9 ms·
Wouldn't some of these costs be present either way? Without a war US would still have aircraft carriers, they would just be floating somewhere else. On the oth
by bawolff 8mo ago
Wouldn't some of these costs be present either way? Without a war US would still have aircraft carriers, they would just be floating somewhere else.
On the other side, it seems like this is not tracking interceptor costs (presumably due to it being classified), which have certainly been used extensively and are extremely expensive. For that matter i doubt we have a very clear picture of how much ordinance has been used in general.
[To be clear, im not doubting war is very expensive]
- butILoveLife 8mo agoMaybe, its opaque how its calculated. But you are keeping people on high alert, refueling further away, etc...
- bubblewand 8mo agoA carrier operating at sea on the other side of the world is a ton more expensive than a carrier in port at home. The Ford in particular would probably be in port now if not for these back-to-back expensive adventures, they’ve been deployed for a remarkably long time now. (As for whether this reflects only those added costs, I don’t know)
- bawolff 8mo agoTrue. Honestly i think my main opinion is that we have no idea what the number is, but its probably a large one.
- lefstathiou 8mo agoCarriers aren't meant to hang out at port at home. The US has protected global sea lanes for 80 years.
- idontwantthis 8mo agoThey aren't all deployed at all times and the Ford is more than overdue to be in Port. The sailors are notably suffering on this deployment and there is a ton of deferred maintenance.
- Retric 8mo agoWe have surplus carriers specifically to allow them to average a large percentage of their time at home unlike container ships who spend the vast majority of their time in service. Many systems that are both bespoke and complex means lots and lots of maintenance issues. Sure the Navy can Airlift in parts etc, but that’s obviously very expensive and less obviously more dangerous.
- nradov 8mo agoWe don't have a surplus of carriers. We have a shortage, at least relative to their current tasking. They're overstretched and behind on maintenance. This is unsustainable so the civilian leadership will have to either cut back on missions or build more.
- Retric 8mo agoThere’s always an argument for more equipment, but you need to start building them long before they enter service and need to set budgets long before any specific crisis. Funding for Nimitz was authorized in 1967 they started construction the next year and it was in service in 2025. The US has a very large and very expensive carrier fleet today because people decided it was worth having X boats a long time ago and they calculated X under the assumption that a significant number would be spending time docked / on the other side of the planet from where the conflict is. Obviously, part of that equation was based around warfare and the likelihood of losing some / extending deployments etc, but what we want today has no barring on what we actually built as all those decisions happened a long time ago. TLDR; Having more than strictly needed for normal operations = having a surplus when something abnormal occurs.
- nradov 8mo agoThere is literally no surplus. There hasn't been a surplus for 15+ years when funding priorities shifted to sustain the GWOT. There haven't been enough carriers to meet requirements for the combatant commands during normal operations, let alone when something abnormal occurs. So they try to make do with other platforms but the cracks are really showing.
- adriand 8mo ago> The US has protected global sea lanes for 80 years. But rather than protect global sea lanes, the US is bombing Iran. That’s not the same thing. The idea that the war isn’t costing money for personnel because those people would be doing something anyway makes no sense. They could be doing something else. In fact, they could be doing something that increases the wealth and wellbeing of the world, rather than destroying things. So from that perspective, the cost is far higher than what is shown here. Then there’s the loss of innocent lives. It would be unconscionable to put a price tag on the lives of dozens of Iranian girls killed when their school was flattened and to show it on this website, and yet, this is not “free” either.
- bawolff 8mo ago> But rather than protect global sea lanes, the US is bombing Iran. That’s not the same thing. Arguably the primary threat to modern sea lanes is Iran. Right now Iran is harrasing traffic. Previously the Houthis, generally considered an Iranian proxy, were harrasing traffic. Its all kind of the same war, this is just the end game.
- RobRivera 8mo agoPeople should begin quantifying the commercial freight global costs incurred from the Houthi harassment. There is a basic ROI one can do that impacts not just US interests, but global interests.
