Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: sconway@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Sean P Conway)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: CGN/DLGN Classification
Message-ID: <1991May17.063307.1690@amd.com>
Date: 16 May 91 15:38:45 GMT
References: <1991May15.060811.2974@amd.com> <1991May16.052709.17494@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: The Ohio State University
Lines: 20
Approved: military@amd.com


From: sconway@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Sean P Conway)


>From: gt3741b@prism.gatech.edu (Kikai heno hanashite)
>The CVAN and CVA became CVN and CV (respectively), not the
>other way around, as your chart suggests.  Further, you forgot
>the CVS, which became CV as well (the whole idea was that all
>of our carriers should be multi-mission..not just a group of
>"attack" carriers, and a group of "ASW" carriers.. they should
>all be able to do all of the jobs..  budget stuff).

If I remember correctly, the 'A' in CVA stands for 'heavy' not 'attack'.
This follows the same logic that a CA stands for 'heavy cruiser'.  The
rationale behind this was to distinguish between the larger and smaller
carriers.  I have never heard of CVAN, but I have heard of nuclear
carriers being refered to as CVA's.  Maybe since all modern heavy carriers
are nuclear, they viewed it as being redundant to include the 'N'.

Sean Conway