Sometime between the attack on Pearl Harbor and the Battle for Midway aircraft carriers replaced battleships as the primary naval weapon system. It had a brutal logic to it. If you really want a ship that can serve a lot of murderous functions an aircraft carrier is the way to go. If you have any doubts look at Pearl Harbor.
During the Vietnam War fighter planes from the USS Bonhomme Richard were used to help ground troops repel an attack on the airfield at Da Nang. It was, to the navy, the sweetest of schadenfreude. They flew over, dropped their bombs, or made their strafing runs, or whatever they were supposed to do, and then they flew back, had a good meal and slept in a safe, dry bed, out of reach of mortars, sappers, and massed infantry assault.
It was a wonderful solution, as long as the enemy didn’t have their own navy with the ability to sink a ship as large as an aircraft carrier. That’s where the math begins to change.
It cost almost 13 billion to build an aircraft carrier, and that’s before you add the planes. The USS Gerald R. Ford can hold 75 aircraft. An F35 Lightning II the newest, meanest, allegedly most versatile attack plane costs slightly more than 110 million, depending on who you believe. Of course, you need bombs, fuel, missiles, torpedoes and bullets for each plane, depending on what you want it to destroy. Add to that the food, refreshments, medical supplies and countless other supplies for an extended mission of projecting American strength and it really starts to add up.
Obviously, the only real option is to keep this ship away from anything that might blow a big hole in it and sink it and all of the costly crap on it to the bottom of the ocean. Essentially, it serves the role of deterrent.
“We won’t blow up your stuff, you don’t blow up our stuff, and everybody wins.”
“Ok, that sounds like a good idea. By the way, we really admire the Virginia Class submarine, great lines. We need to talk to your designer.”
“Yes, it’s wonderful. It’s an affordable platform that can operate closer to shore to support ground operations, which have become so numerous since 9/11.”
This whole preparing for war to guarantee peace seems to be getting out of hand.
Historically, it’s never worked, not for long. It’s impossible to say for sure, but it would be difficult to find any point in history where it worked. Sooner or later somebody has always started to feel threatened, a shift in the balance of power and decided to roll the dice. It’s never been a perfect system.
Nobody ever seemed trying to avoid war by not having a war. Preparing for war has always seemed to lead, sooner or later, to war. It may seem naïve but it seems like preparing for peace might be the wiser, more frugal option. If we prepare for a long, protracted peace and it breaks out we might start looking pretty bright. Imagine what historians would have to say about that.
—
This post is republished on Medium.
—
