Most powerful Navy's in the world today?

[Pasi Nurminen]

Umm.... very unlikely. Japan has an air defense ability that would make short work of the few modern and many antiquated fighters China could throw at it. The Japanese Navy itself also has a very strong anti-air capability. Maybe in 10-20 years China could pose a threat, but throwing a bunch of planes from the 60s at the Japanese will only end in a lot of dead Chinese pilots.

In fact, I would say the Indian air force is far more capable than the Chinese air force. For that matter the Indian Navy is probably about as capable right now.

The PLAAF does not comprise of "a bunch of planes from the 60s" as they have been progressively modernizing and today possess many fighters capable of competing with Japanese planes. Certainly not state-of-the-art fighters capable of mixing it up with the latest designs from Russia or the USA, but certainly capable of taking on the Japanese air force's latest designs. More than a third of Japan's combat aircraft are F-4s, hardly very advanced aircraft anyways.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Pasi, it is a minority of PLAAF that consists of anything modern or semi-modern. The quanitative advantage is not nearly as great as you suggest.

The core of Japan's air force consists of very advanced F-15s. In a defensive operation, drawing on the capabilities of the Japanese navy and land-based AA systems, they could repel a Chinese air attack.

The Chinese maybe have 200-300 fighters modern enough to send into combat. I would take the 200 defending Japanese fighters any day. The outdated cannon fodder China would send after that would do little.

Seriously, what the hell are the Chinese going to do with 500 of these? Especially if the modern fighters have already been destroyed.

 

[GinandTonic]

Britain is very capable with all of the logistical support. Which is why Britain was able to send a fleet all the way to the freaking Falklands, while Indonesia never could support such an operation.

Though, subs from the 1950s and 1960s start to lose some of their value (which is what China has basically got).

AFAIK (which isnt far) it is much harsher than that re subs. Since the end of the cold war it has chilled out a little but somewhat like the dreadnought race each generation of subs made the others all but worthless. Any sub pre '85 is basically of no use at all against modern kit.

And it is the subs that win the naval battle and the carriers/ transport ships that exploit the victory.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

AFAIK (which isnt far) it is much harsher than that re subs. Since the end of the cold war it has chilled out a little but somewhat like the dreadnought race each generation of subs made the others all but worthless. Any sub pre '85 is basically of no use at all against modern kit.

And it is the subs that win the naval battle and the carriers/ transport ships that exploit the victory.

This is true. Even during WWII, with relatively crappy subs, and even crappier torpedos, the American submarine force accounted for over half of all sinkings in the Pacific War.

As for modern subs, this is where China is severely lacking.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Pasi, it is a minority of PLAAF that consists of anything modern or semi-modern. The quanitative advantage is not nearly as great as you suggest.

The core of Japan's air force consists of very advanced F-15s. In a defensive operation, drawing on the capabilities of the Japanese navy and land-based AA systems, they could repel a Chinese air attack.

The Chinese maybe have 200-300 fighters modern enough to send into combat. I would take the 200 defending Japanese fighters any day. The outdated cannon fodder China would send after that would do little

They possess 300 Chinese built SU-27s (almost equalling the entire combat strength of the Japanese air force), and their most numerous aircraft is the J-7. Though the airframe is old, they have consistently upgraded avionics and armaments (among them the AA-8 Aphid, a superb missile) to be competitive.

Japan has only around 330 combat aircraft, 92 of which are single seat F-15s. Even taking into account anti-aircraft defenses, the Chinese possess 1,800 fighters and 600 attack planes. An almost 8 to 1 quantitative disadvantage is not possible to overcome. The contention that the Japanese could shoot down more than eight times their number in a shooting war is absurd.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Umm... No. China has only assembled 100 of the ultimately 200 planned Su27 equivalents. The rest of them are trainer aircraft.

Japan has over 130 F-15 fighters (another 40 or so trainers). They also have 23 F-1s and 33 F-2s available for combat. The F-1 is more of a late 70s fighter, but the F-2 was introduced in 2000. Both are very capable. In addition to the 100 or so Phantoms, the shield of AEGIS destroyers, and the landbased AA defense, I would comfortably give the nod to the Japanese defending against the Chinese.

 

[Ramius75]

1. USA
2. Japan
3. UK
4. France
5. Russia
6. India
7. China
8. South Korea

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Britain pwns all.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Umm... No. China has only assembled 100 of the ultimately 200 planned Su27 equivalents. The rest of them are trainer aircraft.

Japan has over 130 F-15 fighters (another 40 or so trainers). They also have 23 F-1s and 33 F-2s available for combat. The F-1 is more of a late 70s fighter, but the F-2 was introduced in 2000. Both are very capable. In addition to the 100 or so Phantoms, the shield of AEGIS destroyers, and the landbased AA defense, I would comfortably give the nod to the Japanese defending against the Chinese.

The F-2 is not capable of carrying any AAMs longer ranged or heavier than the AIM-7 Sparrow, a design from the 60s, of course periodically updated over the years. It has a range of 70 or so kilometres, while the R-77 in use with the PLAAF has a range of 90-175 kilometres depending on the variant. The Japanese, in fact, do not use any AAMs capable of longer range than the Sparrow, and in this case the Chinese have a comfortable technological edge.

And we're counting Japanese trainer versions but not Chinese combat capable trainers?

Ultimately, the Japanese could not compensate for an 8 to 1 numerical advantage. You have not bothered to demonstrate any Japanese anti air capabilities anyways.

 

[GinandTonic]

Britain pwns all.

