Cost of aircraft carriers to US taxpayer

[Trajan]

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?

russia sold it half completed to china, were it sits.

 

[daveman]

Leftists say the US can't be the world's policeman...but they insist we be the world's piggybank/ATM, the world's employment agency, the world's soup kitchen, the world's free clinic, the world's doormat.

Leftists are out of touch with reality.

 

[Toome]

I don't know enough about this story I'm about to share to verify it's truth, but it makes for a good war story.

During the late 70's, somewhere in the Persian Gulf, two Iranian fighters came across a US Navy ship in international waters and began buzzing it. This was a pretty aggressive act, but apparently not aggressive enough under the rules of engagement. So the US skipper had his XO radio for help. By the time the XO returned to the bridge, the whole incident was over.

Here's what happened: two US Navy F-14 Tomcats appeared out of nowhere and immediately buzzed the Iranian aircraft. This is the type of maneuver where one aircraft essentially cuts off the path of the other aircraft, causing the second aircraft to take immediate evasive maneuvers. Then the F-14s positioned themselves in a firing solution above and behind the Iranian fighters, probably pinging them with their radars. The Iranians immediately cleared the area. The F-14s made one last pass by waving their wings as they flew past the Navy ship.

Again, don't know how true this story is, if at all, but makes one a believer on why having aircraft carriers is a good thing.

 

[Samson]

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

To keep Messkin, Haitian, and Cubans from sneeking over here and weed wacking all our lawns, dusting our 60" TV screens, and making damn good fish tacos.

 

[Samson]

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.

Ok, I conceed you've won the point that other nations have aircraft carriers.

However, I still don't see the evidence that having 11, or 9, or 4, would be the optimum number/size for "projecting...at the point of attack."

How would you justify the cost benefit? Frankly, I see many alternative uses for $3 Trillion over the past 30 years, other than sending a carrier group to float around protecting Saudi Arabia from .......who? Themselves?

 

[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.

Ok, I conceed you've won the point that other nations have aircraft carriers.

However, I still don't see the evidence that having 11, or 9, or 4, would be the optimum number/size for "projecting...at the point of attack."

How would you justify the cost benefit? Frankly, I see many alternative uses for $3 Trillion over the past 30 years, other than sending a carrier group to float around protecting Saudi Arabia from .......who? Themselves?

projecting at the point of attack was a point I made as to the strategy now, according to Gates et al to not build super carriers to replace those we have in service. The Gerald Ford class will not go forward , these are or would have been 100.000 ton carriers that could operate approx. 80 aircraft of varying types.
We have it appears opted to build smaller carriers, approx. half the size there fore half the complement of aircraft, even with the advances we have made in individual carrier type aircraft, this is in effect a 40% reduction in strength, requiring 2 to do the job that may have been done by one.

Are you asking why we have carrier grps. at all?

 

[Samson]

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.

Ok, I conceed you've won the point that other nations have aircraft carriers.

However, I still don't see the evidence that having 11, or 9, or 4, would be the optimum number/size for "projecting...at the point of attack."

How would you justify the cost benefit? Frankly, I see many alternative uses for $3 Trillion over the past 30 years, other than sending a carrier group to float around protecting Saudi Arabia from .......who? Themselves?

projecting at the point of attack was a point I made as to the strategy now, according to Gates et al to not build super carriers to replace those we have in service. The Gerald Ford class will not go forward , these are or would have been 100.000 ton carriers that could operate approx. 80 aircraft of varying types.
We have it appears opted to build smaller carriers, approx. half the size there fore half the complement of aircraft, even with the advances we have made in individual carrier type aircraft, this is in effect a 40% reduction in strength, requiring 2 to do the job that may have been done by one.

Are you asking why we have carrier grps. at all?

Actually, I can imagine having a carrier group, to project US Naval Air Forces, and other various and sundrey military force.



But I cannot imagine how one is justified: Per Ocean? Per Sea? Per Lake? Per carrier that other countries have?

One for S. Atlantic
One for N. Atlantic
One for N. Pacific
One for S. Pacific
One for Indian Ocean

This seems to be enough to me, but obviously I'm no expert, so how do experts justify more? Do each of the above need an entire Group in Reserve?

 

[Trajan]

Ok, I conceed you've won the point that other nations have aircraft carriers.

However, I still don't see the evidence that having 11, or 9, or 4, would be the optimum number/size for "projecting...at the point of attack."

How would you justify the cost benefit? Frankly, I see many alternative uses for $3 Trillion over the past 30 years, other than sending a carrier group to float around protecting Saudi Arabia from .......who? Themselves?

projecting at the point of attack was a point I made as to the strategy now, according to Gates et al to not build super carriers to replace those we have in service. The Gerald Ford class will not go forward , these are or would have been 100.000 ton carriers that could operate approx. 80 aircraft of varying types.
We have it appears opted to build smaller carriers, approx. half the size there fore half the complement of aircraft, even with the advances we have made in individual carrier type aircraft, this is in effect a 40% reduction in strength, requiring 2 to do the job that may have been done by one.

Are you asking why we have carrier grps. at all?

Actually, I can imagine having a carrier group, to project US Naval Air Forces, and other various and sundrey military force.



But I cannot imagine how one is justified: Per Ocean? Per Sea? Per Lake? Per carrier that other countries have?

One for S. Atlantic
One for N. Atlantic
One for N. Pacific
One for S. Pacific
One for Indian Ocean

This seems to be enough to me, but obviously I'm no expert, so how do experts justify more? Do each of the above need an entire Group in Reserve?

