 89 02:49:00 GMT
References: <11822@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Lines: 32
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: hplabs!ron@hpfcso.hp.com (Ron Miller)

RE: Nuclear surface ships


Generally the tactical and strategic advantage of having nearly unlimited
fuel is extremely important. Having to call "time-out" for underway
refueling is both difficult and dangerous. A nuke doesn't have to 
 be refueled at sea, nor is its operation dependent upon this 
financial quarter's oil prices. (yes, one eventually has to replenish
food stores.... but you can do that with a helicopter at 30 knots)

The nuke is initially expensive, much more costly to operate in terms
of expensive repair parts and far more extensive personnel training.
Many countries will not permit nuclear powered warships to enter their
water, thus restricting port flexibility.

One thing to note is that in peacetime when Congress doesn't want to
buy fuel oil, the nukes pick up a larger than their fair share of 
at-sea days. This leads to little things like the bumpersticker
I saw in Norfolk:

    USS NIMITZ: The Screws Never Stop

Have a nice, Navy day!  :-)



Ron Miller  ex-Lt. USN
of USS CINCINNATTI (SSN-693)