Ever wonder which countries have aircraft carriers?

[funksouljon]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/g2412/a-global-roundup-of-aircraft-carriers/

Pretty interesting to me, but I have a soft spot in my heart for 1960s aircraft carrier technology. I am surprised by a couple of the smaller countries that have one, as well as the lack of a real carrier fleet for other large countries (namely UK, Russia, China). I did get to see a British helo carrier at sea once but it looked small compared to ours.

 

[seminole97]

I hadn't realized the navy had ditched fixed winged, carrier based ASW.
I quit following this stuff passionately after high school, but it's still neat.

 

[rap4117]

As a kid growing up in Pensacola I toured the Antietam and Lexington several times. Good times.

 

[fsu1jreed]

Why the need for 19 "carriers"...........we could half that number and still be the global super-power, while using that money elsewhere.

 

[NDallasRuss]

Why the need for 19 "carriers"...........we could half that number and still be the global super-power, while using that money elsewhere.

When you spend as much on defense as the rest of the world combined, you're going to end up with a disproportionate number of high-end toys. And aircraft carriers are WAY cooler to show off than high-performing schools.

 

[SoddyNole]

Why the need for 19 "carriers"...........we could half that number and still be the global super-power, while using that money elsewhere.

I agree. We could spend that on Minuteman III missiles.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-defense-nuclear-idUSKCN0VZ02R

 

[FSUTribe76]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/g2412/a-global-roundup-of-aircraft-carriers/

Pretty interesting to me, but I have a soft spot in my heart for 1960s aircraft carrier technology. I am surprised by a couple of the smaller countries that have one, as well as the lack of a real carrier fleet for other large countries (namely UK, Russia, China). I did get to see a British helo carrier at sea once but it looked small compared to ours.

The real question is how many countries have WORKING carriers. And the answer is one (the US).

Russia's aircraft carrier is too small and ill equipped to operate modern fighter-bombers. They had one doing operations in Syria but two of its 8 planes crashed and now the air wing is operating off of land bases and the carrier is just out there floating like an idiot.

Britain had working carriers but stupidly believed Boeing's lies about the F-35 both about when it would be ready and that it would actually be worth a %*%*. So they sold us all of their Harriers for spare parts for the Marines and now have no fighter-bombers they can use off of it.

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

Speaking of waste, how about the new guns on the USS Zumwalt - those reportedly cost about $800k per round.

 

[FSUTribe76]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/g2412/a-global-roundup-of-aircraft-carriers/

Pretty interesting to me, but I have a soft spot in my heart for 1960s aircraft carrier technology. I am surprised by a couple of the smaller countries that have one, as well as the lack of a real carrier fleet for other large countries (namely UK, Russia, China). I did get to see a British helo carrier at sea once but it looked small compared to ours.

 

[funksouljon]

I can't see your image Tribe.

But agree with some of the above, we spend so much in "defense" it is staggering and some politicians argue we are the smallest we've ever been, need to expand! Trying to not make it political, surely that money could be used more effectively to benefit the country in other ways/programs. Not sure why some feel we need to spend even more. Perhaps the fix some of the budgeting spending issues and they can have plenty left over.

I will also say this tho, the US does a LOT of humanitarian work and to get support there, we do use the NAVY. Very little credit is given for that work and it does take away from the ones on patrol. But 10 superchargers! Holy moly.

 

[FSUTribe76]

I can't see your image Tribe.

But agree with some of the above, we spend so much in "defense" it is staggering and some politicians argue we are the smallest we've ever been, need to expand! Trying to not make it political, surely that money could be used more effectively to benefit the country in other ways/programs. Not sure why some feel we need to spend even more. Perhaps the fix some of the budgeting spending issues and they can have plenty left over.

I will also say this tho, the US does a LOT of humanitarian work and to get support there, we do use the NAVY. Very little credit is given for that work and it does take away from the ones on patrol. But 10 superchargers! Holy moly.

It's from the comments here

https://m.fark.com/comments/9396335?from_page=main

 

[EveryoneBleedsGarnet]

Why the need for 19 "carriers"...........we could half that number and still be the global super-power, while using that money elsewhere.

