Are aircraft carriers the new battleships? As in...

Are aircraft carriers the new battleships? As in, the big waste of money that nowhere near pays for its cost in actual wars?

Nimitz class carriers the US operates cost about 4.5 billion each with amortized engineering and design costs. The new classes of carriers coming out cost about 6.2 billion each because of new features designed in.
That does not include the air wing (65-75 aircraft and related support equipment and parts), which would add another few billion.

So far we have only paid for the hardware.

Fortunately the fuel is not a recurring cost. but we have 3200 men to feed and house. An aircraft carrier is a complex machine with a lot of wear and tear, generally in peacetime use the ships spend half their time on patrol and half their time in port. So for the money we really get only fifty percent availability.

To support and protect the carrier we have an entire carrier group that travels with the carrier literally everywhere it goes.
A carrier strike group (CSG) is an operational formation of the United States Navy. It is composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, an aircraft carrier, at least one cruiser, a destroyer squadron of at least two destroyers and/or frigates, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft.
A carrier strike group also, on occasion, includes submarines, attached logistics ships and a supply ship.
The carrier strike group commander operationally reports to the commander of the numbered fleet who is operationally responsible for the area of waters in which the carrier strike group is operating.
So that's another 4000 men and 6-7 warships and a few support ships (fuel for the aircraft, fuel for the CSG ships, and food and parts and expendable armaments).

Finally you have the overhead of the Navy - all the land-based operations and supply groups and people all the way up to admirals.

Other urls found in this thread:

navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

cont.
So considering everything my guess is an initial cost of 10 billion (and I didn't count the cost of the CSG ships) and an annual operating cost of 2-4 billion (entire CSG).

And ultimately there will be nuclear refueling at several hundred million every 15 years and nuclear decommissioning at about a billion at the end of life (40 years?)

And it only has offensive capabilities (you have airports when defending), and isn't as effective as missiles and anti-missile bases near the enemy you wish to attack.

>Moving away from highly expensive and vulnerable supercarriers toward smaller, light carriers would bring the additional benefit of increasing our nation’s engagement potential.
>It would also spread out U.S. naval air power instead of concentrating it in just a few places, where it can be more easily knocked out.
>Small flattops carrying drones and stealthy jump jets would help adapt the fleet away from its current course to a new design for a new era.
t. capt. Jerry Hendrix

Small carriers with a ramp are the future.

Building missile silos in the country next to your enemy and then diplomatically insulting your enemy for being upset about it is the future of warfare.

They should really give them more self-defensive capabilities like the Ruskies have on their floating shoe factory.
>air defense missiles
>anti-ship weaponry
>adaptive smokescreen to hide its position on radar and kill any crew of an enemy destroyer with high levels of CO2

Don't forget it ruins the enemy's economy by reducing their agricultural capabilities simply passing by.

>admiral purt purt
God damn it, why can't I stop laughing at this.

Pretty sure even the american nuclear aircraft carriers move on petrol throughout most of their existence.
They only use the nuclear engine during actual war (so they really don't) and purt-purt their way through patrols and training.

Then why don't the US carriers have a giant chimney that kills more seagulls than Zhukov ever could kill slavs?

>Small coal powered carriers with a ramp are the future.

This thread is pretty bad, but I just can't even once before after this whole post. Just wow. You actually believe that? I hope this was a troll post.

They do though. Do you think their nuclear engines run while moving around in port or going for a drill mission?

They don't. Find me *one* these supposed petrol engines. They don't exist. You wouldn't run a ship like that on petrol, you'd run it on gas or diesel.

Second, yes. The entire source of power for the ship comes from the on board reactors.

Third, the engines aren't nuclear. They're simply powered by them.

