3 ms·

Also, we certainly haven't lost the war economically from a loss of just one carrier -- we have a few. Our opponents (whoever they might be) would though. It's

by xixi77 11y ago

Also, we certainly haven't lost the war economically from a loss of just one carrier -- we have a few. Our opponents (whoever they might be) would though. It's not a bad example actually -- US economy and military spending are so far ahead of competition, that if we can keep $$ losses under ~1 to 5 (their 1 to our 5, that is), and probably much more than that if you account for production capabilities and strength of the economy, that any opponent would be economically devastated. WW2 and the cold war demonstrated that quite well: Soviet costs were technically lower in absolute terms, but in relation to the size of the economy they were absolutely destructive.

dmichulke 11y ago
A loss of a carrier doesn't incur by itself any economic cost, however building it does. Your Soviet analogy makes sense, even though their mistake was building it (and not losing it - I don't know about great losses of the Soviets after 45) Also, IANA expert but I think carriers today only make sense against pre-missile and pre-jet militaries. IMO a carrier can only operate under air superiority and effective missile defense one of which probably even small countries can contest these days.
- xixi77 11y ago
  I think opinions also vary on that one, and effectiveness of anti-ship missiles vs carriers has obviously not been combat tested -- a carrier group has a lot of means to defend against cruise missile attacks though, the aircraft themselves being a pretty major one. There have been developments on both sides of that equation, but I doubt anyone who actually knows much about the current state of affairs is going to tell us :) One problem with the missile strategy (which is the one Soviets tried) is that even if you might be able to cost-effectively attack a carrier group with missile cruisers, they are pretty much useless for anything else.
- gaius 11y ago
  Also, IANA expert but I think carriers today only make sense against pre-missile and pre-jet militaries. The Falklands war suggests otherwise. The Argentines had the most advanced weapons the French would sell them.

by xixi77 11y ago

dmichulke 11y ago

A loss of a carrier doesn't incur by itself any economic cost, however building it does. Your Soviet analogy makes sense, even though their mistake was building it (and not losing it - I don't know about great losses of the Soviets after 45) Also, IANA expert but I think carriers today only make sense against pre-missile and pre-jet militaries. IMO a carrier can only operate under air superiority and effective missile defense one of which probably even small countries can contest these days.

xixi77 11y ago
I think opinions also vary on that one, and effectiveness of anti-ship missiles vs carriers has obviously not been combat tested -- a carrier group has a lot of means to defend against cruise missile attacks though, the aircraft themselves being a pretty major one. There have been developments on both sides of that equation, but I doubt anyone who actually knows much about the current state of affairs is going to tell us :) One problem with the missile strategy (which is the one Soviets tried) is that even if you might be able to cost-effectively attack a carrier group with missile cruisers, they are pretty much useless for anything else.
gaius 11y ago
Also, IANA expert but I think carriers today only make sense against pre-missile and pre-jet militaries. The Falklands war suggests otherwise. The Argentines had the most advanced weapons the French would sell them.