6 ms·

Supercarriers are good value for money compared to fighter jets or submarines. The three new Ford class carriers will cost around $30 billion total. Compared t

by 6nf 10y ago

Supercarriers are good value for money compared to fighter jets or submarines. The three new Ford class carriers will cost around $30 billion total. Compared to the estimated 1 trillion spent on the F-35 that's peanuts. Virginia class attack subs are 2.6 billion each, and the US navy wants 50 of them.

meric 10y ago
Aircraft carriers require planes on them. A Ford-class aircraft carrier can carry 75 planes.
- burfog 10y ago
  The ship is as cheap as roughly 40 planes. In other words, we shouldn't be terribly concerned about the cost of the ship. The ship reduces the distance that the planes fly, thereby increasing aircraft life. If we get 50% more airframe life, it's a win for that alone.
  - meric 10y ago
    Yes! If it's worth it to build planes, it's worth it to build a carrier, and if a carrier is going to be built, there's no point unless there are planes also. Planes and carriers go hand in hand.
PantaloonFlames 10y ago
> Supercarriers are good value for money compared to fighter jets Good value? You're comparing the cost of Tennis rackets to tennis balls, which is irrelevant. We either buy both, or neither. As for your arithmetic regarding carriers and subs, that flies in the face of the article. The Ford is now (2015 at time of writing) at $14.5B, and is late. To expect that the Navy delivers 3 of those, for just $15B more.... not realistic. The value of the subs is that they are not vulnerable. According to the article.
- jedc 10y ago
  Former US Navy submarine officer here. It is very difficult to attack/destroy a submarine. And it's pretty easy for submarines to attack/kill surface fleets. That's why I've been similarly skeptical of the Navy's heavy reliance / budget for carriers & carrier groups.
nostrademons 10y ago
Just think, you could buy LinkedIn, or three new Ford class aircraft carriers. I'm not sure which is the better value.
SkyMarshal 10y ago
>Supercarriers are good value for money compared to fighter jets or submarines. Good value compared to the F-35 perhaps, but not submarines. With China prioritizing carrier killer hypersonic and ballistic anti-ship missiles, if there's ever another war in the Pacific it will be a submarine war and "skimmers" (surface fleets) will go the way of the battleship in WWII.
engi_nerd 10y ago
I think you mean to say that the three new Ford class carriers will cost in the neighborhood of $30 billion each. See [0], specifically page 19, 'Cost Summary - CVN 78'. In FY 2000 dollars, a total of $27.725 billion (thousand million) has been spent on the CVN 78. This includes, research, design, testing, evaluation, and salaries for contractors. This does not include the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS, the replacement for the steam catapults found on other US carriers) or the Advanced Arresting Gear (a replacement for the Mark 7 arresting gear). CVN 78 (USS Gerald R. Ford) is on track to be about $40 billion. The SAR is optimistic in saying that cost savings will be seen on CVN 79 and CVN 80 due to knowledge gained during the construction of CVN 78. Also it is not correct to say that there has been 1 trillion spent on the F-35 program because spent is past tense. There has not been 1 trillion spent. Rather, according to the latest Selected Acquisition Report, the costs to date (including funding allocations for some production lots still to be made) is about $81 billion (See page 29, 'PB 2017 Total - Prior' figures. Another ~$18 billion has been spent on the development and procurement of the F-135 engine. Another $6 billion or so was spent on the now-cancelled F-136 engine. What will be in the neighborhood of $1 trillion is the estimated total lifetime cost of the F-35 at program completion (when the F-35 is retired and all aircraft have been decommissioned and disposed of in some way). [0]: CVN 78 Selected Acquisition Report: http://www.dod.gov/pubs/foi/Reading_Room/Selected_Acquisition_Reports/CVN_78_December_2012_SAR.pdf http://www.dod.gov/pubs/foi/Reading_Room/Selected_Acquisitio... [1]: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Selected Acquisition Report: https://fas.org/man/eprint/F35-sar-2016.pdf https://fas.org/man/eprint/F35-sar-2016.pdf

by 6nf 10y ago

meric 10y ago

Aircraft carriers require planes on them. A Ford-class aircraft carrier can carry 75 planes.

burfog 10y ago
The ship is as cheap as roughly 40 planes. In other words, we shouldn't be terribly concerned about the cost of the ship. The ship reduces the distance that the planes fly, thereby increasing aircraft life. If we get 50% more airframe life, it's a win for that alone.
- meric 10y ago
  Yes! If it's worth it to build planes, it's worth it to build a carrier, and if a carrier is going to be built, there's no point unless there are planes also. Planes and carriers go hand in hand.

PantaloonFlames 10y ago

> Supercarriers are good value for money compared to fighter jets Good value? You're comparing the cost of Tennis rackets to tennis balls, which is irrelevant. We either buy both, or neither. As for your arithmetic regarding carriers and subs, that flies in the face of the article. The Ford is now (2015 at time of writing) at $14.5B, and is late. To expect that the Navy delivers 3 of those, for just $15B more.... not realistic. The value of the subs is that they are not vulnerable. According to the article.

jedc 10y ago
Former US Navy submarine officer here. It is very difficult to attack/destroy a submarine. And it's pretty easy for submarines to attack/kill surface fleets. That's why I've been similarly skeptical of the Navy's heavy reliance / budget for carriers & carrier groups.

nostrademons 10y ago

Just think, you could buy LinkedIn, or three new Ford class aircraft carriers. I'm not sure which is the better value.

SkyMarshal 10y ago

>Supercarriers are good value for money compared to fighter jets or submarines. Good value compared to the F-35 perhaps, but not submarines. With China prioritizing carrier killer hypersonic and ballistic anti-ship missiles, if there's ever another war in the Pacific it will be a submarine war and "skimmers" (surface fleets) will go the way of the battleship in WWII.

engi_nerd 10y ago

I think you mean to say that the three new Ford class carriers will cost in the neighborhood of $30 billion each. See [0], specifically page 19, 'Cost Summary - CVN 78'. In FY 2000 dollars, a total of $27.725 billion (thousand million) has been spent on the CVN 78. This includes, research, design, testing, evaluation, and salaries for contractors. This does not include the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS, the replacement for the steam catapults found on other US carriers) or the Advanced Arresting Gear (a replacement for the Mark 7 arresting gear). CVN 78 (USS Gerald R. Ford) is on track to be about $40 billion. The SAR is optimistic in saying that cost savings will be seen on CVN 79 and CVN 80 due to knowledge gained during the construction of CVN 78. Also it is not correct to say that there has been 1 trillion spent on the F-35 program because spent is past tense. There has not been 1 trillion spent. Rather, according to the latest Selected Acquisition Report, the costs to date (including funding allocations for some production lots still to be made) is about $81 billion (See page 29, 'PB 2017 Total - Prior' figures. Another ~$18 billion has been spent on the development and procurement of the F-135 engine. Another $6 billion or so was spent on the now-cancelled F-136 engine. What will be in the neighborhood of $1 trillion is the estimated total lifetime cost of the F-35 at program completion (when the F-35 is retired and all aircraft have been decommissioned and disposed of in some way). [0]: CVN 78 Selected Acquisition Report: http://www.dod.gov/pubs/foi/Reading_Room/Selected_Acquisition_Reports/CVN_78_December_2012_SAR.pdf http://www.dod.gov/pubs/foi/Reading_Room/Selected_Acquisitio... [1]: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Selected Acquisition Report: https://fas.org/man/eprint/F35-sar-2016.pdf https://fas.org/man/eprint/F35-sar-2016.pdf