Graybeard Outdoors banner

Why 13 billion dollars for an aircraft carrier?

3K views 36 replies 11 participants last post by  ironglow 
#1 ·
#2 ·
I guess one thing you have to keep in mind is that the lifetime of a carrier is about 3 times what a normal ship the navy has built. So they have to be made not only to be very reliable but to be able to modify easily when new systems come out and new planes ect. Good chance these ships will still be in service when the grandkids of the saliors on them today are old enough to serve. You also have to factor in there nuke powered and the power plants are much more expensive. But then too factor in the savings in fuel over there lifetime and just the fact they can sail anywhere anytime without worrying about fuel.
 
#3 ·
Why do they keep making them? Missiles are cheap and it wouldn't take much to knock out an entire carrier group and kill all 5000 sailors in one attack. Or more to the point, in what way do carriers allow our navy to fight and win? They made sense during World War Two. Why do they make sense now?
 
#13 ·
Why do they keep making them?
Because defense contractors need money and you, as a taxpayer, have all the money in the world. So why not run the bill up to $13 billion-- or beyond?
 
#4 · (Edited)
It's a good debate. Carriers, and the Navy as a whole, allow us to project power overseas. They are our most useful weapons platform that can be deployed anywhere around the world. Missiles are limited as a response to foreign threats because of numbers and cost. Protecting carriers and other ships from missile attack is a limiting factor depending on capability of our enemies. Anti-ship missiles were a real problem for the Brits in the Falklands war. We haven't been tested similarly. Anti-missile defense systems are in place on our ships but they can be overwhelmed if too many are launched at once. Keeping our ships further out of range is the best defense.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorent...iers-are-becoming-more-vital-to-u-s-security/

https://www.cato.org/publications/p...-power-aircraft-carriers-us-military-strategy

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/t...aft-carriers-are-nearly-impossible-sink-17318
 
#5 · (Edited)
I see them as portable islands to be used after an area is already under control. Thats how we've been using them. I.e., without resistance. It seems to me that fewer and smaller and cheaper is better.

As for sinking, they don't need to be sunk to be disabled. Disabling them won't take much.

The forbes article reminds me of the fanfare for littoral combat ships. Everything has its advocates but as mike tyson so wisely said, everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face.

The first time a carrier gets hit hard, tge number of casualties will get a lot of attention.
 
#7 ·
Well you have to also factor in how many toilet seats are required for one carrier. At $5,000.00 a seat, it adds up.

As for the need of carriers? It's hard to beat helicopters, and fighters for air support, and inserting, or extracting ground troops.
 
#8 ·
Yup they sure can shoot missiles at them but the new carriers have the most state of the art anti missile defenses in the world and so do the MANY ships that escort them. Its not like a carrier is all by its self, defenseless. It has many escort ships destroyers, frigates and cruisers and even nuke submarines in its support group. So if a missile is launched at a carrier theres enough fire power available to turn those countrys into burned sand. Even a single missile hit would doubtfully disable a carrier if it did get through those defenses which is very doubtful (unless it was a nuke and they we have MUCH bigger problems) and if a carrier can still launch its air craft that one carrier has more firepower then the entire militarys of many of those countrys. You I and Iran know what would happen if they dared fire a missile at an air craft carrier. There basically an air force base we can send anywhere in the world to places that we cant hit quickly and with great power. Don't like them or think there not worth it. Just consider how many thousands of Americans are alive today because the planes from those carriers took care of the fighting for them or gave them support and an escape when they were being overwhelmed. As typical the guys that don't want them are the ones that were never in a predicament like that themselves. Ask a soldier what he thinks of those carriers and there pilots and planes that keep them safe.


The first time a carrier gets hit hard, tge number of casualties will get a lot of attention.
that is sure fact. We will turn the country that does it into glass!


I don't understand why guys here that claim to be conservatives take up the liberal agenda of cutting back our military. The world today is closer to another world war than its been since the 40s and you guy would have us give up and quit making miltary equipment because it might get hit by a missile??? Better stop making tanks, fighter jets, bombers because someone might shoot a missile at them too. Heck we might as well disband the military because someone might kill a soldier too. Maybe we can all put flowers in our hair and wear peace symbols! Maybe we can let others do our fighting for us and pretend to be so knowledgeable about the military (that you were never even in) that we know more about what our military needs then our admirals and our president.:tango_face_wink: To me this whole thing is as silly as a bunch of ******** telling nasa that there building there rockets wrong and they should be listening the there opinions:tango_face_smile_bi What your doing is just passing on internet bs put there by the liberal factions like Bernie sanders that think we should be picking flowers. Ask your president how important those carriers are to him and his ability to project power!!
 
