Why are aircraft carriers so horribly expensive to maintain?

[The_Quasar]

Because if America did reduce their military spending, the word would literally fall apart.

Not a chance, it never fell apart when the British Empire fell, and America has no where near the power that they did. America could probably reduce their military spending by 33% with little real effect. You underestimate the will of the other major players to keep the world free from major wars.

Only Alien invasion is reason for such might.

America and the rest of the world would stand zero chance in the event of an alien invasion. It would be like Archers against Stealth Bombers, or worse. Anyone with the knowledge and capability to transport an invasion force across several light years is likely to be hundreds, if not thousands of years ahead of us, as an absolute minimum.

 

[Civilopedian]

Only the US can afford to have huge Carriers sailing about the seas.

That's a generous statement for a country that's $14tn in debt

 

[qw[ertohgvn[oe]

Not a chance, it never fell apart when the British Empire fell, and America has no where near the power that they did. America could probably reduce their military spending by 33% with little real effect. You underestimate the will of the other major players to keep the world free from major wars.

The British Empire is more powerful only because it was the empire that became dominant during the last days of empires and could do classic, late-period imperial things such as shamelessly deploy gunboat diplomacy, draw huge numbers of troops from around the world and exploit some of the best strategic locations on the planet (for that time).

The swan song of the British Empire was WWII and it's collapse, due to both enlightenment and bankruptcy, lead into the Cold War. As this was a time of eventual ascendancy for America it was clear the world didn't "fall apart" then.

I should note that 10% naval reduction that Obama is proposing is far less that the cuts that the UK's David Cameron, a right-winger politically closer to Romney than Obama, has carried out. Ambitions to have small governments and tiny taxes do not mix well with maintaining large, capable naval and military assets.

Currently the UK time-shares an aircraft carrier with France, I believe.

 

[Socratatus]

America and the rest of the world would stand zero chance in the event of an alien invasion. It would be like Archers against Stealth Bombers, or worse. Anyone with the knowledge and capability to transport an invasion force across several light years is likely to be hundreds, if not thousands of years ahead of us, as an absolute minimum.

Maybe you know I was being sarcastic and making a point there, but just in case you didn`t ...

I was being sarcastic and making a point.

 

[aluelkdf]

And as any civ player also knows, the best defense against insane and megalomaniacal civs is a good solid military. Power abhors a vacuum, and there is always someone willing to grab for it if given the undefended opportunity. Turn all those guns into plowshares, and before too long, Wu will gitchu, you can count on it. Time to brush up on der mandarin...

The fact that America spends more money on the military than the rest of the world combined means that America is the one who is an insane megalomanical civ. And it would be one thing if America was spending money that it had, but that is not what's going on. America is borrowing money at interest from countries like China (which we have to pay back eventually), and the difference is made up by printing money out of thin air. This is not a strategy for national defense, America is committing national suicide.

 

[The_Quasar]

Maybe you know I was being sarcastic and making a point there, but just in case you didn`t ...

I was being sarcastic and making a point.

Of course, I only quoted you because it was convenient. However, there were one or two others that posted before you that gave the impression that they might be serious, and some people actually are serious about this point.

My comments were not aimed at you, but at those who actually think it's a viable policy. Apologies if that was not clear...

 

[Smokeybear]

The fact that America spends more money on the military than the rest of the world combined means that America is the one who is an insane megalomanical civ. And it would be one thing if America was spending money that it had, but that is not what's going on. America is borrowing money at interest from countries like China (which we have to pay back eventually), and the difference is made up by printing money out of thin air. This is not a strategy for national defense, America is committing national suicide.

Guess we'll see on that, pardner. The history is still being written. Always been a lot of squawkers claiming doom and gloom from excessive defense spending, ever since the century before last. Haven't done too bad so far. Economic failure from too much military spending may or may not be a real threat to our future, personally I believe it's quite overblown, though. But a country that lays down its arms and tries to play cuddle-me huggy-bear with the likes of Hitler, Tojo, Stalin, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, China... the tomes are littered with the tales of their rotted skeletons stinking up the winds after their defeat. Overprepaired? No such thing, IMO. There will always be bad guys fully capable of and intent on conquering or destroying the world, given half an opportunity. The only question is, will the good guys, and a sufficient deterrent, be prepared to deny them that opportunity. I certainly hope so.

 

[The_J]

Moderator Action: This is now definitely the point to get back to the original topic. And please be civil!

 

[themerchant8]

...Back on topic: Aircraft carriers are expensive to maintain because they're basically floating cities filled to the brim with expensive and delicate equipment that needs equally expensive trained personnel in order to maintain/fix it. In addition, a lot of systems and staff have redundant backup systems just in case something bad happens. Ditto for the people working there. Add in the fact that the ship is also an airport/airplane garage and the costs just get higher and higher.

Supercarriers are expensive, but they're pretty much self-sufficient and can do things that their smaller versions just can't do. And due to its sheer volume it'd take a LOT of firepower to actually manage to sink one. Plus, if you had a dozen smaller carriers you'd need a dozen separate fleets to defend each one.

And when you're not busy using your supercarriers to stage an invasion, they work great as humanitarian relief vessels. Two onboard nuclear power plants to generate nigh-unlimited electricity, 400,000 gallons of fresh drinking water per day, and onboard hospitals?

There comes a point where your resources might be better spent on different military capabilities, but you'll never run out of ways to use an extra supercarrier.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

On topic:
ALL types of units cost Exactly the same maintenance. (except missiles which cost 0)

The only thing that affects it is
game turn
total number of units.
difficulty level
UAs (these can have different unit cost types)
Social policies
Resolutions

(off topic the world did fall apart when the british empire fell.. (britain just lost the territory 40s-70s after their empire fell 10s-40s)

 

[themerchant8]

The world didn't fall apart when the British Empire fell because nations were a lot less dependent on intercontinental shipping than they are now, oil specifically.