Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!herald.usask.ca!alberta!ubc-cs!uw-beaver!cornell!llenroc!batcomputer!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: jln@leland.stanford.edu (Jared Nedzel)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Converting to nuclear power (was Re: Aircraft Carriers.)
Message-ID: <1991Mar14.035219.26618@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 14 Mar 91 03:52:19 GMT
References: <1991Mar7.013113.59@cbnews.att.com> <1991Mar8.021640.6798@cbnews.att.com> <1991Mar13.002206.6352@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (william.b.thacker)
Organization: AIR, Stanford University
Lines: 26
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: jln@leland.stanford.edu (Jared Nedzel)
In article <1991Mar13.002206.6352@cbnews.att.com> munnari!cs.uq.oz.au!anthony@uunet.UU.NET (Anthony Lee) writes:

>From: munnari!cs.uq.oz.au!anthony@uunet.UU.NET (Anthony Lee)
>In <1991Mar8.021640.6798@cbnews.att.com> swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) writes:

>I've read that nuclear aircraft carriers can carry up to 12 days
>supplies of jet fuel for her aircrafts.  So
>why not convert the other Kitty Hawk class and Forrestal class
>carriers to nuclear power too ?

Simple reason: it would cost major bucks to do so and the result would
still be an older, smaller carrier nearing the end of its useful life.
Better to save the money and spend it on a new Nimitz.





-- 
Jared L. Nedzel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail: nedzel@cive.stanford.edu
        jln@portia.stanford.edu