An error? : The Ford-class aircraft carrier’s $13 billion price tag stems from advanced technologies such as the EMALS catapult, designed to launch various aircraft more quickly and easily than traditional systems.

-Improved automation also reduces crew requirements and, potentially, whole-life operating costs. Despite these innovations, growing threats posed by anti-ship missiles, drones and hypersonic weapons raise questions about the future role of supercarriers.

– Given the high stakes – loss of life, years of investment and billions of dollars – some question whether new investments in these massive and expensive ships remain wise amid increasing advances in naval defense.

Why America’s Ford-class supercarriers cost $13 billion each

Why so expensive? Aircraft carriers have never been cheap. Aircraft carrier are, essentially, floating cities, capable of projecting air power around the globe, capable of sailing eternally using nuclear power. This type of technology requires an impressive investment. The predecessor of the Ford class, the Nimitz class, itself cost several billion dollars per ship. So a nine-figure price tag doesn’t necessarily turn heads. But a ten-figure price is.

The $13 billion Ford class price tag was achieved through research and development of new technologywhich have been integrated into the new boat, and theoretically offer an advantage over their predecessors. One of these technologies is the EMALS catapult system. EMALS will replace the traditional steam catapult with a magnet catapult. The advantage of EMALS is that the system allows a wider variety of aircraft to be launched, smoother and faster. The result is a higher output generation rate (SGR), which means the efficiency of the entire project is improved.

Additional resources were devoted to developing automated technology aboard the Ford class. Increased automation will reduce crewing requirements, which, in theory, will result in lower operating costs over the life of the vessel.

Regardless of the specific costs of the Ford class, questions have been raised about the future role of the aircraft carrier in general, casting doubt not only on the very expensive Ford, but also on the aircraft carrier as a type of warship. war.

The rise of drones, which can be deployed in kamikaze mode and/or in buzzing swarms, has proven disruptive to surface ship operations, even though they cost only a fraction of what a ship costs. surface. Perhaps more concerning are improvements in anti-ship missiles and the emergence of hypersonic missiles, all of which pose significant threats to surface ships.

The United States has not lost an aircraft carrier since World War II. Over the next eighty years, the standards for what constitutes an acceptable military loss have been lowered considerably. Americans are generally uncomfortable with the loss of life or technology.

The loss of an aircraft carrier would be inconceivable to the contemporary American, and even staggering in its proportions. Thousands of sailors would potentially be lost.

Billions of investments and years of construction would be lost. Of course, the financial consequences are now higher with the Ford class (while the consequences in terms of loss of life are less, but still staggering). In short, losing a Ford class, or any supercarrier class, would be unacceptable to the American public. Yet the risk of loss increases as naval defense technology continues to improve. And as naval defense technology continues to improve, the opportunity for further investment in supercarriers will be considered more critically.

About the Author: Harrison Kass, Defense Expert

Harrison Kass is a defense and national security writer with more than 1,000 total articles on issues related to world affairs. A lawyer, pilot, guitarist, and minor professional hockey player, Harrison joined the United States Air Force as a trainee pilot, but was medically discharged. Harrison holds a BA from Lake Forest College, a JD from the University of Oregon, and an MS from New York University. Harrison listens to Dokken.

Image credit: Creative Commons.