Search results

<deleted content> As far as I can see it is the full budget for building including development but not including crew or airwing. Or any refits. I did use 2014 dollars though so I dunno if inflation has altered that substantially. Figures sourced from the SecDef at the time who gave that number...

The QE carriers cost $9.2 billion USD for both of them, so $4.6 billion each vs $13 billion for one Ford (Production version, Ford herself costs more) However that is the basic Ski jump version, stick another half billion each on for cats and traps. They aren't cheap but it is still less than...

I don't think they should scrap the supercarriers, not at all, but I do really think several cheaper ships alongside those big ships would be a good idea. Look at ISIS, if the US wanted to bomb them it has to send a 100,000 ton ship surrounded by appropriate escorts in order to drop maybe 4-5...

You are proceeding from a false assumption, comparing a supercarrier to a smaller ship. In truth you should be comparing a supercarrier to two smaller ships. For the cost of one Ford you could buy two 65-70k ton CATOBAR conventional carriers. If we use the original QE design as a base (Though...

Less capable than what for what? You have to define a mission before you can judge effectiveness and the argument made is that any new smaller ship would be operating a different mission. I'l also point out that 'small' is relative, we're still talking 60k tons which is equal to the new UK ships...

The old Midway class seemed a good size, big enough to handle fast jets but still about 50% as big as a fleet carrier

EMALS, ewww :p A mix of big and small carriers might be a nice way forward, you don't need the Enterprise to bomb some mud huts and Toyotas in Somalia, a far smaller ship can do that letting you reserve the big ships for bigger threats