Operating cost of Nimitz class carriers

PO2GRV

Member
ooph, $243,000,000 per ship, per year in 1998 dollars. Multiply that by let's say ten ships if you ignore one ship in refit equals, well, a lot of money

I think someone making an offhand comment to an article I read last week said it best when they described the contradiction of a desire for the US to maintain the ability, and the will, to act across the globe versus the aversion to paying for it, either by taxes or otherwise especially in the more socially and fiscally conservative parts of the country

Something's gotta give
 

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
Thats what happens when you man your ships with 6,000 sailors. I don't know what the average wage of a CVN crew is, but:

6,000 @20,000 P.A = 120,000,000
6,000 @30,000 P.A = 180,000,000
6,000 @40,000 P.A = 240,000,000

And thats without even looking at spares, additional contractors etc.
 
Thats what happens when you man your ships with 6,000 sailors. I don't know what the average wage of a CVN crew is, but:

6,000 @20,000 P.A = 120,000,000
6,000 @30,000 P.A = 180,000,000
6,000 @40,000 P.A = 240,000,000

And thats without even looking at spares, additional contractors etc.
240 million dollars a year for a nimitz class carrier. No way. For crew costs you can at least triple the apparent costs. Then there is the escort ships. Then there are all the updates, modifications etc etc. I would be looking well into mulitple billions per year

One way might be to look at the Navy Budget, whatever that is, say 120 billion per year. Now say 60 billion is spent on the ships. Say that the a carrier strike group is one thirtieth of the cost of the fleet (there are 11 of them) that makes at least 2 billion dollars a year. It comes down to this, say you reduced the carriers from eleven to say nine. How much money will you save. My guess would be about 3 billion dollars each per year. Very rough numbers i know
 

wormhole

New Member
I can't recall the thread topic but IIRC the USN estimated the cost savings of the new Ford-class CVN over a Nimitz-class is around $4.8B over the lifetime of the ship. A lot of that comes from the crew reduction.
 

Belesari

New Member
Thats always the great idea but then you have to remember.

atleast 2 or 3 of those ships are always going to be in Overhaul which last years.
chalk in leave for the crews thats 3 or 4 tops available.
Damage in battle or accident hits just one you can no longer safeguard the US coast line.

Cutting carriers is a silly idea. Cut bases in places like europe. Cut the HUGE amount of genreals and admirals we have. No more nation building cut some infantry from the active duty reconstitute that in the ANG and Army reserves.

Oh and no more IA's. A sailor on shore is a wasted sailor unless he is training someone for a sailors life.

But dont cut the carriers or the navy.

240 million dollars a year for a nimitz class carrier. No way. For crew costs you can at least triple the apparent costs. Then there is the escort ships. Then there are all the updates, modifications etc etc. I would be looking well into mulitple billions per year

One way might be to look at the Navy Budget, whatever that is, say 120 billion per year. Now say 60 billion is spent on the ships. Say that the a carrier strike group is one thirtieth of the cost of the fleet (there are 11 of them) that makes at least 2 billion dollars a year. It comes down to this, say you reduced the carriers from eleven to say nine. How much money will you save. My guess would be about 3 billion dollars each per year. Very rough numbers i know
 

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
240 million dollars a year for a nimitz class carrier. No way. For crew costs you can at least triple the apparent costs. Then there is the escort ships. Then there are all the updates, modifications etc etc. I would be looking well into mulitple billions per year

One way might be to look at the Navy Budget, whatever that is, say 120 billion per year. Now say 60 billion is spent on the ships. Say that the a carrier strike group is one thirtieth of the cost of the fleet (there are 11 of them) that makes at least 2 billion dollars a year. It comes down to this, say you reduced the carriers from eleven to say nine. How much money will you save. My guess would be about 3 billion dollars each per year. Very rough numbers i know
I didn't even want to get into that, that was just wages......
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Can't recall the source, but the figures I've seen to run a USN sized carrier group was in the order of $6bn per year.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Thats always the great idea but then you have to remember.

atleast 2 or 3 of those ships are always going to be in Overhaul which last years.
chalk in leave for the crews thats 3 or 4 tops available.
Damage in battle or accident hits just one you can no longer safeguard the US coast line.

Cutting carriers is a silly idea. Cut bases in places like europe. Cut the HUGE amount of genreals and admirals we have. No more nation building cut some infantry from the active duty reconstitute that in the ANG and Army reserves.

Oh and no more IA's. A sailor on shore is a wasted sailor unless he is training someone for a sailors life.

But dont cut the carriers or the navy.
No longer being able to secure the US coast line? If this is your main problem you could disband the carrier groups alltogether and just place the carrier strike wings on land bases on each coast...
It is more a question of how many carriers you are able to use at some hotspot on the other side of the world.

And I will never get tired of repeating the same mantra. The US bases in Europe don't exist for the defence of europe but they are still in use because they are quite usefull for supporting operations in several possible hotspots like the middle east or northern Africa. It's the same problem like the reduction of carrier strike groups. Close these bases and you cut the ability of the US military to respond quickly and in force around the world as well as sustaining such oversea operations.
 

PO2GRV

Member
Close these bases and you cut the ability of the US military to respond quickly and in force around the world as well as sustaining such oversea operations.
there's the rub. I feel it's a philosophical difference concerning whether one feels the scope of American interventionism should be greater, the same, or smaller. Maintaining a large military solely for dealing with regional conflicts would be an equally bad policy as paring down the military with large cuts while still expecting it to act where and whenever needed.

unfortunately I feel it'd be as difficult to change someone's religion as it would be to change their feelings on America's ability (and desire) to project power globally

I'd like to add, for what little it's worth, that I do feel that both the military -and- interventionism should be pared down, but only in equal amounts with careful attention paid to ensure neither gets disconnected from the other
 
Last edited:

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
That's exactly the problem. Many people tend to use the closure of oversea bases, especially in europe, as a great idea on how to safe money. After all these lazy europeans can look for themselves, can't they.
But just as often these people don't see that these bases support the global footprint of the US. They are not vital for the defence of europe but are vital for supporting US operations around the world. Somebody who wants to retain americas current military capabilities can't close these bases just as he can't reduce the number of carrier groups.
 
Top