The knight in the big world of American TV series

Chapter 2388

"These things haven't been dealt with yet?"

President Benjamin was surprised that someone had brought up the airship again… In the eyes of the US government, this thing was purely a liability. First, it had no practical combat value. It wouldn't even be able to intimidate anyone; nobody would be afraid of such a large metal behemoth. S.H.I.E.L.D. used it simply for show… But the US government couldn't do that. If they did and it got shot down, the losses would be even greater!

Secondly, this thing is simply the biggest target of ridicule!

Every time the US government thinks about this thing, regardless of which camp it belongs to, it feels disgusted—truly disgusted both psychologically and physiologically!
This thing is just too embarrassing!
Right under their noses, S.H.I.E.L.D. had pulled off such a massive operation, and the US government was completely unaware… That's one thing. The real problem is that while the US government was unaware, Hydra was, and they were planning to use this thing for some kind of Insight Project to wipe out all the resistance fighters in the world in one fell swoop… even though the plan seemed absurd.

At best, this thing can eliminate those politicians in Washington; its impact on other countries is extremely limited... To reiterate, the practical value of airborne carriers is very, very limited.

Throughout history, humanity has always yearned for the sky, dreaming of one day scaling walls and soaring freely through the air. This dream was finally realized with the advent of modern airplanes and other aerial transport. In recent years, with the continuous development of science and technology, the types of aerial transport have become increasingly diverse, shining in various fields. Among the early explorations of aircraft and other aviation weapons, the most successful version was the airship, which was developed and equipped by the militaries of countries such as the United States, Japan, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Not only did it possess exceptional loiter capabilities, but its transport capacity was several times that of airplanes. It appeared on the battlefield multiple times, undertaking reconnaissance, transport, and bombing missions. The United States developed it as the prototype for an "airborne mothership," and it once dominated the skies.

As a type of airship, the application value of an airship far exceeds that of hot air balloons and tethered balloons. The difference lies in whether it has a power unit. Furthermore, airships are classified as manned or unmanned, tethered or untethered. An airship consists of several parts, including gasbags, auxiliary gasbags, pods, propulsion systems, and a tail fin. The main structure of an airship often uses wood or metal as its frame, covered with a skin. The interior of the frame is filled with numerous gasbags that provide lift. These gasbags are mostly filled with gases lighter than air, such as hydrogen and helium, to provide buoyancy. To ensure safety, modern airships often use helium, an inert gas.

Space-to-air carriers combine the features of aircraft carriers and airplanes, enabling them to perform missions in the air; however, their practical applications are limited. In fact, space-to-air carriers are not entirely fictional. Historically, the Soviet Union manufactured 800 such vehicles, but their form differed significantly from the space-to-air carriers depicted by S.H.I.E.L.D.

In 1932, during World War II, the Soviet Union unveiled a revolutionary aircraft—a space carrier—at a military parade in Moscow's Red Square. This aircraft was not only unique in appearance but also remarkable for its functionality: it could carry five fighter planes under its wings and retrieve them after a mission. This design concept was remarkably similar to that of an aircraft carrier, showcasing the Soviet Union's innovative capabilities in the aviation field. However, despite the global sensation it caused upon its debut, even alarming Germany at the time, which believed it possessed the capability to bomb the German mainland, its performance in actual combat was disappointing, ultimately failing to alter the course of the war. Since then, despite decades of rapid technological advancements, no one has attempted to build a similar "space carrier." Building a space carrier faces technological challenges in materials, propulsion, and structure, especially the enormous energy requirements, which are currently difficult to meet. In fact, humanity's exploration of the world's largest aircraft has never ceased; for example, the recent bombing of the An-225 aircraft in Ukraine has once again drawn attention to this topic. However, the practical purpose of building such a massive aircraft remains a question worth considering. The prevailing view is that "space-based aircraft carriers" could enhance air superiority and overall strength. However, a review of war history reveals that large airships are not always effective in actual combat and are highly vulnerable to attack. Once hit or catching fire, their self-rescue capabilities are particularly inadequate. While some netizens point out that airships are slow, is a "space-based aircraft carrier" necessarily fast? Even if it is faster than an airship, to what extent? Could it surpass the speed of an F-22? This is clearly unrealistic. Therefore, even if a "space-based aircraft carrier" could be built, large-scale military application is currently difficult to achieve. This is mainly because while fighter jets are fast, their advantage over missiles is not significant. Although fighter jets are slower than "space-based aircraft carriers," their smaller size makes them more likely to evade missiles and survive. However, for a behemoth like a "space-based aircraft carrier," evading missiles is extremely difficult. Even major military powers using their most advanced missiles, or smaller nations using their missiles, have a high success rate in attacking it. Regarding propulsion, one might mistakenly assume that building fighter jets would be a simple matter, given humanity's long history of flight. However, the reality is that making a fighter jet fly involves overcoming numerous difficulties, a far cry from the simple method of injecting hydrogen into an airship. In comparison, the construction of a "space-based aircraft carrier" is far more complex. The manufacturing process must consider not only the lightweight nature of materials but also ensure exceptional structural strength. If the propulsion system malfunctions, such as in the event of a stall, the "space-based aircraft carrier" could crash. Furthermore, energy is a major challenge. To support extended flights, an aircraft carrier requires a powerful energy source. However, current human energy technology remains limited to nuclear power. More importantly, there is no precedent for nuclear-powered aircraft in the world to date, further illustrating the problem. Therefore, no current aerial weapon system can meet the enormous power consumption requirements of a "space-based aircraft carrier."

