Most powerful Navy's in the world today?

[Patroklos]

Hmmm....

U.S. stages 1st dual-missile intercept test in space

By Jim Wolf

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military destroyed a simulated salvo of two short-range ballistic missiles more than 100 miles over the Pacific Tuesday night in the first such simultaneous test in space.

The event marked the 10th and 11th successful ballistic missile intercepts for Lockheed Martin Corp's sea-based Aegis system in 13 attempts, the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, or MDA, said.

"We consider it a simultaneous engagement," said Richard Lehner, an agency spokesman, on Wednesday. "That means both targets were in flight at the same time even though they were not intercepted at precisely the same moment."

The Aegis system tested is part of a fledgling, multibillion-dollar U.S. shield designed to thwart missiles tipped with deadly warheads that could be fired by potential foes like North Korea and Iran.

MDA said the test marked the 32nd and 33rd successful "hit to kill" intercepts since 2001, but it did not specify out of how many attempts. Hit to kill means the targets are destroyed by collision.

Lehner described the drill as "very operationally realistic," partly because a foe probably would attack with more than one missile, he said.

In addition, the crew of the Aegis-equipped guided missile cruiser Lake Erie did not know when the targets were going to be launched, though they were on alert as they would have been amid heightened tensions, Lehner said.

Two Standard Missile-3 interceptors built by Raytheon Co were fired from the Lake Erie, which was off the coast of Kauai, Hawaii. The single-stage target missiles -- with warheads that did not separate from their booster rockets -- were fired within moments of each other from a missile range on Kauai.

"With two targets engaged simultaneously, both the system and the crew are under additional stress and today they performed flawlessly," Orlando Carvalho, general manager of Lockheed Martin's related business line, said in a company release.

Earlier Tuesday, U.S. House and Senate negotiators approved $8.7 billion for missile defense programs, shaving $185 million from President Bush's request for fiscal 2008, which began October 1. Lawmakers added $75 million for the Aegis program.

Many experts remain skeptical about U.S. prospects in more complex scenarios, for instance involving long-range missiles, separating warheads and decoys.

The anti-missile shield's backbone, managed by Boeing Co and known as the ground-based mid-course defense, has made intercepts in about half of its 13 or so tries, "all under highly scripted circumstances," said Victoria Samson, an expert at the private Center for Defense Information.

The Japanese guided missile destroyer Kongo, newly equipped with the Aegis ballistic missile defense system, used the test as a training exercise in preparation for the first ballistic missile intercept test by a Japanese ship, due by the end of next month, MDA said.

(Reporting by Jim Wolf, Editing by Gerald E. McCormick)

China really is just so far behind.

 

[JohnRM]

1. USA No Contest
2. Russia
3. France
4. UK
5. Japan
6. China

Ditto.....

 

[warpus]

China?

I would put India, Australia, Canada, and probably a couple more NATO countries before China. Their navy sucks. They couldn't even invade Taiwan with what they have, even if they wanted to.

 

[Patroklos]

Australia and Canada are not contenders, they just don't have enough units no matter how advanced they are.

 

[dosed150]

im not so sure about putting russia and france ahead of the uk, france and russia both only have 1 carrier admittedly their bigger than britains 2/3, france and britain will be mostly equal on carriers in future, with the 2 new british carriers, and the french are buying a modified version to use along side the de gaulle the only position that is really definite is the usa being number 1, and definetely much larger than any combinations of navies that it could end up fighting, especially with many other fairly big navies that are almost guaranteed to be on americas side or at least neutral

 

[nc-1701]

im not so sure about putting russia and france ahead of the uk, france and russia both only have 1 carrier admittedly their bigger than britains 2/3, france and britain will be mostly equal on carriers in future, with the 2 new british carriers, and the french are buying a modified version to use along side the de gaulle the only position that is really definite is the usa being number 1, and definetely much larger than any combinations of navies that it could end up fighting, especially with many other fairly big navies that are almost guaranteed to be on americas side or at least neutral

Submarines are WAY more important than carriers. Hence Russia's position. The UK's current carriers can only deploy Harriers, which are no match for American F/A-18s, French Rafales, and Russian Su-33s.

Russia and France also have many more surface combatants than England, though I'm not an expert on how exactly there compare tech compares. Just by looking at published stats on numbers of cruise missles gun, displacement, and such the UK looks pretty badly out gunned by both the Russia and France. In fact if it weren't for their subs I'de say Japan outguns the UK too...

