Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Converting to nuclear power (was Re: Aircraft Carriers.) Message-ID: <1991Mar18.003403.22975@cbnews.att.com> Date: 18 Mar 91 00:34:03 GMT References: <1991Mar7.013113.59@cbnews.att.com> <1991Mar8.021640.6798@cbnews.att.com> <1991Mar14.035100.26462@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (william.b.thacker) Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY Lines: 27 Approved: military@att.att.com From: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) In article <1991Mar14> ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) writes: >From: Allan Bourdius >>So why not convert the other Kitty Hawk class and Forrestal class >>carriers to nuclear power too ? >It would cost too much. There was a lot of talk when the Iowa Class >BB's were reactivated to convert them to nuclear power and they found >out that they could built an aircraft carrier for the same cost. For If my memory serves also, there is another question.... The KH & F class are smaller, and as ultra long range carriers would serve a limited use at best. As training and Harrier boats or for tight/small operations they might be (nearly( ideal but they wouldn't be worth it in numbers. On that note, the costs of design for a small (1 or 2) production run of baby nuk carriers would be so great that refurbishing would look attractive.... al -- Al. Michielsen, Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Syracuse University InterNet: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu amichiel@sunrise.acs.syr.edu Bitnet: AMICHIEL@SUNRISE