- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: USS Abraham Lincoln
Posted on 7/11/26 at 8:55 am to Aubie Spr96
Posted on 7/11/26 at 8:55 am to Aubie Spr96
quote:
So this board actually thinks that it is just as expensive to have a carrier wether its deployed or not in a war zone?
No. It means that deployment costs are the same. War zone, not war, unless damage occurs. Fuel, food, sailors dont change cost really cause they started shooting things.
Source 20 years in the navy
0
Posted on 7/11/26 at 9:03 am to Aubie Spr96
quote:
So this board actually thinks that it is just as expensive to have a carrier wether its deployed or not in a war zone?
No. I think “this board” thinks the point, and more specifically, the basis (your math) misses a very fundamental issue. Your basis should be the delta between being deployed during peacetime vs. war zone. I think if you were to redo the calculation it would lend significantly less credence to your point you are attempting to make.
Posted on 7/11/26 at 9:05 am to Aubie Spr96
quote:
So this board actually thinks that it is just as expensive to have a carrier wether its deployed or not in a war zone?
Deployed is deployed.
Even just sitting at the dock costs $$$.
Posted on 7/11/26 at 9:06 am to Aubie Spr96
Just think of how many fraudulent daycares could be paid with that money
Posted on 7/11/26 at 9:09 am to Y.A. Tittle
“mothballed”may not mean what you think.
The vessel could be maintained at port without all of that expense…
The vessel could be maintained at port without all of that expense…
Posted on 7/11/26 at 9:11 am to VOR
quote:
The vessel could be maintained at port without all of that expense…
Yeah, that’s not really what the navy of a huge global trading power has ever done in the history of ever, though, dipshit.
Posted on 7/11/26 at 9:11 am to VOR
quote:
The vessel could be maintained at port without all of that expense…
The ships deploy even when there isn’t a war. The sailors still eat and get paid. The planes still fly. There are plenty of legitimate complaints about the war in Iran. This isn’t one of them.
Posted on 7/11/26 at 9:11 am to Aubie Spr96
quote:great analysis. Everyone knows warships only cost money to operate if they are actually at war, otherwise they run on fairy dust and wishes.
Aubie Spr96
Posted on 7/11/26 at 9:12 am to Aubie Spr96
quote:
It costs approximately $2.5 million per day to operate the USS Abraham Lincoln
Two and a half million dollars a day sounds cheap to run an aircraft carrier.
I can tell you don’t own a boat.
Posted on 7/11/26 at 10:14 am to Aubie Spr96
(no message)
This post was edited on 7/11/26 at 10:18 am
Posted on 7/11/26 at 10:38 am to Aubie Spr96
Pretty much, the only additional monetary costs are a presumably higher sortie rate and the munitions they're dropping. As others pointed out, it's not like the Lincoln, or any other ship, would just be sittiing around. Building ships, especially aircraft carriers, fueling them, feeding the crew, paying the crew, and maintenance are all expensive but part of the cost of keeping you safe at night and free.
I hate war as much as anyone else, but this one has been coming for 47 years. Grateful we finally have a president who is willing to prosecute it.
I hate war as much as anyone else, but this one has been coming for 47 years. Grateful we finally have a president who is willing to prosecute it.
Posted on 7/11/26 at 11:01 am to Aubie Spr96
You made one of the dumbest posts in history.
It costs the same amount per day regardless if deployed or not. When air wing is back home they still spend money to fly/train. They still eat food. They still use fuel. They still use parts. One could argue it costs more to not be deployed. Hanger bay lights and utilities which are made free onboard ship.
The carrier still costs same when in home port. There is no energy cost because it’s a fricking nuke carrier idiot. The crew still eats. They spend money on rehab actually probably more money is spent not deployed.
There is no difference in costs. Yes, I was deployed on several cruises as part of air wing and speak from knowledge not out my arse like you
It costs the same amount per day regardless if deployed or not. When air wing is back home they still spend money to fly/train. They still eat food. They still use fuel. They still use parts. One could argue it costs more to not be deployed. Hanger bay lights and utilities which are made free onboard ship.
The carrier still costs same when in home port. There is no energy cost because it’s a fricking nuke carrier idiot. The crew still eats. They spend money on rehab actually probably more money is spent not deployed.
There is no difference in costs. Yes, I was deployed on several cruises as part of air wing and speak from knowledge not out my arse like you
Posted on 7/11/26 at 11:04 am to dickkellog
quote:
guess what jethrine
Posted on 7/11/26 at 11:43 am to Aubie Spr96
quote:
So this board actually thinks that it is just as expensive to have a carrier wether its deployed or not in a war zone?
What are you asking? A deployment is a deployment regardless. Every ocean and sea in the Med and the Middle East is a war zone. It's business as usual, always has been, it's why the Navy has the Fifth Fleet.
Posted on 7/11/26 at 11:57 am to Aubie Spr96
quote:LOL during the undeclared "cold war" nearly year round we would have 4 carrier battle groups at sea........
I’m assuming the entire contingent is there. So, 200 x $8 million in an undeclared war in Iran.
Posted on 7/11/26 at 11:59 am to OU Guy
quote:
You made one of the dumbest posts in history.
It costs the same amount per day regardless if deployed or not. When air wing is back home they still spend money to fly/train. They still eat food. They still use fuel. They still use parts. One could argue it costs more to not be deployed. Hanger bay lights and utilities which are made free onboard ship.
The carrier still costs same when in home port. There is no energy cost because it’s a fricking nuke carrier idiot. The crew still eats. They spend money on rehab actually probably more money is spent not deployed.
There is no difference in costs. Yes, I was deployed on several cruises as part of air wing and speak from knowledge not out my arse like you
Post of the month here Sailor.
I also remember 3 carrier battle groups in med at same time.......
This post was edited on 7/11/26 at 12:02 pm
Posted on 7/11/26 at 12:00 pm to Aubie Spr96
and what's your point?
Posted on 7/11/26 at 12:11 pm to VOR
quote:We have always rotated carrier deployments. Today, out of the 11 nuclear powered carriers we have 4 are currently deployed. We will always have a presence around the world.
The vessel could be maintained at port without all of that expense
So, during the Biden administration, the US always had 4-5 carrier groups deployed at the same time around the world. Nothing has changed except libs crying because now it’s “D”ifferent.
Posted on 7/11/26 at 12:28 pm to Aubie Spr96
quote:
Aubie Spr96
I genuinely believe some of you dipshits actually seek out things to bitch about.
Posted on 7/11/26 at 12:40 pm to Aubie Spr96
They would be deployed somewhere whether there is a war or not.
The Navy always has ships out all over the world.
The Navy always has ships out all over the world.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News