 

[Patroklos]

Submarines are WAY more important than carriers.

The depends entirely on what your doing. Submarines really are a one trick pony.

In fact if it weren't for their subs I'de say Japan outguns the UK too...

Japan would slaughter the UK. If you think the UK looks bad on paper, try operating with them

 

[dosed150]

Submarines are WAY more important than carriers. Hence Russia's position. The UK's current carriers can only deploy Harriers, which are no match for American F/A-18s, French Rafales, and Russian Su-33s.

Russia and France also have many more surface combatants than England, though I'm not an expert on how exactly there compare tech compares. Just by looking at published stats on numbers of cruise missles gun, displacement, and such the UK looks pretty badly out gunned by both the Russia and France. In fact if it weren't for their subs I'de say Japan outguns the UK too...

on subs britain and france are very close

britain has

4 vanguard ssbn

(7 trafalgar ssn
2 swiftsure ssn)-
to be replaced with 7-8 astute class ssn 4 of which are currently under construction

france

4 le triomphant ssbn

6 rubis ssn-to be replaced by 6 barracude ssn

equal on ssbn, britain has 9 ssn to frances 6


as for surface combatants this is were france is way ahead britain has
4 type 22 frigates
12 type 23 frigates
9 type 42 destroyers- to be replaced by 8 type 45 destroyers 1 of which is already built

france

5 la fayette frigates
6 floreal frigates
2 cassard destroyers
1 suffren destroyer
2 tourville destroyers
7 georges leygues destroyers

i think as far as tech compares both have fairly modern fleets although i think a lot of frances extra numbers are older vessels

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

The depends entirely on what your doing. Submarines really are a one trick pony.

It's a good trick though. They were more decisive in World War I than dreadnoughts were, for example.

 

[Patroklos]

It's a good trick though.

So is each and every one of the dozen odd tricks a surface combatant has (US anyways) and the two dozen odd tricks a carrier has.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Well, yeah. But I think a lot of nations don't need all those.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

I'd have to say for training and experance, Royal Navy hands down. Pound for pound, personel wise they are good to go. I am rather suprised at the size of it though, kind of disapointing and even sad for me. I used to love reading about how badass the RN was, and Star Wars shows us that the Death Star is really HMDS Victoria

No point to talk about the US Navy, we all have seen the lists ( shameless plug ). Russia needs a good decade to even just rebuild, that place is still all jacked up from the fall of the USSR. They have a lot of accidents too... apprently. I would imagine all sorts of logistical nightmares as well, men getting paid and supplies, fuel, food and ammo.

I see France being the real dark horse for the next twenty years. Slowly funding, modernizeing and paying attention to todays conflicts it may just see some expansion in ground and naval forces as France and Germany foot the majority of EU troops in the comming years.

Slightly off topic yet of intrest:

Does France supply whatever the EU has atm for a defense force or whatever? I don't think they have returned to NATO command but I recall reading it was being considered or something a while ago? I know they have troops in and out of Afganistan as well, that changed?

 

[Patroklos]

I'd have to say for training and experance, Royal Navy hands down. Pound for pound, personel wise they are good to go.

What evidence do you have for this. And even if it is true (the personel part), how does that negate the fact that the entire fleet is undergunned poorly designed crap, a good portion of it being obsolete?

 

[Bronx Warlord]

What evidence do you have for this. And even if it is true (the personel part), how does that negate the fact that the entire fleet is undergunned poorly designed crap, a good portion of it being obsolete?

There record since 1707 is not a bad one at all. You have a tradition of exclence along with some blunders and mishaps for sure, but at least imho they are looking pretty solid. They have a Navy they can afford atm and one they can use. Were they forced into a more serious conflict and need for expansion, I am 110% sure the RN will be top of the line. 400 years experance and being on the winning side most of the time, not bad at all I'd say.

 

[nc-1701]

There record since 1707 is not a bad one at all. You have a tradition of exclence along with some blunders and mishaps for sure, but at least imho they are looking pretty solid. They have a Navy they can afford atm and one they can use. Were they forced into a more serious conflict and need for expansion, I am 110% sure the RN will be top of the line. 400 years experance and being on the winning side most of the time, not bad at all I'd say.

HMS Hood anyone?
I won't deny England's record's a very good one, but if all we look at is the past records of nations when we judge them we'ed have to accept. That Jihad pwns all, Russia can never be invaded no matter how badly outgunned, the Japanese navy will be smashed in a real war, etc.

