Nuclear powered carriers

"The USN is only putting nuclear power in capital ships and subs"

I recall reading somewhere that the Navy only continues using nuclear power
for carriers not for reasons of propulsion but because the steam generated is
a neccessary component of the steam catapults (call it high tech but the
business end of a nuclear powered ship is a good old fashioned steam
turbine - the reactor's just a super-duper boiler).  The article was
concerning the navy's plans for the next generation carriers (as well as
possible design modifications to the remaining two funded units in the Nimitz
class). If the magnetic accelerator catapults currently in development pan
out, cheaper gas turbines'll likely power the next gen of carriers.

                        -M

> On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Matt Edens wrote:

> I recall reading somewhere that the Navy only continues using nuclear

Possibly not. The use of the nuke plant has two other benifits. Higher
Endurance speed when you need lots of wind across that bow to loft those

heavy aircraft off the cats. And the fact that if you use a gas turbine again,
you'd be removing the amount of bunkerspace for aircraft armament

and fuel for fuel for your ship. The Nimitz's have lots more space for JP than
the Enterprises (with 8 reactors to the Numitz's two @120,000 shp) and the
preceeding conventional Carriers before.