Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete
Sigaba, was wondering what took you so long to chip in.
Since you're the naval historian here - question.
In ball park figures what was the cost of a 18th century three deck ship of the line in say England (HMS Victory) vs a modern carrier to the US - in the best GDP guesstimate.
|
Please see the attachment for rough cost conversions for the HMS
Victory. BLUF, over the course of its service life, the
Victory cost a total of $21.3 million in 2008 USD to build, to refit, and to have a "great repair."
By comparison, the ballpark figure for the
Gerald R. Ford's construction cost is slightly north of $8 billion. (The aircraft launch system alone will be at least $683 million.) And as Steelhead52's post points out, one should not overlook the additional costs of manpower and escort ships that a single carrier will generate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete
Are the modern navies putting as much a strain on the superpowers today as the older fleets did to the Brits, French and Spainish?
|
IMO, no. Even with the staggering costs of a modern warship today, the fact that naval power is no longer a primary metric that determines who is and who is not a 'great power' means that the decision to build a ship (or not) does not have the geopolitical, political, social, economic, and cultural implications it once had.
(That being said, who knows what would happen if the PRC were to build a fleet to a two power standard.)
FWIW, I think it is a grave mistake to center a discussion of naval platforms and weapons systems around costs. While costs are important, especially in these trying times, the practice allows for the over-simplification of other factors (especially those centering around geostrategy). IMO, some opponents of the 600-ship fleet made a mistake by reducing the complex issues to ones of costs and helped to undermine a broader debate that remains long over due. The question is not just "What is the price of sea power?" but also "What are the consequences of not having enough sea power?"