The past is certainly good to look at, but is far from the end all.

As for submarines.
Submarines are for area denial, nothing compares to them in that niche. Any nation that relies heavily on sea trade can be brought to it's knees by a strong submarine force. These include the UK, USA, China, Japan, ROK, ROC, and others... Russia has an excellent avantage here being energy independant itself.

 

[MobBoss]

There record since 1707 is not a bad one at all. You have a tradition of exclence along with some blunders and mishaps for sure, but at least imho they are looking pretty solid. They have a Navy they can afford atm and one they can use. Were they forced into a more serious conflict and need for expansion, I am 110% sure the RN will be top of the line. 400 years experance and being on the winning side most of the time, not bad at all I'd say.

Well, be that as it may, the last big foray of the RN - the Falklands - wasnt exactly a glowing mark on their historical record - losing 2 destroyers, 2 frigates, some logistics landing ships, and others damaged.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Submarines are WAY more important than carriers. Hence Russia's position. The UK's current carriers can only deploy Harriers, which are no match for American F/A-18s, French Rafales, and Russian Su-33s.

Russia's position is simply an answer to the American Carrier dominance. Russia doesn't, and didn't, have the capability to protect a postwar carrier fleet. Production is also a problem. The Russians didn't get their first "carrier" until the 1970s, but even that was still a heavy missile platform with some extra helos. It's much easier and cheaper to build a submarine, while still posing some sort of threat to a potential enemy fleet.

Russia and France also have many more surface combatants than England, though I'm not an expert on how exactly there compare tech compares. Just by looking at published stats on numbers of cruise missles, gun, displacement, and such the UK looks pretty badly out gunned by both the Russia and France. In fact if it weren't for their subs I'de say Japan outguns the UK too...

The Royal Navy has much better equipment than the Russian Navy does. It doesn't matter if the Russians outnumber them, the Brits could take on what's left of the Russian fleet no problem.

I'm also unfamiliar with the French surface capabilities.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

HMS Hood anyone?
I won't deny England's record's a very good one, but if all we look at is the past records of nations when we judge them we'ed have to accept. That Jihad pwns all, Russia can never be invaded no matter how badly outgunned, the Japanese navy will be smashed in a real war, etc.

The past is certainly good to look at, but is far from the end all.

As for submarines.
Submarines are for area denial, nothing compares to them in that niche. Any nation that relies heavily on sea trade can be brought to it's knees by a strong submarine force. These include the UK, USA, China, Japan, ROK, ROC, and others... Russia has an excellent avantage here being energy independant itself.

This is true, they have taken plenty of losses over the years. In the early days more due to sickness and other things. They have also taken combat losses, an extremely important experance factor. They have also kicked massive ammount of ass, again the experance factor.

Russia is also a mess, regardless of the postureing. It is not going to war with anyone for some time. It can't even give it's big " war on terror " it promissed. I was looking forward to that too : \

 

[Bronx Warlord]

Well, be that as it may, the last big foray of the RN - the Falklands - wasnt exactly a glowing mark on their historical record - losing 2 destroyers, 2 frigates, some logistics landing ships, and others damaged.

It happened. What do you think the AAR was like after that little conflict?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

HMS Hood anyone?

You're right. A lightly armored battlecruiser gets holes blown through it by the mightiest ship afloat, therefore the Royal Navy's record is all for nil.

As for submarines.
Submarines are for area denial, nothing compares to them in that niche. Any nation that relies heavily on sea trade can be brought to it's knees by a strong submarine force. These include the UK, USA, China, Japan, ROK, ROC, and others... Russia has an excellent avantage here being energy independant itself.

1. Russia is NOT, I repeat, NOT energy independent.

2. An Aircraft Carrier is a far more effective tool for "area denial."

3. That strong submarine force has to deal with the opposing forces' navy, too. Attacking shipping lanes isn't the same today as it was in 1940. You don't "sneak" into a container fleet Silent Hunter style and blow everything out of the water. Anything important is going to be escorted by at least a few Destroyers, Corvettes, or Frigates. ASW is so advanced today that unless the sub crew doesn't want to go home again, they're not going to even try and hit something guarded. I'm not saying that ships won't be sunk, the Navy can't be there to guard everything, but it wouldn't be the sort of catastrophe you're predicting, unless the agressor badly outguns the defender.