'MERICA.

 

[RangerNole]

I can't see your image Tribe.

But agree with some of the above, we spend so much in "defense" it is staggering and some politicians argue we are the smallest we've ever been, need to expand! Trying to not make it political, surely that money could be used more effectively to benefit the country in other ways/programs. Not sure why some feel we need to spend even more. Perhaps the fix some of the budgeting spending issues and they can have plenty left over.

I will also say this tho, the US does a LOT of humanitarian work and to get support there, we do use the NAVY. Very little credit is given for that work and it does take away from the ones on patrol. But 10 superchargers! Holy moly.

Agreed and NO other country in the world can do what we do when it comes to these types of operations. My issue is that we also pay for most of the humanitarian mission costs as well. IMO we should say hey we will send X, Y & Z but here is the cost and since no one else has the materials we expect everyone else to pay a substantial amount of the cost.

 

[squiffynole]

I'm a proud member of the tailhook club!

Technically anyway, I lucked into an overnight VIP tour we flew on a C-2 from NAS JAX out to the USS Eisenhower. There is nothing quite like standing on the deck at night watching Super Hornets land. Like you would think the officers and pilots were hard driving professionals, the crew more like a bunch of kids.

This plane got soaked!

 

[kc78]

Everytime I hear a politician say we can't afford healthcare or welfare for those who are at the lowest levels of poverty but then demand that we "Strengthen" our military I cringe. We could cut our military spending in half, and give everyone good healthcare for less than what we currently spend on the military alone and still have the largest military in the world.

 

[funksouljon]

Agreed and NO other country in the world can do what we do when it comes to these types of operations. My issue is that we also pay for most of the humanitarian mission costs as well. IMO we should say hey we will send X, Y & Z but here is the cost and since no one else has the materials we expect everyone else to pay a substantial amount of the cost.

I confess to not knowing all the ins and outs of how countries do their debit and credit and balancing of expenses etc. BUT showing some form of love wouldn't be the worst thing when the US invests millions in humanitarian. Sure its a side effect of being there and able to help, but... Its a thankless job being a superpower. I wonder how many other countries would do the same. US clearly has motives in many instances but I believe its pure good will in most.

 

[funksouljon]

I'm a proud member of the tailhook club!

Technically anyway, I lucked into an overnight VIP tour we flew on a C-2 from NAS JAX out to the USS Eisenhower. There is nothing quite like standing on the deck at night watching Super Hornets land. Like you would think the officers and pilots were hard driving professionals, the crew more like a bunch of kids.

I have so many pictures taken while watching flight ops. Hours spent watching. Its very impressive. Pretty cool you got to actually land on one. I always had to get drug onboard kicking and screaming or shanghaied after a night of drinking.

 

[surfnole]

Everytime I hear a politician say we can't afford healthcare or welfare for those who are at the lowest levels of poverty but then demand that we "Strengthen" our military I cringe. We could cut our military spending in half, and give everyone good healthcare for less than what we currently spend on the military alone and still have the largest military in the world.

I am not so sure. I don't doubt you, but just want to see figures. Within the past couple of days the Washington Post published articles about wasteful military spending. As I recall, we spend 500 billion a year on military with 125 billion of waste over five years. Could we provide healthcare to call for 25 billion a year? Let's even say 100 billion a year. 300 million people (low end of US population) into 100 billion dollars. 100 billion divided by 300 million equals $333 per person. It won't work. If we cut military spending in half, you would achieve maybe $800 per person for each person in the country.

Now if the spending should only go to the poorest, we already have Medicaid and Medicare, but then why penalize those who are productive and buy their insurance versus those who let the government provide. I am not meaning to start a locker room topic, just looking at the numbers.

On the other hand, it's amazing that we have 10 Nimitz class carriers and no other country has one that can match it's capability. It makes me wonder how vulnerable these carriers are to a missile attack or even a tactical nuke. Destroy an entire fleet. Trump is right. Europe needs to start carrying the load. If they don't want refugees from Africa, let them go fight those wars. We no longer need the Saudis, Iraq or Iran for the oil. Let those countries sort it out themselves.

