[CodeToad]

$13 billion? What happened to the $4 billion we were paying?

We do not need $13B carriers. For one thing, ICBMs are getting popular and no carrier can defend against them. Secondly, we’re broke as a nation. We owe 7 times more than we take in.

[tanknetter]

$13 billion? What happened to the $4 billion we were paying?

First of class. While she's a highly-evolved Nimitz hull, she's also packed full of bleeding-edge technology. IIRC they're rolling all of the development costs into her, so the next two (USS John F. Kennedy and USS Barack H. Obama**) will "cost" a lot less.

(** Ok, ok, ... that's only if Joe Biden is the next President. If it's Hillary! it'll be the USS Clinton. After both her AND Bill, just like they did with that destroyer named after FDR and Eleanor. At some point the Navy will be able to hang the name "Enterprise" onto one of the post-America Class LHAs. Probably)

[Greysard]

We do not need $13B carriers. For one thing, ICBMs are getting popular and no carrier can defend against them.

Those carriers are not to lead a fleet against a powerful foe (China, Russia, India.) There would be no sea battles, just because nobody else has a fleet with comparable might. The opponent would simply place a nuclear mine, or launch a nuclear torpedo, a cruise missile, or a theater ballistic missile. Or ten. Or a hundred. Enough to sink the whole ACG on the spot. A mere megaton airburst will seriously ruin the day of anyone on the surface - and close approach, into the range of CIWS, is not required for that. A fireball a couple miles away (Phalanx's published range is 2.2 miles) will only give the sailors a few extra seconds to live. Carriers are not a player against a strong opponent. Chinese submarines have already demonstrated that ACGs are vulnerable if the sub is just laying still on the bottom until the ships come above it.

Then what are they good for? They are ideal platforms for attacking Libyas, Syrias, and other Panamas of the world. In other words, they are only useful for "foreign entanglements," against an opponent who is three or four notches below you. A major war, were it to happen, would be fought high above ground, and it would be over in about one hour. The fleets just won't have time to meet each other, with all combatants being utterly destroyed. But if a conflict at sea is the trigger, one modern warship can sink another from behind the horizon.

[DoughtyOne]

Don’t buy what the Democrats are selling. We give away more money than the defense budget, nobody complains about that, and we get absolutely nothing for it, except a bunch of people complaining they don’t get more.

Our carriers allow us to effectively extend U. S. soil anywhere they can travel around the world.

Worth every penny...

[Southack]

" For one thing, ICBMs are getting popular and no carrier can defend against them."

Before 2004, that was true. Today, however, naval-launched SM-3s can not only intercept ICBMs in Space (far from the carrier, obviously), but also shoot down satellites at will.