“a $5.1 billion, seven-year contract”
1 ) It will cost a LOT more than $5 billion, if the contract is to run over seven years (among other things, technology will change and have to be updated)
2 ) With the aircraft added ($35 mil apiece?), plus support ships and protection, the entire cost for adding one carrier will soar into the AIG loan range.
So, are we getting enough bang for our bucks? Would that amount, put into submarines or cruise missiles or the development of space weapons, be a better investment?
I recall that the new carriers will replace older carriers nearing the end of their useful life. The Kennedy was recently decommissioned and the Kitty Hawk can’t be too far behind. The Enterprise is almost 50 years old.
CondorFlight,
There is no more effective weapons system on the planet than a US Navy Carrier Battle Group. They are expensive, but keep in mind, a ship, sub or plane has to carry those cruise missiles to the launch point. Subs are nearly as expensive as a carrier, and not nearly as versatile a weapons platform. On the last one, there is a treaty against space based weapons systems. So bang for the buck, it’s a carrier.