 

[FSUTribe76]

I am not so sure. I don't doubt you, but just want to see figures. Within the past couple of days the Washington Post published articles about wasteful military spending. As I recall, we spend 500 billion a year on military with 125 billion of waste over five years. Could we provide healthcare to call for 25 billion a year? Let's even say 100 billion a year. 300 million people (low end of US population) into 100 billion dollars. 100 billion divided by 300 million equals $333 per person. It won't work. If we cut military spending in half, you would achieve maybe $800 per person for each person in the country.

Now if the spending should only go to the poorest, we already have Medicaid and Medicare, but then why penalize those who are productive and buy their insurance versus those who let the government provide. I am not meaning to start a locker room topic, just looking at the numbers.

On the other hand, it's amazing that we have 10 Nimitz class carriers and no other country has one that can match it's capability. It makes me wonder how vulnerable these carriers are to a missile attack or even a tactical nuke. Destroy an entire fleet. Trump is right. Europe needs to start carrying the load. If they don't want refugees from Africa, let them go fight those wars. We no longer need the Saudis, Iraq or Iran for the oil. Let those countries sort it out themselves.

Until our antimissile and anti ballistic laser defense systems get better and we deploy substantial numbers of them our carriers are now so vulnerable they would basically be useless in a war against China. China already has a ton of reliable DF-21Ds that can be equipped with anti fleet nuclear warheads and have a range of 900 miles. But just last year they unveiled the new DF-26 missile that has a range of 2,500 miles and has substantial ANTI-antimissile tech that can be equipped with the same tactical warhead. Even if we shot down some or even most of them, they would be flooding our fleet with cheap tactical nukes.

 

[FSUTribe76]

I am not so sure. I don't doubt you, but just want to see figures. Within the past couple of days the Washington Post published articles about wasteful military spending. As I recall, we spend 500 billion a year on military with 125 billion of waste over five years. Could we provide healthcare to call for 25 billion a year? Let's even say 100 billion a year. 300 million people (low end of US population) into 100 billion dollars. 100 billion divided by 300 million equals $333 per person. It won't work. If we cut military spending in half, you would achieve maybe $800 per person for each person in the country.

Now if the spending should only go to the poorest, we already have Medicaid and Medicare, but then why penalize those who are productive and buy their insurance versus those who let the government provide. I am not meaning to start a locker room topic, just looking at the numbers.

On the other hand, it's amazing that we have 10 Nimitz class carriers and no other country has one that can match it's capability. It makes me wonder how vulnerable these carriers are to a missile attack or even a tactical nuke. Destroy an entire fleet. Trump is right. Europe needs to start carrying the load. If they don't want refugees from Africa, let them go fight those wars. We no longer need the Saudis, Iraq or Iran for the oil. Let those countries sort it out themselves.

Oh and Guam is only 1500 miles from China's DF-26 bases so it's not going to survive the initial strikes of the war either unless we substantially improve our laser defense shield.

 

[funksouljon]

Oh and Guam is only 1500 miles from China's DF-26 bases so it's not going to survive the initial strikes of the war either unless we substantially improve our laser defense shield.

But its about to be overloaded and capsize over into the ocean so who cares?

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

Until our antimissile and anti ballistic laser defense systems get better and we deploy substantial numbers of them our carriers are now so vulnerable they would basically be useless in a war against China. China already has a ton of reliable DF-21Ds that can be equipped with anti fleet nuclear warheads and have a range of 900 miles. But just last year they unveiled the new DF-26 missile that has a range of 2,500 miles and has substantial ANTI-antimissile tech that can be equipped with the same tactical warhead. Even if we shot down some or even most of them, they would be flooding our fleet with cheap tactical nukes.

We'll just hide our carriers at A3-A7. The Chinese will never find 'em.

 

[seminole97]

Why the need for 19 "carriers"...........we could half that number and still be the global super-power, while using that money elsewhere.

