7 ms·

A 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 po

A 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 7mo ago
True. Honestly i think my main opinion is that we have no idea what the number is, but its probably a large one.
lefstathiou 7mo ago
Carriers aren't meant to hang out at port at home. The US has protected global sea lanes for 80 years.
- idontwantthis 7mo ago
  They 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 7mo ago
  We 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 7mo ago
    We 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 7mo ago
      There’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 7mo ago
        There 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.
        Retric 7mo ago
        Your “requirements” aren’t actual requirements here.
    - Jensson 7mo ago
      That is a good reason to focus what you have on Iran since Iran is causing a lot of that demand for power projection. If you fix it at its source there will be much less demand for them in the future.
- adriand 7mo 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 7mo 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 7mo ago
      People 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_ 7mo ago
      If 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 7mo ago
        JD vance whined that we shouldn't protect middle east shipping lanes because he believes it helps Europe more than the US.
- state_less 7mo ago
  The 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 7mo ago
    [deleted]
- dspillett 7mo ago
  Exactly: 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 7mo ago
    The 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 7mo ago
  They 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 7mo ago
Carriers routinely engage in war gaming and cruises. They dont port if they are not actively engaged in war.
robaato 7mo ago
WSJ: 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.

bawolff 7mo ago

True. Honestly i think my main opinion is that we have no idea what the number is, but its probably a large one.

lefstathiou 7mo ago

Carriers aren't meant to hang out at port at home. The US has protected global sea lanes for 80 years.

idontwantthis 7mo ago
They 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 7mo ago
We 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 7mo ago
  We 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 7mo ago
    There’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 7mo ago
      There 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.
      - Retric 7mo ago
        Your “requirements” aren’t actual requirements here.
  - Jensson 7mo ago
    That is a good reason to focus what you have on Iran since Iran is causing a lot of that demand for power projection. If you fix it at its source there will be much less demand for them in the future.
adriand 7mo 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 7mo 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 7mo ago
    People 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_ 7mo ago
    If 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 7mo ago
      JD vance whined that we shouldn't protect middle east shipping lanes because he believes it helps Europe more than the US.
state_less 7mo ago
The 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 7mo ago
  [deleted]
dspillett 7mo ago
Exactly: 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 7mo ago
  The 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 7mo ago
They 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 7mo ago

Carriers routinely engage in war gaming and cruises. They dont port if they are not actively engaged in war.

robaato 7mo ago

WSJ: 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.