Next, we will explore this further from a military practicality perspective. Currently, human military technology has matured, and countries are in a state of nuclear equilibrium, leaving relatively little room for improvement in weapon performance. Therefore, if a weapon could overturn this格局 (geju, a term encompassing both state and international relations), it would undoubtedly trigger a new military confrontation. However, as of now, such a weapon does not seem to have emerged. Furthermore, existing superpowers like the United States already possess formidable military power, with advanced aircraft carriers and carrier-based aircraft, sufficient to meet any challenge. Therefore, their need for space-based aircraft carriers is not urgent. Moreover, the United States has already invested heavily in aircraft carrier research and development, and naturally will not easily shift to developing similar weapons.

In conclusion, from the current perspective, space-based aircraft carriers do not seem to meet practical needs. However, future technological developments are unpredictable, and any possibility exists. Therefore, although space-based aircraft carriers are not yet widespread, we cannot completely rule out their potential future emergence.

The thought of so much money and resources being wasted by those bastards from S.H.I.E.L.D. and Hydra makes them feel even more heartbroken than if they were losing money themselves!

You know, with such a huge project, they could easily make a fortune just by letting them handle it!

It's well known that U.S. Commissioner Smith wields considerable power, but the extent of his influence revealed in this latest incident is still astonishing. An audit report released by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) shows that since 2015, the U.S. Navy has spent $34 billion by August 2024 to refurbish and upgrade seven aging Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruisers. This is no small sum; based on current costs for some advanced light frigates, this amount would be enough to build several brand-new ships.

Nine years ago, the project was officially launched, hoping to breathe new life into these aging ships. However, things didn't go as planned. Of the seven cruisers, four underwent $18.4 billion in refurbishment and upgrades. Surprisingly, they were decommissioned before even seeing combat for a single minute. It was as if they were meticulously groomed, only to never even have a chance to shine. The other three, while temporarily kept afloat in the US Navy's "retirement home," have also seen unsatisfactory refurbishment results. Originally intended to extend their service life, the reality is that they generally failed to meet expectations after repairs. Even with the significant investment the US Navy has made in these old ships, they will most likely face decommissioning within a few years.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office expressed deep regret over this embarrassing situation of spending money without achieving the desired results. The report harshly pointed out that the reasons for the significant cost increase were complex, but the main problems were concentrated in inadequate naval oversight, numerous planning loopholes, and poor contractor performance. "Although the U.S. Navy invested over $2 billion in refurbishing these aging cruisers, because the project was not a formal procurement project, it continued to use the old methods of routine maintenance and management, without the strict planning and supervision of other large-scale defense procurement projects." This is similar to shopping at a supermarket; the effort and oversight spent on expensive items are certainly different from those on ordinary daily necessities. The Ticonderoga-class cruisers are like expensive, discontinued imported luxury cars; their maintenance costs are extremely high, almost equivalent to or even exceeding the cost of purchasing a new high-end domestically produced new energy vehicle. The U.S. Navy cleverly used only the cost of ship repairs when requesting funding from Congress, failing to truthfully disclose that the repair costs were enough to purchase new ships. This is a classic case of "correct procedure but wrong result." Although the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) uncovered the problem, it was powerless to do anything about it. It could only offer six so-called "recommendations applicable to the modernization of future surface ships" at the end of its report—merely a formality to appease its superiors. The U.S. Navy, being quite "sensible," readily accepted the situation, claiming full agreement with the GAO's recommendations and promising to learn from the experience to avoid repeating similar mistakes in the future.