10 of those carriers are 'real', the others are mainly for ferrying Marines and sitting off the cost of Liberia or somewhere else being evacuated.
Part of the problem is that CVNs have a long down time, so a fleet of 10 means you're really pushing it to have 5 deployed. And a good part of that time at sea is just training up to be proficient while at sea, so you really get 1 or 2 at hot spot at a time, even with 10 in your fleet.

Everytime I hear a politician say we can't afford healthcare or welfare for those who are at the lowest levels of poverty but then demand that we "Strengthen" our military I cringe. We could cut our military spending in half, and give everyone good healthcare for less than what we currently spend on the military alone and still have the largest military in the world.

War budget is around 600 billion, we spent 3 trillion on healthcare in 2013, so cutting the defense budget in half would provide money for a ~10% boost in healthcare spending.
It would be interesting to see how much was spent on war and healthcare in this country if the money was directed by consumers.

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

Reminds me of one of my favorite books - Parliament of Whores, by PJ O'Rourke.

"I couldn't talk the captain [of the USS Mobile Bay] into firing a missile for me, but he showed me a videotape of a test firing ... Even in slow motion there was nothing slow about the missile launching. The flip lid whips open, and for a moment you see a bald top of something emerging in light and smoke, a high burlesque of a jack-in-the-box; then the ship's deck is covered by a tower of blast and dazzle blanketing one bright, rising, white, fiery column — hell's own hard-on.

This is the way to waste government money."

 

[rhurner]

Until our antimissile and anti ballistic laser defense systems get better and we deploy substantial numbers of them our carriers are now so vulnerable they would basically be useless in a war against China. China already has a ton of reliable DF-21Ds that can be equipped with anti fleet nuclear warheads and have a range of 900 miles. But just last year they unveiled the new DF-26 missile that has a range of 2,500 miles and has substantial ANTI-antimissile tech that can be equipped with the same tactical warhead. Even if we shot down some or even most of them, they would be flooding our fleet with cheap tactical nukes.

"our carriers are now so vulnerable they basically would be useless in a war against China." Not new if what I had been told was correct. When I was on the bird farm in the mid-80s we were told that in an all out war the life expectancy of an aircraft carrier was 4 minutes. FOUR minutes. Now.....who knows how accurate that statement is but it was based on something I expect.

 

[SoddyNole]

Why is China going to try to sink our fleet of ships? I think we made a permanent mark in history of why sinking our ships is a bad idea.

 

[AllNoles]

"our carriers are now so vulnerable they basically would be useless in a war against China." Not new if what I had been told was correct. When I was on the bird farm in the mid-80s we were told that in an all out war the life expectancy of an aircraft carrier was 4 minutes. FOUR minutes. Now.....who knows how accurate that statement is but it was based on something I expect.

Well if there's a war with nukes that's pretty much everyone's life expectancy I bet.

 

[FSUTribe76]

"our carriers are now so vulnerable they basically would be useless in a war against China." Not new if what I had been told was correct. When I was on the bird farm in the mid-80s we were told that in an all out war the life expectancy of an aircraft carrier was 4 minutes. FOUR minutes. Now.....who knows how accurate that statement is but it was based on something I expect.

I'm sure that was entirely true of Russia, but China wasn't as big of a threat. They allegedly had about 60-100 nuclear warheads and some unreliable and shorter range missiles. Now they have anywhere between 200-3,000 nuclear warheads depending on whom you believe (a former KGB officer estimated it at 1,800 and claims he specifically knew, DOD had the low 200 estimate and Georgetown University claimed the 3,000 figure) and new systems which are substantially more reliable and can rain down 20 separate warheads near the target to breach any conventional anyinissile defense.

So that means even against just China we wouldn't be able to project power anymore at least until our laser defenses become reliable and prolific. I'm not particularly worried about a strategic, nuclear holocaust type of war as we still have more than enough nukes to make the entire Asian continent glow. But on the other hand if China decides to move on Taiwan or something else smaller scale, they could wipe out our conventional military with low grade tactical nukes and while that would tick us off to the nth degree I would hope we wouldn't destroy humanity over China's power grab and would not respond with city killers. Of course maybe this is the one time having an unstable president known for poorly thought out split second decisions may be beneficial. Having a rationale guy in charge might make China more "adventurous" as they do have a finite window where we are vulnerable to their weapons.

