Cost of aircraft carriers to US taxpayer

[ekrem]

(...) Roger Stern (...) Princeton University (...)study on the cost of keeping aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf from 1976 to 2007. (...) He combed through the Defense Department’s data (...) and came up with a total, over three decades, of $7.3 trillion. Yes, trillion.
(...)
A 2008 study by Nobel Prize-winner Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard University budget expert Linda Bilmes put the cost of that war — everything spent up to that point and likely to be spent in the years ahead — at a minimum of $3 trillion (and probably much more). Again, trillion.
(...)

Foreign Policy: The Ministry of Oil Defense|Peak Oil News and Message Boards

 

[martybegan]

So what?

Nothing projects power or says " I care about this" Like a US carrier. and most of them arent in the gulf, they are in the Indian Ocean, where there is more sea room.

 

[jillian]

i wonder what the israeli weapons cost turkey.

 

[ekrem]

Hi, you have received -366 reputation points from jillian.

You are internet garbage.

 

[rightwinger]

And we have 11 Carrier groups while no other nation has one

 

[Mr Natural]

And we have 11 Carrier groups while no other nation has one

Our paranoia knows no bounds.

 

[zzzz]

And we have 11 Carrier groups while no other nation has one

I believe that several nations (9) have carriers and France has a nuclear powered carrier. Russia still has one and the United Kigdom has 2.

Since we are seperated from the rest of the world by 2 oceans we need carriers to project power and to provide strike capability and air cover for amphibious landings. Before WWI it was the battleship that was the symbol of power.

The question I have is if they project power so well then why are the pirates of Somalia so immune to that power?

 

[SFC Ollie]

(...) Roger Stern (...) Princeton University (...)study on the cost of keeping aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf from 1976 to 2007. (...) He combed through the Defense Department’s data (...) and came up with a total, over three decades, of $7.3 trillion. Yes, trillion.
(...)
A 2008 study by Nobel Prize-winner Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard University budget expert Linda Bilmes put the cost of that war — everything spent up to that point and likely to be spent in the years ahead — at a minimum of $3 trillion (and probably much more). Again, trillion.
(...)

Foreign Policy: The Ministry of Oil Defense|Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Jealous?

 

[rightwinger]

And we have 11 Carrier groups while no other nation has one

I believe that several nations (9) have carriers and France has a nuclear powered carrier. Russia still has one and the United Kigdom has 2.

Since we are seperated from the rest of the world by 2 oceans we need carriers to project power and to provide strike capability and air cover for amphibious landings. Before WWI it was the battleship that was the symbol of power.

The question I have is if they project power so well then why are the pirates of Somalia so immune to that power?

There are carriers and there are Super Carriers

I don't question the value of Super Carrier Task Forces...I do wonder why we need so many

 

[martybegan]

And we have 11 Carrier groups while no other nation has one

I believe that several nations (9) have carriers and France has a nuclear powered carrier. Russia still has one and the United Kigdom has 2.

Since we are seperated from the rest of the world by 2 oceans we need carriers to project power and to provide strike capability and air cover for amphibious landings. Before WWI it was the battleship that was the symbol of power.

The question I have is if they project power so well then why are the pirates of Somalia so immune to that power?

Beacuse the ROE's dont allow us to go in there and blow the living crap out of suspected Pirate bases on the coast.

Just like on land insurgents are a pain in the ass to conventional forces.

 

[martybegan]

And we have 11 Carrier groups while no other nation has one

I believe that several nations (9) have carriers and France has a nuclear powered carrier. Russia still has one and the United Kigdom has 2.

Since we are seperated from the rest of the world by 2 oceans we need carriers to project power and to provide strike capability and air cover for amphibious landings. Before WWI it was the battleship that was the symbol of power.

The question I have is if they project power so well then why are the pirates of Somalia so immune to that power?

There are carriers and there are Super Carriers

I don't question the value of Super Carrier Task Forces...I do wonder why we need so many

The reason is that even with 11 carriers the most that can be used at one time is like 5-6. the rest are in maintenance, or are doing workups to prepare to deploy.

Usually only 3-4 are what is called "forward deployed" the rest are doing the above. the ones doing workups can be sent quickly if an emergency happens. the ones in maintance are effectively out of service.

 

[zzzz]

And we have 11 Carrier groups while no other nation has one

I believe that several nations (9) have carriers and France has a nuclear powered carrier. Russia still has one and the United Kigdom has 2.

Since we are seperated from the rest of the world by 2 oceans we need carriers to project power and to provide strike capability and air cover for amphibious landings. Before WWI it was the battleship that was the symbol of power.

The question I have is if they project power so well then why are the pirates of Somalia so immune to that power?

There are carriers and there are Super Carriers

I don't question the value of Super Carrier Task Forces...I do wonder why we need so many

I believe (and I may be off here) that 4 carriers are always in port undergoing refitting and maintenance. We keep one/two in the Med/Persian Gulf, one in the Indian Ocean, two in the Pacific, two in the Atlantic and one in transit to relieve a carrier. The purpose in keeping carriers in a certain body of water is to be able to respond in a timely matter. Ships are not like aircraft where they can be on target within a day. Now Congress is talking about cutting the carrier force to 8 and with the unmanned craft program progressing so well and elimination of the steam catapault the age of the big carriers may be gong the way of the battleship.

 

[rightwinger]

I believe that several nations (9) have carriers and France has a nuclear powered carrier. Russia still has one and the United Kigdom has 2.

Since we are seperated from the rest of the world by 2 oceans we need carriers to project power and to provide strike capability and air cover for amphibious landings. Before WWI it was the battleship that was the symbol of power.