You are 100% wrong.

t. reactor department

Yes, they are extremely expensive, but in terms of power projection and air superiority they are absolutely necessary.
The only thing that would make carriers obsolete are new aircraft (fighters and bombers) with the speed, and range to cover the globe. And even then rearmament and refueling would be big issues.

what the fuck am I reading

They probably aren't quite there yet: For starters, you have the intimidation factor. Only the U.S. has a carrier fleet of any size, and as long as it does, its command over the deep blue waters is unchallenged and virtually unchallenged. That in and of itself has some pretty enormous benefits, especially for world trade.

Secondly, it allows for quick response on offense. You don't need to sign deals or expand airfields in nearby countries, you just sail the carriers up to the closest shoreline and start launching planes. Yes, if you have missiles and anti-missile bases near where you want to attack, they're probably more useful, but if you don't, well, oops. There's a reason you had so many carrier strikes in the Gulf War.

Thirdly, they possess an essentially self-contained and wholly sea-lined logistical trail. Yeah, it can be expensive, but raw dollar count isn't the usual limiting factor in war. These things have virtually unlimited fuel, carry a load of munitions, and can always be resupplied from sea, something that probably doesn't stress your bottlenecks in shipping to whatever benighted corner of the globe you're blowing up.

Now, I imagine eventually they will be. Ultimately, the airplane that the carrier launches is itself just a platform for launching a couple of missles: As missiles get cheaper and easier to lob yet, the airplane itself is likely to go out of style, and if you don't need airplanes, you don't need airplane carriers, but that's probably not for another 30-50 years.

A FUCKING RAMP

>25 years
>25
RRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEE

On the next episode of "America spends a bunch of trillions for a more advanced military": The USA builds the death star.

Seriously, when does it end? The US has bases in every country's backyard, a massive army, and the best equipment. Why keep upgrading and growing at this point? They are untouchable.

Because complacency killed the cat.

This is almost as bad as the idiot who thought dropping 'Little Boy' on Germany would have rendered Western Europe radioactive and caused all European nations to declare war on the USA.

The system that he described is used on the Russian Kirov Cruiser, although in the opposite way that he described. The Kirov uses nuclear propulsion for cruising at a respectable speed but it also has a diesel engine which can be activated to provide an additional boost of speed if the ship really needs to get somewhere fast. It's an odd system, not used by another class of ship to my knowledge. Pyotr Velikiy (Peter The Great) is the only Kirov cruiser that remains operational. The name should be a hint that it was introduced after the fall of the Soviet Union, whereas the other Kirov cruisers were constructed during the Soviet Era.

The thing about carriers is they don't scale linearly. Two carriers half the size of a Nimitz might carry half the planes each, but they will also have vastly reduced capabilities. Smaller carriers can't land or launch the big planes like cargo or AWACS aircraft, which are essential to using carriers as a power projection force.

On top of that, using those carriers separately means doubling the number of escorts you need.

>Smaller carriers can't land or launch the big planes like cargo or AWACS aircraft

That depends entirely on how you define small, CdG is a much smaller carrier compared to a Nimitz or Ford, but she can carry fixed wing AWE&C and cargo aircraft.

Not that it matters, USN are moving away from fixed wing cargo and swapping for tilt-rotor (something you can also launch from STVOL/STOBAR carriers).

carriers weren't built with a total war 1940s pacific scenario in mind

carriers were built so we could effectively bully the rest of the world with low intensity airstrikes whenever we want

for that purpose they work fine

whod the fug are you on man

Because the entire world economy is based on our ability to profit from our weapons technology.

Our consumption is the only thing driving world growth. How do we consume so much? Foreigners consciously depreciate their currency by buying up our treasuries and investing in our economy, so they can export more. We have to use this investment somehow and for the last 70 years, it's been military spending. The investment MUST "pay off" or the whole system collapses. Thus American imperialism.

The U.S. spends 3.3% of its GDP on all defense spending, of which arms consumption is a fraction (albeit a big fraction). That's nowhere near big enough to drive the world economy. Hell, it's been going down steadily since 1980 and no signs of imminent collapse.