- Terr_ 8mo agoIf it were that straightforward, right now the US would (A) have a consistent set of demands/goals that include shipping security and (B) a large international coalition of support. Neither are true. P.S.: Plus, of course, the whole problem where "protecting global sea lanes" typically requires a different approach than "start a war by assassinating the leadership you were negotiating with."
- bagels 8mo agoJD vance whined that we shouldn't protect middle east shipping lanes because he believes it helps Europe more than the US.
- state_less 8mo agoThe strait of hormuz is the opposite of protected right now. Insurance companies aren't willing to cover ships if they enter the strait to pick up a load of oil, so little commercial traffic is occurring. The real cost should include the spike in oil prices, the world consumes about 100 million barrels a day, so every $10 increase costs the world a $1 billion a day. We're already up ~$10, and it might continue to rise depending on how things go. You probably should include LNG in there too. If this oil halt is protracted, your stocks and bonds will be dragged down as well.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- dspillett 8mo agoExactly: that protection isn't happening right now because those resources are doing something else. The money would be spent anyway, but doing something that is normally considered useful, and that useful thing is not happening to the same capacity as before. Therefore there is an opportunity cost to consider.
- yberreby 8mo agoThe Houthis have been doing a lot of shipping lane disruption, recently. They have sunk several ships. Iran's Islamic regime has provided material and monetary support to the Houthis. Crippling their capabilities aligns with the goal of protecting global shipping.
- nitwit005 8mo agoThey haven't exactly been sending aircraft carriers after pirates. It's a huge excess of firepower for any traditional threat to shipping. The US has liked to portray itself as the world's protector, but often that's just spin. The carriers are big weapons of war, meant for waging war.
- RobRivera 8mo agoCarriers routinely engage in war gaming and cruises. They dont port if they are not actively engaged in war.
- robaato 8mo agoWSJ: https://archive.is/IB7H2 https://archive.is/IB7H2 Missed Funerals and Blocked Toilets: Iran Deployment Takes a Toll on U.S. Sailors The aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford’s lengthy mission is causing strains for crew members and their families Overtaxed crews can be a problem across the Navy’s fleet, beyond just the Ford. In April and May 2025, near the end of an eight-month deployment, the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman lost several jet fighters while countering Houthi rebel attacks in the Red Sea. A Navy investigation blamed the high operational tempo of the mission. One sailor on board the Ford told the Journal that many crew members are angry and upset, with some saying they want to leave the Navy at the end of the deployment.
- blktiger 8mo agoI think that's true, but I like that this site includes a "ESTIMATED MUNITIONS & EQUIPMENT COSTS" section that shows the value of actual, expended munitions which are all one-time costs directly resulting from the war.
- bawolff 8mo agoSeems like a massive understatement given how much of this war has been shooting down iranian missiles. According to wikipedia, a single patriot missile cost 4 million, and you often have to use multiple to get a succesful shoot down.
- dexihand 8mo agoThis. 220 mil/day is 55 PAC3-MSEs. Iran has fired ~100 ballistic missiles alone per day. Probably spending that on interceptors alone.
- lakrici88284 8mo ago[dead]
- kingkawn 8mo agoYes but right now it’s doing this war. It can’t be anywhere else, so the costs are for this deployment specifically.
- bawolff 8mo agoI think when people are asking about the cost of a war, they are asking about excess costs. How much extra money would be saved if the war didn't happen.
- SauntSolaire 8mo agoYes, it's quite humorous to try and factor in opportunity costs for aircraft carriers, "but we could be bombing someone else!"
- paulryanrogers 8mo agoDoing actual bombing is more costing than just patrolling relatively peaceful seas, no?
- deaddodo 8mo agoYes, but not at the cost of the construction of an Aircraft Carrier. This is why the military uses "operational costs" (fuel, munitions, activated duty pay, equipment losses, etc) to factor the cost, not the total amount of every dollar ever spent to build+sustain a military force.
- eschulz 8mo agoRight, consider the personnel costs that are displayed here. They were already getting paid this past weekend either way (admittedly the military may have had to hire some last minute contractors to help with the operation).