The question I have is if they project power so well then why are the pirates of Somalia so immune to that power?

There are carriers and there are Super Carriers

I don't question the value of Super Carrier Task Forces...I do wonder why we need so many

The reason is that even with 11 carriers the most that can be used at one time is like 5-6. the rest are in maintenance, or are doing workups to prepare to deploy.

Usually only 3-4 are what is called "forward deployed" the rest are doing the above. the ones doing workups can be sent quickly if an emergency happens. the ones in maintance are effectively out of service.

thanks

Amazing how expensive and inefficient Carrier Task Forces are.

No wonder no other nation deploys them

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And we have 11 Carrier groups while no other nation has one

I believe that several nations (9) have carriers and France has a nuclear powered carrier. Russia still has one and the United Kigdom has 2.

Since we are seperated from the rest of the world by 2 oceans we need carriers to project power and to provide strike capability and air cover for amphibious landings. Before WWI it was the battleship that was the symbol of power.

The question I have is if they project power so well then why are the pirates of Somalia so immune to that power?

There are carriers and there are Super Carriers

I don't question the value of Super Carrier Task Forces...I do wonder why we need so many

We need 16 at a minimum. 14 for active duty and 2 in repair refurb at all times. 11 is simply not enough.

 

[zzzz]

There are carriers and there are Super Carriers

I don't question the value of Super Carrier Task Forces...I do wonder why we need so many

The reason is that even with 11 carriers the most that can be used at one time is like 5-6. the rest are in maintenance, or are doing workups to prepare to deploy.

Usually only 3-4 are what is called "forward deployed" the rest are doing the above. the ones doing workups can be sent quickly if an emergency happens. the ones in maintance are effectively out of service.

thanks

Amazing how expensive and inefficient Carrier Task Forces are.

No wonder no other nation deploys them

They don't need them. Who else in the world invades countries on th other side of the world?

 

[martybegan]

I believe that several nations (9) have carriers and France has a nuclear powered carrier. Russia still has one and the United Kigdom has 2.

Since we are seperated from the rest of the world by 2 oceans we need carriers to project power and to provide strike capability and air cover for amphibious landings. Before WWI it was the battleship that was the symbol of power.

The question I have is if they project power so well then why are the pirates of Somalia so immune to that power?

There are carriers and there are Super Carriers

I don't question the value of Super Carrier Task Forces...I do wonder why we need so many

I believe (and I may be off here) that 4 carriers are always in port undergoing refitting and maintenance. We keep one/two in the Med/Persian Gulf, one in the Indian Ocean, two in the Pacific, two in the Atlantic and one in transit to relieve a carrier. The purpose in keeping carriers in a certain body of water is to be able to respond in a timely matter. Ships are not like aircraft where they can be on target within a day. Now Congress is talking about cutting the carrier force to 8 and with the unmanned craft program progressing so well and elimination of the steam catapault the age of the big carriers may be gong the way of the battleship.

I'm not so sure about the whole unmanned craft thing in regular combat. sure they would allow greater maneuverability, but one must remember that while a pilot limits the G forces the craft can take, one cannot jam a pilot. Of course jamming would be moot if the craft were truly robotic and not user controlled, but than can lead to.....

 

[Zona]

And we have 11 Carrier groups while no other nation has one

My brief few times (two weeks at a stint) were fun as all hell. Those things are amazing. Freaking amazing. Hey dude, have you ever seen that show "Carrier"....it is VERY realistic.

 

[Trajan]

And we have 11 Carrier groups while no other nation has one

intervention time......


1) thats 2 to few and we are scheduled to lose 2 more and the next generation of carriers built will be half the size there-fore carry half the aircraft, there fore projecting half the power at the point of attack.......

2) no other nation having one means do do ( and you're wrong, see point 3) , no other nation has the responsibilities we do, like it or not.

3)you might want to brush up on naval strength around the world- India,Spain France Brazil Thailand...have one, Britain has 2. Italy has an ASW ( anti submarine warfare) carrier.

 

[rightwinger]

And we have 11 Carrier groups while no other nation has one

intervention time......


1) thats 2 to few and we are scheduled to lose 2 more and the next generation of carriers built will be half the size there-fore carry half the aircraft, there fore projecting half the power at the point of attack.......

2) no other nation having one means do do ( and you're wrong, see point 3) , no other nation has the responsibilities we do, like it or not.

3)you might want to brush up on naval strength around the world- India,Spain France Brazil Thailand...have one, Britain has 2. Italy has an ASW ( anti submarine warfare) carrier.

Once again...not all carriers are created equal

Not talking about jump carriers, Harriers and the like...nobody has Super Carriers like the US. We also have smaller carriers

 

[Trajan]

And we have 11 Carrier groups while no other nation has one

intervention time......


1) thats 2 to few and we are scheduled to lose 2 more and the next generation of carriers built will be half the size there-fore carry half the aircraft, there fore projecting half the power at the point of attack.......

2) no other nation having one means do do ( and you're wrong, see point 3) , no other nation has the responsibilities we do, like it or not.

3)you might want to brush up on naval strength around the world- India,Spain France Brazil Thailand...have one, Britain has 2. Italy has an ASW ( anti submarine warfare) carrier.

Once again...not all carriers are created equal

Not talking about jump carriers, Harriers and the like...nobody has Super Carriers like the US. We also have smaller carriers

I am well aware of what we have, and the world at large has, I shared that with you, apparently you have changed the terms of of your remark. Your were talking about 'super carriers'..I don't remember seeing that in your post....

in either event, you want to respond to points one and two or just luff it?