[Nowhere Man]

He told me that ships of the Enterprise class had EIGHT separate nuclear reactors aboard. Modern nuclear flat-tops only have two. I can't help but wonder if someday the loss of the extra redundancy may cause problems in combat.

I wonder that too. IIRC, the Enterprise's reactors are smaller, so you need 8 of them, they were designed for atomic subs. Still, I wonder if they have a backup system where they can run a diesel or diesel/electric engine like atomic subs do. I hope some former Navy mariner chimes in on that one. I've talked to a few people who served on subs and they said they have a backup diesel/electric system to limp home or wherever if need be.

[tanknetter]

I wonder that too. IIRC, the Enterprise's reactors are smaller, so you need 8 of them, they were designed for atomic subs.

Enterprise didn't even need 8 reactors. She really only needed 6, but Rickover demanded on a 1-to-1 ratio with the # of boilers in the Kitty Hawk class.

With the possible exception of the years in the 1980s and very early 1990s when the Iowa Class Battleships were back in service, Enterprise was the fastest deep-draft combatant in the world for the entirety of her life. She had a modified Kitty Hawk hull - lengthened more than widened and still optimized in slender form for efficient cruise in the mid-20 kts, as conventionally-powered carriers were to help conserve fuel. The Nimitzes with their two reactors produce equal or slightly higher shaft horsepower (shp) than Enterprise did with her eight, but are both heavier and have a fuller hull form -- so a somewhat slower speed - 30-31kts vs' Enterprise's 33.5. Although I'd heard that Enterprise was once pushed up to almost 34 kts (or maybe even a hair above) off the Virginia Capes during trials following her 1990s refueling, when she had a clean and newly painted hull and was operating in shallow water.