$13billion dollars was spent on the USS Gerald R. Ford state-of-the-art ship. The most technically advanced warship ever built. WHY now?

They probably started building that ship some 20 years ago, when many things were very different from how they are now. Such projects take quite a while.

Hello Rosie:

If you control the oceans, you control the world.

excon

It is better to fight on your enemies soil than your own. These ships have at least a 50 year lifespan.

The battles fought on foreign soil had the troops and equipment delivered by the Navy for the bulk of it. The fleet needs to be protected. Carriers are stationed around the world to provide rapid response and provide deterrence to aggressive nations.

I guess you never know if you need these things until there is a situation in which you do need it, and then, if you don't have it, it is a bit late. I feel safer with something like this than the unmanned drones. Here in the UK, Cameron has been criticised for the cuts he made to the military, and experts have expressed doubts about our ability to meet our existing obligations, or cope with future threats.

That long JakobA? Wow! Thank you for your reply and Happy Wednesday! :)

How  m'dear? What battles are there there?  U2 boats? Submarines?  Cannons? Do other countries have flotillas of ships (or whatever you call them) that skim the oceans looking for trouble? Doesn't make any sense to me. Of course having no background in the military why would I know that? Thank you for your reply excon and Happy Wednesday!  :)

It completely boggled my brain HarryD. That is a whole lotta money!  Do other countries have a bunch of ships around the world scouting for trouble on the high seas? Maybe pirates are there but battleships with cannons and torpedeos and submarines and U2 boats and the like? It seems so 60's to me. Thank you for your reply HarryD and Happy Wednesday to thee! :)

Aircraft carriers are the heart of the Navy. They won the Pacific War. As they wear out we must replace them. We don't go looking for trouble...we go where the trouble is and THEN use our might as necessary. But of course I am biased having served 20 years in the Navy.

Reference please.

Precisely shipmate.

Hello again, Rosie:

You're partially right..  We're not really fighting sea battles any more.. Although, who controls the South China Sea is now in dispute.. But, we DO have aircraft carriers that are heavily engaged in the war.  We have submarines hiding on the bottom loaded with nukes ready to fire..  Other surface ships carry long range cruise missiles, and they're engaged in the fight with ISIS, as well..

There's more, of course, but if I told you - we KNOW what I'd have to do..

excon

But what wars are fought on the oceans now Ele? We have troops on the ground and we fight with drones from afar in the air. Are there submarines and torpedoes and U2 boats and warships today? I know I don't know anything about the military but it just seems kinda odd at this late date. Thank you for your reply and Happy Wednesday! :)

Aircraft carriers are a key part of US global imperial hegemony.

Because the US has aircraft carriers, it can bomb the s**t out of anyplace anytime and basically no one can stop them. That's easier than asking foreign governments to allow the US to place airbases in their sovereign territory (although the US does that as well) and/or ask for overflight permission when the US government wants to bomb the s**t out of someplace.

No country in the world besides the United States operates more than 2 aircraft carriers. The US operates 10 carriers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country#Numbers_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country

And, yes, while 1 or 2 carriers might be defensible as necessary for the legitimate defense and geopolitical needs of the United States, the rest are a simply wastes of taxpayer money.

Old School, while you are not fundamentally wrong, I should point out that the USAF has closed several bases here in East Anglia, including pulling out of stationing a new squadron at Alconbury, near me. Much distress about the loss of jobs/money to the local economy.
On a related topic, while Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn voted against renewing our Trident Nuclear Submarine fleet, the unions were worried about the loss of jobs. Most of the Parliamentary Labour Party voted to renew Trident. The vote to renew was passed, with most of the opposition voting with the government.
Labour is in a real mess right now, with most of the parliamentary party not supporting the leader. There is another leadership contest, only a year after the last one, and most think Corbyn will win again. This time, they raised the fee you have to pay on the Labour website to register as a supporter (but not be a member) and vote, from £3 to £25.
Where do I sit on renewing Trident? I keep remembering how Putin convinced the Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons, and then conquered part of it. Makes me think maybe keeping a nuclear deterrent is the best thing. Like ol' Eisenhower said, "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." I don't like having to conclude that these things may be sometimes necessary, but sometimes that is the case.

@HD -- Re; Bases in East Anglia -- Of course, everyone loves the military/industrial complex when it is bringing money to their local economy. That's one major reason it's so hard to get rid of it.

Re: US aircraft carrires vs. UK Trident fleet -- The US has adequate nuclear deterrence from its land-based, submarine-based, and aircraft-delivered nuclear weapons. While US aircraft carriers are armed with nuclear weapons, nuclear deterrence is not their major role. Bombing the s**t out of countries because the US government decides it's necessary is what they do.

In contrast, the UK's Trident fleet is a nuclear deterrence force and, in that role, performs a legitimate defense function. There may be reasonable disagreements about how large it should be and how important spending money to keep it absolutely state-of-the-art is, but the existence of the fleet is morally defensible.

We are in agreement, Old School. What about Trump's proposal to withdraw the US from NATO? He changed his mind about it, as he does with most things, but what do you think the effect of that would be, if he changes his mind again, gets elected, and does it? I can only see it as weakening Americas position in the world, which would not necessarily be a bad thing, losing the big bully country that tries to push the rest of us around. I doubt if Donald would not want to bomb the hell out of someone, though. He is wants to be the centre of attention too much, and starting a war gets a lot of attention.

@HD -- I don't think the US would contemplate seriously withdrawing from NATO unless circumstances dramatically change. Trump was talking out of his hindquarters (as usual). The only reason such talk emerged is because some NATO members (esp. the Baltic states) are not spending as much as they promised on their own military budgets. It's not like the US sees any of that money.

I hope we never find out what it would be like to have a President Trump make such decisions. He does not seem to possess the temperament for it.

Mahalo OS. Got it. The ships themselves don't engage in battle. There are no torpedoes or submarines or guns. They are simple floating airstrips for the planes to land.  More excess/waste/boondoggle!  Why am I not surprised? Happy Thursday! :)