This Bloomberg report inevitably brings to mind an older article from early September this year. Brent Sadler, a senior fellow at the Allison Center for National Security, an expert specializing in naval warfare and advanced technologies, specifically criticized the staggering waste of public funds by the U.S. Department of Defense and Navy. However, his criticism wasn't directed at aging equipment like the Ticonderoga-class cruisers, but rather at the U.S. Navy's lifeline—the next-generation nuclear submarines.

In July of this year, the U.S. Navy signed a five-year, $24 billion (approximately 175 billion RMB) contract with a company aimed at increasing the production of new nuclear submarines. Such a massive contract would naturally lead one to assume a partnership with a powerful shipyard. However, the reality is quite surprising: the contractor was not a shipyard, but a consulting firm called Deloitte Consulting. Deloitte, a multinational professional consulting services firm headquartered in London, England, was founded in 1845 and has a 179-year history. Renowned in the consulting and auditing fields, it is one of the world's largest and highest-revenue professional consulting firms, and is considered one of the "Big Four" accounting firms alongside Ernst & Young, KPMG, and PricewaterhouseCoopers.

While Deloitte is a leader in consulting and auditing, this is entirely different from building nuclear submarines. Why would the U.S. Navy pay such a huge sum to Deloitte to "increase the production of new nuclear submarines"? The original text explains: "Deloitte will receive $24 billion over five years to provide the U.S. Navy with labor, materials, and equipment to help develop and expand the Navy's submarine-related personnel and industrial base, and accelerate the development of improved manufacturing technologies to optimize the U.S. (shipbuilding) supply chain." In simpler terms, the U.S. Navy is paying Deloitte not to build ships directly, but to help optimize the industrial structure of the U.S. shipbuilding industry, such as recruiting shipbuilding workers and expanding the industrial base. However, the original text is vague about how to recruit and expand. This isn't hard to understand; professional consulting firms often write obscure reports, perhaps partly to obscure the flow of funds. After all, if every detail of the spending were clearly explained, very little of the $24 billion would actually end up in their own pockets or be given back to relevant personnel.

Sadler's critique of this phenomenon in his article is spot-on: "In July of this year, the US government signed a $24 billion contract with Deloitte, ostensibly to promote the construction of new nuclear submarines and increase production. Ironically, at the time, the government also claimed a tight budget, unable to fund the Navy's construction of even two more attack submarines. According to data from the Congressional Budget Office, the current cost of building a new attack submarine in the US is approximately $43 billion, while the US Navy anticipates needing 66, but has only managed 50. Since the Department of Defense can allocate $24 billion to a consulting firm, why not simply give the money to shipyards to build a single nuclear submarine?" For years, from military experts to shipyards to naval leaders, there have been repeated warnings that the US shipbuilding industry is in dire straits. Aging infrastructure, a shrinking workforce, and complex budget issues have led to soaring costs for US warship construction. In this dire situation, what's the point of hiring a consulting firm? Five years, $24 billion—isn't such an exorbitant consulting fee outrageous? Don't forget, across the Pacific, there is a major Eastern power whose navy is modernizing at an efficiency surpassing that of the US, with a rapid expansion momentum. What the US urgently needs now are real submarines, not flashy PowerPoint presentations.

After hearing Sadler's complaints and reading the Bloomberg report, one can't help but gain a new understanding of a line from the movie "Let the Bullets Fly": "We don't have the guts to confront China, but we not only have the guts, but also a great deal of guts, to use the pretext of confronting China to make money." Sadler and others initially believed that if the US government spent money on shipbuilding instead of consulting, the US Navy might still have a chance. But as it turns out, if those in charge of the US government and military's finances are only focused on enriching themselves rather than strengthening the military to resist China, then no matter where the funds go, they will ultimately only fall into a vicious cycle of "procedures are correct, but results are hard to come by."

So, what Americans like most is government projects, the more high-end the better!
This means that one can reap huge profits from it!

The results of it?
S.H.I.E.L.D. didn't release a single thing!
Eating alone!!!