#10 · (Edited)
.
While I am usually a hawk, when it comes to funding our military, figuring that, "you can't enjoy a free country, if you no longer have a country" (my quote).

I do nevertheless, wonder if already having a 10-to-1 advantage over Russia in aircraft carriers, along with the same advantage over the Chinese, is not a bit more than "enough".

I say this in recognition that several close allies such as Japan, Korea and the UK, are also in process of building one each of the same class carriers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_carrier

If more power projection is necessary, assault/attack ships can be had at $3.6 billion apiece...and the same cost can be in 3 different places.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America-class_amphibious_assault_ship

Perhaps the new Space Force could use a boost, being as they seem a bit under-funded at present.

Perhaps a couple billion could be slipped into a border wall, which is also in the "defense" category...saving the US many billions in medical care, welfare and attacks upon many honest citizens.
 
#18 · (Edited)
what you have to factor in is the way Russia china and korea are connoodling lately if we ended up in a war with one it might be the big one with us against all three of them. Seeing that all of our allies except Canada are on there side of the pond I don't know if they would have the guts to join us. My guess is nato would hang us out to dry and blame us for any war. Yes you can say if it was that bad then it would be a push button war but I don't really believe we would push first and I would have to think Russia and china wouldn't want to turn the biggest source of resources in the world into a radioactive waste land.


If that day happens id hope we have 50 times the carriers, battle ships, tanks, fighters and bombers as all three of them together. What it really is is a deterrent. If we had two aircraft carriers and stopped our bomber development with the b52 and our tanks with the Sherman do you think Russia would even worry about us?


Putin is NO JOKE. I really believe he wants Russia to control the world before he dies and lots of things like the mess in Iran are staged by him to feel us out and to have us waste our resources. Ask yourself what he would have done if a country like Iran shot missiles at a base his men were on! Ask why he has developed that new hyper speed missile that is so fast we cant shoot it down!! This is NOT the time to slow down our military or use funds allotted to it for other things. Its a time where we should be taking money away from building highways ect and putting it into the military so that those run down highways aren't divvied up between Russia and china.


We have presidents in the past that were jut to week in the knees and afraid of them. Now we have a president that like Reagan wont take ****. Now is BIG STICK time. If not it will be to late. I say build what we can now before some liberal gets back in office. No such thing as a military today that's to strong!


Yup we can build 3 destroyers or light crusiers for the price of one carrier but they don't carry a single f35 or stealth fighter that can go in deliver any weapon up to and including a nuke and get out without even lighting up the radar and not just do it in 3 places but with 50 or more of them do it all over a country. They can fly close air support for ground troops with gunships and fighters. Eyes on the battle field to take out tanks ect. Do aerial reconnaissance and spying. That's just the carrier and doesn't even include the destroyers, frigates cruisers and submarines that are sailing with it.


Anyway you look at it short of a nuke there the most powerful weapon in the world and countries tremble when carrier group is laying off there shores. Only reason Russia and china don't have more is they don't have the money to build them. They rely on numbers and there soldiers are considered expendable resources. So should we throw off technology and go that route! Your an old taker. Do you realize that Russian has 4 times more tanks then us and that our army and tank crews would have to count on those fighters and tank killers off those carriers and that doesn't even factor in if the allied with china. We are FAR from being powerful enough!! That is unless you talk to people like Hillary and Bernie.
.
While I am usually a hawk, when it comes to funding our military, figuring that, "you can't enjoy a free country, if you no longer have a country" (my quote).

I do nevertheless, wonder if already having a 10-to-1 advantage over Russia in aircraft carriers, along with the same advantage over the Chinese, is not a bit more than "enough".

I say this in recognition that several close allies such as Japan, Korea and the UK, are also in process of building one each of the same class carriers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_carrier

If more power projection is necessary, assault/attack ships can be had at $3.6 billion apiece...and the same cost can be in 3 different places.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America-class_amphibious_assault_ship

Perhaps the new Space Force could use a boost, being as they seem a bit under-funded at present.

Perhaps a couple billion could be slipped into a border wall, which is also in the "defense" category...saving the US many billions in medical care, welfare and attacks upon many honest citizens.
 
