3 ms·
Because nothing else can do what they do. Yes they’re expensive. Yes they’re more vulnerable than in the past. But they can do things nothing else can. Is th
by JackFr 5y ago
Because nothing else can do what they do.
Yes they’re expensive. Yes they’re more vulnerable than in the past. But they can do things nothing else can.
Is there another cheaper way to set up a complete airbase wherever you want 10000 miles from home?
- lumost 5y agoA naive totaling of the Capex per CSG is roughly 24.3 Billion dollars. This does not include the cost of munitions. An interesting question is whether you actually need a mobile airbase which necessitates large quantities of costly defensive weapons ( The new Ford carrier sails with 6 1.8 Billion dollar Arleigh-Burke class Destroyers ). Considering a tomahawk costs roughly 1 million dollars, it may be more efficient for the Navy's power projection goals to use more portable missile platforms instead of a mobile airbase.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> Considering a tomahawk costs roughly 1 million dollars, it may be more efficient for the Navy's power projection goals to use more portable missile platforms instead of a mobile airbase. That was the idea between both the “arsenal ship” concept that hasn’t (yet) materialized, and the SSGN conversion of a number of Ohio-class ex-SSBNs, which has.
- nradov 5y agoYour numbers are off. A typical carrier strike group contains one cruiser and two destroyers for escort, not six. There aren't enough destroyers to go around.
- lumost 5y agoAhh I based this off the 2019 deployment of the Ford Carrier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_Strike_Group_12#2019_deployment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_Strike_Group_12#2019_d... It's possible that this was an atypical deployment.