 

[FSUTribe76]

Why is China going to try to sink our fleet of ships? I think we made a permanent mark in history of why sinking our ships is a bad idea.

Yeah but that was back when we had the worlds largest industrial might. Now that's China.

As far as why China would be aggressive, they've long since hated that we are protecting their enemies Taiwan and Japan.

 

[SoddyNole]

Yeah but that was back when we had the worlds largest industrial might. Now that's China.

As far as why China would be aggressive, they've long since hated that we are protecting their enemies Taiwan and Japan.

But it was our technology aided by German scientists that made the point. China will not take us over from might. We are more at risk of an economic take over than a military event. We are a very powerful nation militarily speaking and need to remain so. Human nature fears and respects power as well as attacks weakness. We must rise above our vanity that makes us think otherwise.

 

[LesClaypool]

Well if there's a war with nukes that's (4 minutes) pretty much everyone's life expectancy I bet.

"This is your warning...4-minute warning."

 

[ReliableOstrich]

if we're in a situation where china is trying to destroy our carriers, well... how long they stay afloat is the least of our worries.
our economy will have already crumbled and the missiles will already be in the air, in both directions.

agree w/ those who shake their heads at how much money we piss away on military spending when we a) won't spend on our veterans and b) won't spend on education. #militaryindustrialcomplex

 

[mnole03]

At least aircraft carriers are portable cities. They can provide power, water, communications systems, and support in emergency situations. They're functional and we use them.

The damn Zumwalt broke down in the Panama Canal. $4.4 billion for a ship that's not seaworthy. Let's start with that.

 

[surfnole]

if we're in a situation where china is trying to destroy our carriers, well... how long they stay afloat is the least of our worries.
our economy will have already crumbled and the missiles will already be in the air, in both directions.

agree w/ those who shake their heads at how much money we piss away on military spending when we a) won't spend on our veterans and b) won't spend on education. #militaryindustrialcomplex

Our economy wouldn't crumble nearly as much as China's. They need our money far more than we need their iPhones. We could make iPhones in any number of other places.

 

[mnole03]

Our economy wouldn't crumble nearly as much as China's. They need our money far more than we need their iPhones. We could make iPhones in any number of other places.

Apple builds iPhones in China, so they can sell iPhones in China. They make more money in China than they spend.

 

[KRB123]

Why the need for 19 "carriers"...........we could half that number and still be the global super-power, while using that money elsewhere.

Someone probably said something similar on December 6, 1941.....
I'd guess they have so many so that the US can deploy aircraft and have superior air power wherever a conflict arises while not relying on another country's blessing / politics of having an airbase on their soil.
That and Congress likes spending money that they don't have.

 

[ChimpNole]

I will always support having a strong military. There are many nations that would attack if they thought they could win. MAD still works today. I think the real threat will be from computer sabotage. If a country could take out our defense computers, then that would be a massive problem.

 

[seminole97]

Of course maybe this is the one time having an unstable president known for poorly thought out split second decisions may be beneficial. Having a rationale guy in charge might make China more "adventurous" as they do have a finite window where we are vulnerable to their weapons.

I would encourage you to check out Scott Adams (Dilbert) blog starting sometime around last summer. His Master Persuader thesis is interesting.

 

[surfnole]

Apple builds iPhones in China, so they can sell iPhones in China. They make more money in China than they spend.

I will bet that Apple makes 10x, 100x, 1000x, 10,000x the money on iphones in the USA than China. You have no way of knowing if Apple makes more money in China than they spend unless you are an Apple Exec VP. In fact there are many reports of iPhone sales being limited in China. This is because China wants to develop their own phone manufacturers so they practice economic nationalism and block Apple. There is a reason Google left China years ago...spying etc.

Foxconn makes the iPhones, and interestingly, perhaps because of the election, they are considering moving some manufacturing to the US.

 

[fsu1jreed]

I think the real threat will be from computer sabotage. If a country could take out our defense computers, then that would be a massive problem.

I highly recommend watching 'Zero Days', it's about the StuxNet malware.