anthony@uunet.UU.NET (Anthony Lee) (03/13/91)
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: > the NIMITZ class: > CVN-72 USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN ..... > CVN-68 USS NIMITZ > the ENTERPRISE class: > CVN-65 USS ENTERPRISE 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 ? -- Anthony Lee (Michaelangelo teenage mutant ninja turtle) (Time Lord Doctor) email: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au TEL:+(61)-7-365-2697 (w) SNAIL: Dept Comp. Science, University of Qld, St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia
ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) (03/14/91)
From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> >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 the cost of "nuking" a Forrestal or Kitty Hawk CV, we could build a brand new Improved Nimitz Class. Allan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Allan Bourdius [MIDN 3/C (Marine Option)/Brother, Phi Kappa Theta Fraternity] ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu or Box 4719, 5125 Margaret Morrison St., Pgh., PA 15213 "Give, expecting nothing thereof." "Phi Kappa Theta, just the best." "An unwarlike Marine is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar." Nothing that I have written is the opinion of anyone but myself. So there!
jln@leland.stanford.edu (Jared Nedzel) (03/14/91)
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
amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) (03/18/91)
From: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) In article <1991Mar14> ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) writes: >From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> >>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
swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) (03/22/91)
From: swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) >why not convert the other Kitty Hawk class and Forrestal class >carriers to nuclear power too ? I remembered that Congress debated on whether or not to make the USS JOHN F KENNEDY a nuclear powered carrier or not. It was pointed out that installing the nuclear reactor in the JOHN F KENNEDY would nearly double the cost. To illustrate this point, let us compare the cost of building the KITTY HAWK class carriers with the ENTERPRISE. The cost for building USS KITTY HAWK was $265.2 million; USS CONSTELLATION, $264.5 million; and USS JOHN F KENNEDY, $ 248.8 million. By comparison, the cost of building USS ENTERPRISE was $451 million. Looks like it would not be cost effective. Steve Williams "An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field." -- Niels Bohr, Danish Scientist