>Because the entire world economy is based on our ability to profit from our weapons technology.

What did he mean by this?

>Are aircraft carriers the new battleships? As in, the big waste of money that nowhere near pays for its cost in actual wars?

K has talked on the subject endlessly. First off till about the 1930s battleship were a good investment. Why? During peace time they tools of intimidation against non-peers. Second it forces the enemy to change the way it builds its navy and uses its navy to fight you. It limits the other guy's options if he is over matched in that area.

Those same things also hold true about carriers in this day and age. A few Nimitz class carriers can also let you power project a few hundred miles inshore. The amount of planes from 3 Nimitz class's is such that only ~24 counties (estimate is from /k) in could effectively anything against that as of right now.Once the F-35C starts being the main plane used that number drops to 18 or 19.

No, and you're retarded for thinking that.
>carriers weren't built with a total war 1940s pacific scenario in mind
Yes they were.

The cost also doesn't scale linearly. For the amount of money you pay for a Nimitz you can get six smaller carriers.

Objectively false, and MURIKA FUK YAR tier retarded.

>The cost also doesn't scale linearly. For the amount of money you pay for a Nimitz you can get six smaller carriers.

Can't get the cost numbers for older ships, so lets use the Gerald R. Ford-class and current smaller carriers.

Gerald R. Ford unit cost $ 10.5 B
Queen Elizabeth-class $3.8 B

Okay so lets take a look at planes, 80 and 50 respectively. So $135 million per plane for the Gerald R. Ford and $ 76 million per plane for the Queen Elizabeth. Looks right like the smaller carriers are winning right, even if it is not one to six. However the cost of airframes is not being added yet. The F-35C for the Gerald R. Ford is $93.3 million and the F-35B for Queen Elizabeth $108 million (using projected 2019 numbers). Not everything will be those plane on a real combat load but just humor me here. The means we are at $ 228.3 million per plane for the Gerald R. Ford and $ 184.1 million per plane for the Queen Elizabeth. Still looks like the Queen Elizabeth is winning right?

Lets go back to the planes, because their combat loads are not the same, nor is their take off. A F-35B from Queen Elizabeth can only take off with a load of 16000 pounds of fuel and munitions. A F-35C from the Gerald R. Ford can do a CATOBAR take off with a 35000 pound load. That is a lot more time in the sky and bomb to drop.

Not going to do the full math here but for large scale actions the Gerald R. Ford is much more cost effective.

Didn't the us have several military exercises that proved that a carrier battle group were vulnerable towards suffice to ship missiles and submarines.

Have you considered that their existence is the cause of the non-necessity of their deployment?

No

>Didn't the us have several military exercises that proved that a carrier battle group were vulnerable towards suffice to ship missiles

t. Lieutenant General Van Riper

>Current year
>ramp
ISHYGDDT

>tfw the f-35 is the way murica bait the world into another world war

GR.F is implementing a slew of new technologies such as advanced arrestors, advanced elevators, EMALS ect, and they have nuclear reactors

A much more fair comparison would be the Nimitz that cost around 4.5 B and are much much more capable than the QE, FIxed wing AEW, CATOBAR ect

You cannot fight in a naval war against carriers without your own carriers

A CVBG can see you coming 100% of the time before you can detect the, can constantly kite you and stay out of range of your detection/weaponry, and then when they want to 100 air launched air launched harpoons with jamming support come over the horizon and kill you.

If you want they splash your shitty helicopter AEW as well, if you happen to be the Kuznetsov

Nothing you"ve said relates as to whether it's obsolete

Not OP, and I rather disagree with him, but I don't think he's arguing that you can use non-carrier naval assets to defeat a CVBG, but rather is asserting that just good old fashioned land based airpower is enough to beat the CVBG.

Land based air power is not a hard counter to a CVBG. If anything submarines and extensive mine laying would be more effective at area denial for a carrier.

>It would also spread out U.S. naval air power instead of concentrating it in just a few places, where it can be more easily knocked out.
We have eleven (11) carrier groups.
I'd really like to see the nation that can carry out a simultaneous strike on all of them at once that is successful.

Realistically you're never going to see more than 4 active at any given time due to doctrine, but we've also got America and Wasp class ships able to launch STVOL.

You'd see every single one active if an actual war broke out. As it is you don't need them all just to put down some mudslimes hiding in a mud hut

>Land based air power is not a hard counter to a CVBG.
Soviets thought differently

toot toot

>We're just gonna send out our bombers to look over the entire fucking ocean to try and fight this carrier group

It might work, but it would take longer than you'd think, and it almost seems like a waste of bomber to have it searching for carriers when it could be carrying nukes towards the enemy population centers. Remember, any Soviet vs America war would have been a nuclear war.

>muh unsankable aircraft carrier
lol

>muh magical anti-ship missiles

lol

lets take a look at how many US aircraft carriers have sunk due to enemy action since WW2.

oh wait

The Chinese seem to think they've got a carrier-killing missile.

The Chinese also think grinding up parts of endangered animals will give them virility or cure cancer or something.

That hasn't stopped them from trying to build their own.

>ramps
When the FUCK will this meme end

>and it almost seems like a waste of bomber to have it searching for carriers
They have MPAs for that

The Liaoning is the same type of carrier as the infamous Russian "carrier" just refurbished and in much better condition. China is building more carriers based on the same design with hopes of eventually working their way up to American-style super carriers.

>t. cuck
Even the French have a CATOBAR carrier.
Russians and English confirmed for cucks.

unsankable aircraft carrier refers to island air bases like Taiwan or Okinawa

ASBMs and Carrier groups fill different roles. ASBM is about area denial, whereas a carrier group is about power projection. That's why the Chinese are still investing in Carriers despite all their hype about their carrier killing missiles

They're pretty vulnerable to having an ICBM dropped on their head which is the first thing that would happen in a proper war. Short of bullying third-world sandpits they're worthless.

Guys like these are so fucking oblivious on economics a simple Google result would show them they're wrong, please put them down somebody

We're building 10 new Ford class carriers. Why the fuck do we need 10 more carriers. We have 10 already and best every other country combined basically

Nuclear powered high atmosphere air bases that can carry aircraft

Nuclear powered high atmosphere air bases that can carry aircraft

>we will never see carrier vs carrier combat again
Why live

It'd be from so far away. Probably fast too but with tons of shit happening at once

A 1 million USD cruise missile can destroy a 10 billion USD carrier, and several cruise missiles can overwhelm any missile-defense system.

More than anything carriers were used to project power and bully small countries into submission. Also as a money sink, so defense contractors can get US-taxpayer money.

Missile cruisers like the Kirov class are the future of naval warfare.

and a $5 sixty-year-old AK fired by a teenager can kill an elite tier 1 SOF operator who went through millions of $ worth of training

cool argument friendo

>nukes
>towards the enemy population centers

pick one

There is no difficulty whatsoever in targeting a modern cruise missile, so your analogy is shit.

The sheer power of the USA plays a major role in preventing wars from escalating. They're world police and to be world police you need the power to take on at least half the world's millitaries just by yourself and win.

They didn't build that, its a Kuznetsov-class carrier, albeit kept in much better order.

To replace the 10 we're using right now.

see

Land based airpower is not a good counter to a CVBG because you cannot FIND a CVBG
here is the go to article that I always send people when discussing this

navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.htm

more so, all the land based airbases in range of a china or soviet union would be IRBMed to death, so this increases the utility of carriers even further

Carriers dont last forever.
The US is actually going through a major overhaul of its armed forces right now since a lot of the equipment is nearing the end of their projected service life.

>several cruise missiles can overwhelm any missile-defense system.
How about several missile defence systems?