- JohnTHaller 8mo agoIran probably wouldn't have blown up the $300m radar installation if we hadn't randomly attacked them.
- 1234letshaveatw 8mo ago[flagged]
- tw04 8mo agoHistory really doesn’t say otherwise. Tensions were mostly cooling after the Obama nuclear deal. Now the message we’ve told the world is: If you don’t want to eventually be at risk of the US attacking you, you better be nuclear armed.
- 1234letshaveatw 8mo agobecause enriching uranium worked out so well for Iran?
- ripvanwinkle 8mo agobecause it worked out for North Korea
- adventured 8mo agoNobody was desperate to invade North Korea prior to their acquisition of nukes. It's a horrific war field and combat prospect. Iraq and Afghanistan were each a cakewalk next to going into North Korea (again). North Korea was safe as they were. The primary threat to Gaddafi over time was internal, nukes would not have protected him. What was he going to do, nuke his own territory? The same was true for Assad. The primary threat to Iran's regime is internal. Nobody is invading Iran. It's a gigantic country with 93 million people. It can't be done and it's universally understood. Trump won't even speculate about it, even he knows it can't be done. What would nukes do to protect Iran's regime? Are they going to nuke their own people? Are they going to nuke Israel and US bases if the US bombs them? So let me get this straight: the US bombs Iran, Iran nukes Israel and some US bases, maybe even a regional foe - then Iran gets obliterated. That's not what would happen in reality at all. Don't take my word for it, ask Pakistan: the US threatened to bomb them [0] - despite their possession of nukes - after 9/11 if they didn't cooperate. Why would the US do that? Because the US knows that MAD doesn't work like the online armchair crowd thinks it does. [0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2006/9/22/us-threatened-to-bomb-pakistan https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2006/9/22/us-threatened-to-bo...
- 1970-01-01 8mo agoYes, the actual accounting is quite poor and makes bad assumptions. Don't use this info for anything important or serious.
- __alexs 8mo agoSure but having a bunch of resources for "defence" is very different from having a bunch of resources for "attack" in most people's mind I imagine.
- sva_ 8mo agoAlso, the taking the production/purchasing cost of some F15s that were 25 - 35 years old doesn't make a whole lot of sense, or does it?
- lukan 8mo agoThey still work, if they get shot down, you will have to pay to replace them. (also using them is expensive and causes wear, especially under the stress of real action, where the limits are pushed)
- sva_ 8mo agoYeah my 2004 3-series BMW also still works, but if it broke down, I wouldn't think I lost the price that it originally cost.
- runako 8mo ago> Wouldn't some of these costs be present either way? This is a fair way to account for the cost, because the assets were procured and personnel hired years ago for just this purpose. Put another way: we would not need this fleet at all if we did not expect to use it in a manner like this. (For example, Spain did not choose to have this capability and so has not borne a cost of maintaining this option for the preceding decades.) Through that lens, the true cost of this war would involve counting back to before this round of hostilities began. It's only fair to count _at least_ the "time on task" for all the assets.
- stevenwoo 8mo agoThere's someone quoted here who estimated UAE by itself cost in fighting off the Shahed drones at $23-28 per $1 spent on Shahed drone at $55000 (they know how many got through and the claimed success rate and the methods they are using to defend UAE) https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/shahed-drones-iran-us-war-ukraine-russia-rcna261285 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/shahed-drones-iran-us...
- skeeter2020 8mo agoit's also doesn't take into consideration the revenue opportunities, like USA-branded apparel, FanDuel parlay wagers, and I assume that Epic Fury is a summer Marvel franchise, or Wrestling PPV?
- quantified 8mo agoMunitions, fuel, and combat pay are additional in combat. Also maintenance. Some costs are there anyway, sure. But war is far more expensive than peace.
- JKCalhoun 8mo agoAnd I just read the U.S. may be sending the Navy as escort for oil tankers in the region.
- TiredOfLife 8mo agoAlso NATO requires a certain percentage of GDP to be spent.