I wonder what the cost of this is for one month, wages, fuel, food etc etc etc ?
The Lincoln departed on Monday with the Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group to support global maritime security operations, according to U.S. 3rd Fleet, which leads naval forces in the Indo-Pacific.
The strike group includes guided-missile cruiser USS Mobile Bay and guided-missile destroyers USS Fitzgerald, USS Gridley, USS Sampson and USS Spruance.
According to the Maritime Post:
Depending on the exact configuration of a carrier strike group, its operational cost is anywhere between $6 million to $8 million per day. In total, the annual cost of operating 11 carriers and 9 air wings is around $21 billion.
ThanksOriginally Posted by DMC102
What does the new uk one cost ?
With out getting all political i dont get this carriers in todays world. The problems are more digital or tactics such as small bombings causing panic.
I cant help but think the cost of running one of those things would be better spent.
You’d have to suppose that fully armed and deployed - each of the UK’s ones, would cost $2m/day in overall costs?
Sounds eye watering the cost of running Aircraft Carriers until you realise Jeff Bezos makes around $205 million a day or he could run that Carrier for 26 days on one days takings, $1.7m to him is equal to $1 to the average American!!
In this day and age though, I can’t shake the feeling that a carrier is little more than a large target. Not too hard to swamp even the most capable air defence system with low-cost drones (or very high speed missiles) and then the carrier is an expensive new reef for sea-life, and the F35 drivers have to hope they can find land before they runout of fuel. So: great for old-school power projection, potentially a liability if things go off.
It all smacks somewhat to me of “preparing to fight the last war”, rather like when the RN sent HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse to give the Japanese a bloody nose in WW2. I fear the paradigm has shifted already.
It’s an image thing.
They are a projection of power. can send a powerful strike force for air or ground support anywhere. They are a target but in theory they have capability for defence and early warning. Not that many Navies are able to take on the US carrier fleets - Russia and China and even then they might struggle.
Oh, I agree they're potent symbols of power projection, I just think their value is mainly that: symbolic. The fundamental trouble with large, high-value vessels like these is that a ship can sink and an airstrip on land (of which the PLA has assiduously been building quite a few) can't. Also, imagine the disastrous impact on morale if one of the USN's vaunted nuclear carriers were to be lost. If one feels the need to protect such a precious asset by limiting its exposure to land-based aircraft or well-operated, quiet diesel/electric submarines, then the area of South China Sea in which the carrier group can operate with confidence gets smaller, and its ability to project power commensurately reduced.
I am not sure I follow you. Are you saying it's better to have a land base airstrip than a carrier?
Airstrips are usually situated on grounds you control. Build them on artificial islet in the South China sea and they will "sink" quite as permanently considering the logistics needed to rebuild them. Add to that that an airstrip is of little strategic value if the planes cannot refill and be maintained.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
No. I’m saying that a carrier is very vulnerable to attack from land-based aircraft, and is vulnerable in a way that a land based airstrip is not. I’m not saying that one is “better” than the other (a meaningless comparison, in the absence of context). You are right of course that an airstrip per se with no ammunition, fuel, spare parts or ground crew, is just a flat bit of concrete and of no immediate value.
That said, I continue to believe that a carrier group put in a position where it can be attacked from multiple directions by land-based aircraft is vulnerable, so the presence of (operational, armed and equipped) airstrips on artificial islets is a pretty decent way of reducing the deployment options the USN has without putting their high prestige asset at unacceptable risk.
Personally, I think far more cost effective power projection can be had with modern nuclear powered submarines, with the added bonus that (unless your opponent is extremely well equipped, good at ASW or lucky) they only know where your assets might be. With the ability to launch Tomahawk or similar, you can strike at most of the same targets a carrier air group can hit, and be very difficult to pre-empt. But then, once one has ploughed billions into something like a carrier, I suppose one has to be seen to use it.
It's interesting, because the key point you are making is that air superiority is essential. Hence a normal battleship is in no position to repel a sustained attack from the air. But by definition the carrier's role is to give that air superiority to its battle group
The problem with submarines is that since Red October doesn't exist yet (to my knowledge) it is reasonably easy to know if they are in a certain zone with a few underwater listening devices.
Nuclear submarines are easier to detect than modern diesel ones, and the latter, more suitable for any shallow water operation require refuelling (port or surface tanker) but as you stated they both can deploy a missile. However this is exactly the point: submarines and carriers do not fulfil the same mission. The CBG brings a "proper" war situation, establishes air superiority and can enable the landing of infantry. It is currently the most formidable mobile force any country can muster.
Also, let's be clear: the real military menace can come from 2 1/2 countries, Russia, China and North Korea (which is worth 1/2 not so much for its capacity to fire ballistic missiles but because it will invariably be backed up by China)
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
I really must sort that bug out bag.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
And start digging that shelter
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Stay frosty!
The thing is, that you cannot mount any sort of ground operation without full air-support. A carrier group will be defended comprehensively - while providing the essential cover. I dare say that the group will also have drone ability too.
Navy carriers can be had for less of you shop around.
https://www.rnrmc.org.uk/news/famous...southern-co-op
Both US and UK carriers use drones themselves, to combat drone strikes.
The f35 platform is actually intended to dominate a battle space, stay undetected and direct drone and uav strikes rather than get involved in direct kinetic ops.
And start digging that shelter
I would LOVE one of those in the garden!
And start digging that shelter
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
I've discovered a very neat YouTube channel from a guy called Ward Carroll. He was an F14 Tomcat RIO who left the USN as a Commander & now lectures at the US Naval Academy. He covers a wide range of aviation material & there's a LOT of informative carrier stuff.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote