$13 billion for USS GR Ford

[Thorlifter]

Does anyone know if this cost is comparable with inflation to what the Essex class carriers cost in the '40s?

 

[parsifal]

An Essex class carrier in 1942 cost about $65m USD. that equates to about $1 billion in 2011 dollars

Essex-class aircraft carrier - Wikipedia

To give some level of comparison. the british Invincible class STOVL carriers were priced at just over $500 per copy, but one was offered to the RAN in 1982 at $175 million as a replacement for the ageing Light fleet carrier Melbourne. stupidly, we turned it down.

You could have 75 Invincibles instead of the 1 Gerald Ford, just on the basis of hull costs. it has a crew of 4300 to operate a max CAG of 75 a/c. by comparison, the Invincibles have a complement of 1000 and had a complement of 25 a/c. The US supercarrier a/c are probley more cabale, though that is debateable, given the Invincibles could have embarked the F-35.

You would need 3 x Invincibles to match the numbers carried on the large US carrier. you would need a complement of 3000 to the US carrier's 4300.

Our new LHDs, cost about $3.1 per copy and place your Gerald Ford in a better light. but our ships aren't carriers as such, though they could easily carry the f-35 (despite the debate). nominal capacity of the LHDs are 18 a/c. crew numbers are the main attraction. These ships are highly automated, and require only 400 to operate as a warship.

This might also be worth a look

The cost of sea power, then and now | October 8, 2013 | SmartWar.org

 

[Thorlifter]

Good info Parsifal. I do remember reading somewhere the GR Ford will operate with something like 600 or 800 less crew than a Nimitz class carrier. that is great and puts less sailors at risk, but what happens when all these electronics have a problem. You just turned a $13 billion warship into an overprices cruise ship. Sometimes simplicity has merit.

 

[vikingBerserker]

I really hate the fact they are naming them after politicians nowadays. I'm amazed an Essex Carrier would cost $1B today!

 

[Gnomey]

Still seems a lot. Although I was going to say you got get both the Royal Navy's new carrier for that price but in balance with current exchange rates it's more like 1.3 of them...

 

[parsifal]

Im waiting for the USS Donald J Trump......

 

[Crimea_River]

Canada's aircraft carrier cost us nothing....

 

[Robert Porter]

Military procurement costs have been in an upward spiral for decades. The amount of pork in the budget for that carrier that will never affect or see the carrier itself approaches a full quarter of the cost. Then there is the indirect pork. But the other cost ballon reason is first of class issues which are common in all navies and major weapons systems. Either way, I think we are gradually heading towards the end of the Carrier, just as WW2 heralded the end of the Battleship, at least as we know it today. The damn things are just too expensive to build, maintain, and crew and operate!

 

[Zipper730]

Im waiting for the USS Donald J Trump......

Quelle horror...

Military procurement costs have been in an upward spiral for decades. The amount of pork in the budget for that carrier that will never affect or see the carrier itself approaches a full quarter of the cost.

What? How does that occur?

 

[vikingBerserker]

I agree with you. With true V/Stol aircraft being perfected a container ship could be converted into one cheaply.

 

[Robert Porter]

Any spending bill gets pork attached to it, it is how the games is played. They are called earmarks or riders. Sometimes called wrecking riders if attached to prevent the bill or item from passing. They can be used for things as trivial as funding a new playground for a Representatives local elementary school to adding funding to other general funds. Both sides do it, both call out the others for theirs but in many cases such riders or earmarks can exceed the original cost of the item. Capital ship construction funds are passed as individual bills within the military DOD budget appropriations which makes them ideal for such attachments.