Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Carriers in the Gulf: Risky?
Message-ID: <1991Jan27.102813.24982@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 27 Jan 91 10:28:13 GMT
References: <1991Jan18.001959.6230@cbnews.att.com> <1991Jan25.031253.10188@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: David Taylor Research Center, Bethesda, MD
Lines: 15
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams)

>In article <1991Jan22.013926.18118@cbnews.att.com> dps@otter.hpl.hp.com (Duncan
> Smith) writes:
>  America, Ranger, Midway, Forrestal, John F. Kennedy, Theodore Roosevelt
>
> Aren't all except the last two conventionally powered? And all
> except the last one, which is brand spanking new (CVN-71?), in
> the region of twenty-plus years old?

Actually, those Forrestal and Kitty Hawk classes carriers have undergone
through the SLEP (Ship Life Extension Program), and it is just like
their odometers have been reset to zero.