What an absolute waste of money!

[Roscoe]

Think of all the good that amount of money could do.

USS Gerald R. Ford: The most advanced carrier of the US cost around $13.3 billion to build. And it's not only the cost of the ship. There is also the cost of the aircraft ($1m each) and the wages for the crew. When fully manned, an aircraft carrier is home to as many as 5,000 personnel—the size of a small city.

As of 2021, there are an estimated 46 aircraft/helicopter carriers in service worldwide. The United States has 11 aircraft carriers and 9 "helo" carriers, nearly as many as all other countries combined, followed by Japan and France, each with 85 - 90 aircraft $1m each.

The amount of money spent on aircraft carriers alone would alleviate the want and poverty around the world. There would be no need for anyone to go hungry.

But don't get me wrong. I think that aircraft carriers are a marvelous piece of technology. I have watched a few documentaries on the running of the ships and how they launch and retrieve aircraft. It's fascinating. But they are not necessary - at least not that many. Besides, what do they achieve? Nothing. They are just a terrible waste of money - money that would be better spent helping out the poorer countries of the world. It's a travesty.

[prefect]

The planes would be more than 1 m our shithawks cost 1m each in 1967.

[kahawai chaser]

Well China just built a Carrier, So USA needs a better or newer Carrier maybe to show case it. Never mind the cost, Maybe its about presence, when in likely travels to South Korea.

[Paul.Cov]

Seems we'll never be able to do without war machines, and those war machines will always be dependant on fossil fuels, no matter how green the rest of society becomes.

The other side to the build cost of a 13 billion dollar machine is the cost to replace it if it gets destroyed, along with all those 5000 crew and craft held within.
That's a massive potential loss from a single attack... eggs in baskets maybe?

[B.M.]

I wonder if they could loan their "Sewerage Treatment Plant" to Christchurch?

[MushHead]

The planes would be more than 1 m our shithawks cost 1m each in 1967.

Exactly.

From https://breakingdefense.com/2022/03/...am-exec-says/:
"The contract for lots 12-14, inked in 2019, included 478 F-35s for the US military and international customers. Under the terms of the agreement, an F-35A will cost $77.9 million in Lot 14, with the F-35B short takeoff and landing variant coming in at $101.3 million and the F-35C carrier variant at $94.4 million during the same period."

[1101]

The amount of money spent on aircraft carriers alone would alleviate the want and poverty around the world. There would be no need for anyone to go hungry.

No it wouldnt.
World hunger is not as simple as a lack of $ .
In fact , throwing $ at it has had the opposite effect in the past , local growers couldnt compete with 'free' food , so local growers would give up .

[decibel]

...Besides, what do they achieve? Nothing. ..

Some people would argue that that is the whole point - you don't dick with the biggest kid on the block.

[CliveM]

Some people would argue that that is the whole point - you don't dick with the biggest kid on the block.

This is the correct assessment of the situation. You don't even need to be the biggest kid on the block. If they know that they will get hurt they won't attack in normal circumstances.
That is true on the school playground and also on the international stage. If politicians had to be in the front lines instead of sending other people's children to war while they remain perfectly safe there would be no war.