Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: CGN/DLGN Classification
Message-ID: <1991May21.024256.13315@amd.com>
Date: 20 May 91 12:24:24 GMT
References: <1991May15.060811.2974@amd.com> <1991May17.063307.1690@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: David Taylor Research Center, Bethesda, MD
Lines: 30
Approved: military@amd.com


From: swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams)


>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.  

This is when the Navy ship classification becomes confusing.  CVA does
stand for attack aircraft carrier.  CA does stand for heavy cruiser.
Don't ask me why...

>I have never heard of CVAN, but I have heard of nuclear carriers being 
>refered to as CVA's.

[From] 1972 onward attack aircraft carriers (CVA) were reclassified as
aircraft carriers (CV) upon being fitted with anti-submarine control
centers and facilities to support A/S aircraft and helicopters (in addition
to fighter/attack aircraft).  The multi-purpose configuration was dictated
by the hasing out of dedicated anti-submarine aircraft carriers (CVS),
the last being decommissioned in 1974.

All active ships still classified as attack aircraft carriers (CVA/CVAN)
on 30 June 1975 were changed to CV/CVN regardless of their ability to
support anti-submarine aircraft.

Source: Jane's Fighting Ships 1990-91

Steve Williams