The original quote you're thinking of is this one, I presume:

"Each Javelin round costs $80,000, and the idea that it’s fired by a guy who doesn’t make that in a year at a guy who doesn’t make that in a lifetime is somehow so outrageous it almost makes the war seem winnable.”

A scrimmage in a Border Station- A canter down some dark defile Two thousand pounds of education Drops to a ten-rupee jezail.

As Kipling put it the last time we were in that part of the world. The Western militarys spend the $80,000 because whilst the soldier firing it may not make $80,000 in a year the cost to recruit and train, as well as the future economic worth of the citizen, is far greater.

I love that quote. Somehow it just highlights the irrationality of it all.

great quote.

>Only the US would use a $10B aircraft carrier to launch a $100M aircraft to drop a $100K bomb on a kid hiding in a hole with a $100 AK-47.

and this is why US lose so few servicemen lives while killing tens of thousands of those "kids". Sending in troops with M-16, Vietnam style, without support of those $100M aircraft launched from those $10B carriers would result in comparable, on the scale of thousands, losses of those troops. Speaking pure economically, morals/politics aside, a cost of 1 life used for various calculations in US by government, insurance, etc. is about $7M, thus 1 thousand lives comes to $7B - very well comparable with the cost of campaign where $100K/100M/10B military tech is used instead of wasting servicemen lives. Wasting money instead of human lives - not a bad choice. For example, in Russia (where i'm originally from) they usually do it the other way and it isn't a good thing.

mineral rights are a helluva drug.

it would be a big freaking deal if any other country started doing it

like when that guy simultaneously attacked the world power of Britain despite being under sanctions

Don't forget the in-air refueling cost that's there to save the Navy the embarrassment of taking off and landing anywhere near where the Air Force does.

Duplication of function is a good thing, militarily. You wouldn't want the Navy to be unable to fly because the Air Force had an issue or was unable to immediately respond.

When your life depends on it, you never want to count on another branch of the service. Or you wind up asking for help from a douche like US Army General McChrystal. Who won't give it to you. Here's one person's comments on how the general fucked over some Marines and Navy:

   they left our men to perish without fire
   support because of your rules of engagement

   I don’t retreat one iota from what I said there.
   McChrystal, with his ROE, is a murderer

The request for help went all the way to General McChrystal, but he wouldn't give it to them. Asked again, he refused again.

http://www.captainsjournal.com/category/general-mcchrystal/

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2011/02/17/reprimands-in-mari...

Come on. You seriously can't think of any situation where the Navy might want to launch planes too far from an air force Base to stage through it? There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical of our spending on carriers; this is not one of them.

This. The maintenance crews are on the carrier. They can be moved to a land base along with the aircraft, but that would leave the carrier undefended.

Isn't carrier defence what the other ships that travel with the carrier do?

Carrier defense is, in theory, like an onion. Aircraft, SAMs, point defense. Aircraft are probably the most important since not many launching platforms can get into range of the carrier without risking attack by aircraft.