#12 ·
That also includes the Air Contingent. New squadrons had to be formed. Thats a lot of new expensive aircraft
and support equipment.
Being that new, it might even include rail guns for its defense. And rail cats not steam. The Navy sure was talking about doing that.
The new non-steam catapults have been a multi million dollar boon-doggle and last I read have been abandoned.
 
#19 ·
A couple of key considerations regarding carriers:

We can only deploy 3-4 carriers at a time due to training, maintenance and personnel logistics.

The service life of a carrier is fairly long but like everything has its limits. We need to build one every 3 years just to keep up with maintaining a 10 carrier fleet.

Carriers and submarines are our most powerful, effective, technologically advanced and feared assets. The Russians and Chinese want to try to match us but so far have failed. The Russian carrier is in disrepair after a recent fire on board and the Chinese carriers have no aircraft that can launch off their decks because they screwed up the cloning of a Russian mig and they are too heavy.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...aft-carrier-stricken-by-fire-in-latest-mishap

https://www.businessinsider.com/chi...-china-back-as-it-builds-carrier-fleet-2018-9
 
#26 · (Edited)
CVN 81. He deserves it.
Miller is of what Americans are made. I am privileged to live under the flag he fought to defend, and for which he gave his life...
 
#27 · (Edited)
by battle ships ironglow I was referring to cruisers destroyers frigates ect. Another thing you need to keep in mind is Russia and china has a very power ground force. Like I said they may not have the carriers but unless there coming for us they don't need them. Everyone there presently concerned with can be reached by land. So they have massive tank numbers ect. The US on the other hand has to cross the ocean to support its allies or go after our enemies.


If you watch the news in the last 20 years you'd realize a lot of the fighting is done by fighter jets off of air craft carriers. It lets us cross the ocean and have a floating base anywhere in the world that's more powerful then the entire military of most countries. We cant immediately ship enough tanks or troops to make Russia or china nervous but we can sit a couple carriers and a couple nuke subs off shore that makes them face reality. They know if they roll all those tanks against our allies we have the air power (in many cases stealth air power) to take out LOTS of them. What's our other choice. Invest BILLIONS building more and more bases and supporting them in countries that next week are our enemies?


Russians aren't stupid. they know that they don't need to send carriers to the US Canada mexico or south america. So why build them. They can roll tanks to anywhere over there about as fast as we can get a carrier there anyway. All they need to do is taunt us till we as usual come to the rescue of some country over there and have to deal with crossing an ocean to support them. All the time costing us money. They know the battle will happen on there side of the ocean. Same with china and korea. There not coming here with ships. Ill close with this and let you have it. ASK ANY soldier in combat today what he thinks of us having carrier based planes that fly over battle fields supporting them and ask them if they think there a waste of money. I just don't understand how some claim to be conservative and back our president one day and stand for liberal agendas of reducing military spending and even support cutting back the most effective weapon in our arsenal! Our president is asking for MORE money MORE carriers. Why? Because HE KNOWS what we face!
 
#28 · (Edited)
From Lloyd;



by battle ships ironglow I was referring to cruisers destroyers frigates ect.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

OK, but perhaps I was too technical, because I was referring to battleships..such as the USS New Jersey, which my brother served on, during the entire Korean War.

Today the USS Wisconsin is mothballed in Norfolk, the USS New Jersey is a museum at Camden, NJ..while the USS Missouri is a floating museum in Hawaii.. and naval history buffs can visit the USS Iowa at Los Angeles.

.
 
#32 ·
been on a carrier and have been on a nuke sub (non classified sections) but id trade both of those experiences for look around one of those old battle wagons. They just scream America!
 
#34 ·
4 years in the coast guard and 4 in the navy and the only ship I was on was the taney http://benjielayug.com/2017/06/uscgc-taney-baltimore-maryland-u-s-a.html I a year and half on it before I joined the drug enforcement team. It was the last ship left in commission that was actually in the battle of pearl harbor and was build in 43. I was on it between 75 and 76 in the Norfolk Portsmouth area when it was already over 30 years old. It stayed in commission to I believe 1980. Every year they had a pearl harbor day even when it was in commission. Today like in the link its in balitmore as a museum ship. Id love to swing over to NJ and then down to Baltimore and see them both. During ww2 it was used as a Destroyer escort and saw action in the Korean war and was even used as an off shore gun battery in the Vietnam war.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top