Fair enough and your remark as to reserve is close, we have a rotation set up; there are 4 I believe always out of service or port bound for refit, personnel leave, equipment upgrades , heavy maintenance that cannot be done at sea etc.

Thats leaves 7 on station and this is semi peace time. ( 2 more than you might see as efficacious )....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

First, the $7.3 trillion numbers sounds like total bullshit

Second, even if it's true (it's not) we could pay it off for 20 years by closing Fannie and Freddie.

Third, the firepower from one, just one carrier group can totally eliminate the entire Russian conventional fighting force, could probably destroy 90% of all of North Koreas assets in under 5 minutes should they decide to attack the south and finally, could defeat any ChiCom crossing of the Straits of Taiwan.

Fourth, blow me, just fucking blow me! I'm glad we have that kind of firepower and if you don't like you should fuck off.

 

[ConHog]

Nothing says " You fucked with the wrong people" like a carrier sailing into your port.

 

[Samson]

Nothing says " You fucked with the wrong people" like a carrier sailing into your port.

Do our carriers have sails?

If they do have sails, wouldn't they only go into friendly ports?

If rdean and truthmatters had children, which would give birth?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Nothing says " You fucked with the wrong people" like a carrier sailing into your port.

Do our carriers have sails?

If they do have sails, wouldn't they only go into friendly ports?

If rdean and truthmatters had children, which would give birth?

We REALLY did not need that visual.

 

[ConHog]

Nothing says " You fucked with the wrong people" like a carrier sailing into your port.

Do our carriers have sails?

If they do have sails, wouldn't they only go into friendly ports?

If rdean and truthmatters had children, which would give birth?

Holy fuck man, what is wrong with you?

 

[maineman]

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

given optempo, rotation schedules, training requirements, overhaul/maintenance, nuclear refueling and the like, we are hard pressed to keep more than two carrier battle groups on any given station.

 

[zzzz]

First, the $7.3 trillion numbers sounds like total bullshit

Second, even if it's true (it's not) we could pay it off for 20 years by closing Fannie and Freddie.

Third, the firepower from one, just one carrier group can totally eliminate the entire Russian conventional fighting force, could probably destroy 90% of all of North Koreas assets in under 5 minutes should they decide to attack the south and finally, could defeat any ChiCom crossing of the Straits of Taiwan.

Fourth, blow me, just fucking blow me! I'm glad we have that kind of firepower and if you don't like you should fuck off.

It must be nice to live in fantasy land where reality does not interfere with your beliefs. All it takes is one torpedo or missile and no carrier left. The sub rules the oceans and the potential enemies you have named have quiet diesel subs. Sure have a formidable anti-sub presence in the carrier battle group but it is not infallible. As I have stated in other posts in other threads a war with China is losable because we have to project power halfway across the world against a powerful enemy. I can visualize in a protracted battle the loss of 1-2 carriers around Taiwan. The loss of one carrier would be a big psychological blow to the American public.

I am not saying carriers are out of date or not needed because they are. I am just saying that you have to be realistic in looking at potential battles.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

First, the $7.3 trillion numbers sounds like total bullshit

Second, even if it's true (it's not) we could pay it off for 20 years by closing Fannie and Freddie.

Third, the firepower from one, just one carrier group can totally eliminate the entire Russian conventional fighting force, could probably destroy 90% of all of North Koreas assets in under 5 minutes should they decide to attack the south and finally, could defeat any ChiCom crossing of the Straits of Taiwan.

Fourth, blow me, just fucking blow me! I'm glad we have that kind of firepower and if you don't like you should fuck off.

It must be nice to live in fantasy land where reality does not interfere with your beliefs. All it takes is one torpedo or missile and no carrier left. The sub rules the oceans and the potential enemies you have named have quiet diesel subs. Sure have a formidable anti-sub presence in the carrier battle group but it is not infallible. As I have stated in other posts in other threads a war with China is losable because we have to project power halfway across the world against a powerful enemy. I can visualize in a protracted battle the loss of 1-2 carriers around Taiwan. The loss of one carrier would be a big psychological blow to the American public.

I am not saying carriers are out of date or not needed because they are. I am just saying that you have to be realistic in looking at potential battles.

I agree with you and Fezzig regarding land war in Asia.

The point I was making was that there is no substitute for the force projection from even a single US Carrier Group, so much that it could repulse a ChiCom invasion of Taiwan.

 

[Reidlr]

(...) 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

Defense spending is only 6.1% of GDP/year and est. 14% of total government spending for FY10. Our Government is estimated to spend 43.8% of GDP in 2010. If our defense budget was higher then you could complain. The spending is being wasted in other areas.

Funny, you never hear a liberal complaining about the 5.2% of GDP on welfare programs! There are currently 2,037 federal government public assistance programs! That is wasteful spending! Just a snapshot of the spending...

Department of Health and Human Services 2010 Budget - $460 billion
Department of Housing and Urban Development 2010 Budget - $46.344 billion
Department of Housing and Urban Development stimulas - $13.6 billion
Department of Education 2010 Budget - $63.7 billion
Department of Education stimulas - $96.8 billion
Department of Education (Edu Jobs Bill) - $10 billion
Department of Agriculture 2010 Budget - $134 billion

Total 2010 Budget for just three departments - $824.444 billion

That is only 3 departments out of 64 that offer federally funded public assistance programs. The total budget is way over $1 Trillion for one year of public assistance. So shut your pie hole about a little $7.3 Trillion over a 30 year span.