Why 13 billion dollars for an aircraft carrier? - Graybeard Outdoors
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 37 (permalink) Old 01-19-2020, 07:15 AM Thread Starter
Moderator
 
conan the librarian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 24,776
Default Why 13 billion dollars for an aircraft carrier?

https://www.stripes.com/news/navy/la...ubles-1.566658

Seems like about ten times as much as it should cost, and now they're building another one that will cost even more.
conan the librarian is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 37 (permalink) Old 01-19-2020, 07:27 AM
Moderator
 
lloyd smale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Munising MI
Posts: 21,514
Default

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.

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! STEEL FOR TANKS NOT FENCES!!!
lloyd smale is offline  
post #3 of 37 (permalink) Old 01-19-2020, 07:54 AM Thread Starter
Moderator
 
conan the librarian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 24,776
Default

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?
conan the librarian is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 37 (permalink) Old 01-19-2020, 08:27 AM
Senior Member
 
Lt. Dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Middle America
Posts: 3,194
Default

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/lorenth...-u-s-security/

https://www.cato.org/publications/po...itary-strategy

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...ble-sink-17318

All of my favorite creatures have white bottoms.

Last edited by Lt. Dave; 01-19-2020 at 08:51 AM.
Lt. Dave is offline  
post #5 of 37 (permalink) Old 01-19-2020, 08:57 AM Thread Starter
Moderator
 
conan the librarian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 24,776
Default

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.

Last edited by conan the librarian; 01-19-2020 at 09:03 AM.
conan the librarian is offline  
post #6 of 37 (permalink) Old 01-19-2020, 09:56 AM
WLB
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 787
Default

5 Billion for overcharges, 5 billion for political kickbacks, 3 billion for materials and labor.
WLB is offline  
post #7 of 37 (permalink) Old 01-19-2020, 10:13 AM
Dee
Moderator
 
Dee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 22,777
Default

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.

"REPUBLIC OF TEXAS"!
To The Politician: if your not right with God, your not right for this country.
Phil Robertson, Duck Dynasty
Dee is offline  
post #8 of 37 (permalink) Old 01-20-2020, 07:33 AM
Moderator
 
lloyd smale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Munising MI
Posts: 21,514
Default

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.


Quote:
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. To me this whole thing is as silly as a bunch of rednecks telling nasa that there building there rockets wrong and they should be listening the there opinions 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!!

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! STEEL FOR TANKS NOT FENCES!!!
lloyd smale is offline  
post #9 of 37 (permalink) Old 01-20-2020, 07:36 AM
Moderator
 
lloyd smale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Munising MI
Posts: 21,514
Default

here you go. You can see EXACTLY THE LIBERAL AGENDA YOUR PUSHING. https://time.com/5582063/trump-navy-...cybersecurity/

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! STEEL FOR TANKS NOT FENCES!!!
lloyd smale is offline  
post #10 of 37 (permalink) Old 01-20-2020, 08:14 AM
Senior Member
 
ironglow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: rural southwestern N.Y. State
Posts: 42,756
Default

.
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/Americ...s_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.

If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.. (Gen George S. Patton)

Last edited by ironglow; 01-20-2020 at 08:22 AM.
ironglow is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Graybeard Outdoors forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome