Seahawk helicopter of most 'disaster-prone' fleet crashes on flight deck of USS 'Ronald Reagan' in Philippine Sea

Plenty more where that came from ...Fed Reserve ...money out of nothing...what a super-rort ...

Given the far greater advances in aerial and missile warfare,seriously question the efficacy (indeed, if any exists at all) and especially as re the cost efficiency of navies in general and the USN in particular.

The problem, simply stated, is that if you hit a land base with a big conventional weapon, (E.g., a guided conventional bomb or missile); it will NEVER destroy the ENTIRE BASE.

In contrast, if a Carrier is hit in the right place with just one sea skimming, super smart hypersonic with supertricked out terminal impact maneuvers, the carrier would probably split in half... and there goes your entire base (without a single nuke requ ired.)

Russia realized this and stopped its planned construction of carrieres (it now has only one while the US has over ten.) It then almost certainly dedicated those otherwise wasted expenses into their air and missile programs. Look at the results.

Likewise, and similarly, Russia already has its Gen. V air fighters (e.g. Su-57) nearly fully operational, (and unlike the US), they are already working on a pilotless version of same.

Think about that. If you are riding in the airplane and are in a dogfight, the G-forces routinely knock the pilots out. (Research how pilot's pressure suits work.) The planes can handle far far more G forces than the pilots, so West's planes are designed based upon restrictions, (i.e., are designed around/with a focus on a weakness and NOT around the strength of the Gforces the plane can take alone.)

If a fighter were built from the ground up without concern about the max sustained G-Forces a trained pilot can take, well, pardon the pun; the sky's the limit. If a West F-16 is on a pilotless Russian fighter's '6' (dead behind him), the remotely controlled pilotless fighter could do air braking maneuvers that would black out the pilot behind him and now the F-16's in the kill zone and the pilotless fighter is in the killing position. (This applies in all dimensional/directions, though I used a straight line example.)

Why isn't the US working on such?

"But what about all the money 'invested' in our navy and all the leaches on the MIC payroll?" Answer: Free Market, that which governs best governs least, lower taxes, and I find it impossible to consider a single US Naval (Real) WarShip, as being 'investments'; rather, they are mostly only risky and hugely expensive floating liabilities. (And I'm a child of the MIC.)

Brakar?

R.C.