The Pol avvie freaking with me...

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The Pol avvie freaking with me...

*Makes another tick mark on the scoreboard*

 

[Evie]

What follow are two separate ranking. The first is based on power projection capacity ; that is, the ability to use the navy to attack distant enemies.

On power projection capacity :

1-United States Navy. No question asked.
2-French Navy (The Khuznetsov is probably better than the De Gaulle, but the French Navy is not a floating train wreck)
3-Russian Navy (Will take a drop soon. Though I hear they're plotting to start building new carriers)
4-Royal Navy (...I guess. The Invincibles really aren't good power-projection ship. The Queen Elizabeth, now...)

That's it as of early 2007 for power projection. However, expect India to become #5 during the next decade or so - they have three new carriers slotted to enter service in 2008 (a fully rebuilt - as a full carrier - Russian Kiev-class), 2012 (the name ship of the Vikrant-class), and 2018 (the second Vikrant). The PLAN will likely be buildin a few carrier (and power projection) within a decade or two as well ; and the second a PLAN carrier in construction become common knowledge, expect a JMSDF plan to start building carriers very, very shortly.

Actual Fighting Capacity (in a pitched naval battle, which would win)

1-United States Navy (unsurprisingly)
2-Japanesse Maritime Self Defense Force. (Great ships, large fleets, and AEGIS to make up for carrier-deficiency)
3-French Navy (Generally slightly better equipped surface fleet, and the De Gaulle more or less even out the two Invincibles).
4-Royal Navy (Sorry, UK people - Invinci)
5-People's Liberation Army Navy (Large fleet, but unlike Japan they don't have AEGIS ships, so the FR and UK carriers give them a slight edge)

Note that, again, the carrier plans of the RN, French Navy, and Indian Navy will affect this ranking.

-----------

And with regard to the JASDF, again - AWACS capacity make a pretty significant difference, as it essentialy shut down the PLAN's ability to achieve anything remotely approaching surprise.

Moreover, the 175 KM range version of the R-77 is the ramjet version, which, as far as I'm aware, is not yet in service, so that's one advantage that doesn't actually exist ; 70 KM vs 90 KM is nowhere near that much of an advantage.

 

[Lotus49]

Here is a wiki page that is quite useful for this topic, as it breaks down the number of each type of ship, per nation.

Regarding the RN as per what was stated earlier, judging from this chart, I really can't see how 'Britain pwns'.

 

[JollyRoger]

Have found the following link, http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/

Just thought it would make interesting discussion.

I think the most powerful today are...

1. USA
2. UK
3. FRANCE
4. RUSSIA?


Anyone got any other suggestions? Looking at the above link I was surprised how big Taiwans Navy is, got seemingly everything except carriers.

Didn't Iran defeat the UK in a very recent naval engagement?

 

[Lotus49]

Another interesting question would be - what was/is the greatest Navy of all time, relative to the challengers of the period?

My vote would be the USN at the end of WWII. That Navy was insanely powerful. We practically went out of control, when it came to production, especially once we got geared up and mobilized. Take the Montana class BBs for example - once we realized, "Whoa... this is getting absurd, we have to cut back a little".

But yeah, we could have sunk every ship of every nation in the world at the end of 1945 - totally clearing the waters of all non-USN vessels. Granted, we could probably do that today, but it would be tougher, just because the numbers aren't so dramatic.

Over 100 aircraft carriers alone, for example. Insane.

 

[Evie]

Definitely.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

And we're counting Japanese trainer versions but not Chinese combat capable trainers?.

No, I specifically left Japanese trainers out. I said, in addition to those numbers, the Japanese have many trainers. If we count trainers, the Japanese have closer to 180 F-15s, and 50 or 60 F-2s (basically F-16s).

Ultimately, the Japanese could not compensate for an 8 to 1 numerical advantage.

Again, you keep lumping in all of the obsolete crap that the Chinese (probably) wouldn't waste pilots on. It isn't worth sending valuable pilots to die in these:

Not to mention all of the other utility and transport craft you are throwing into that 8:1 ratio. If anything, we are looking at a 2:1 or maybe 2.5:1 ratio of significantly useful fighter aircraft, with a general technical edge to the Japanese.

As for the missile range, you may have a valid point. However, that assumes that all engagements would occur at maximum missile range; this is unlikely in practice. Also, this is a thread about naval warfare. The Japanese navy has formiddable anti-air capabilities, and combined with the Japanese air force would be a difficult nut to crack.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Again, you keep lumping in all of the obsolete crap that the Chinese (probably) wouldn't waste pilots on. It isn't worth sending valuable pilots to die in these:

You just finished telling me that longer ranged Chinese missiles are irrelevant because aerial combat would take place mostly at close range (to an extent, a valid point), and then you label the J-7 as a poor dogfighter, a statement that has no basis in reality? I'm confused, what are you trying to say here?

In a knife fight, the Japanese overall technical edge disappears and the victory goes to the aircraft that is most agile. I don't know if you know this, but the J-7 is a highly maneuverable aircraft, a very effective dogfighter. When you peel away the range, it is just as capable in combat as an F-15 is.

Not to mention all of the other utility and transport craft you are throwing into that 8:1 ratio. If anything, we are looking at a 2:1 or maybe 2.5:1 ratio of significantly useful fighter aircraft, with a general technical edge to the Japanese.

No, I'm not. Look it up, it's something I highly recommend. The PLAAF possesses 1,800 fighter aircraft and 600 ground attack aircraft. The Japanese Air Force has approximately 330 combat aircraft. The 8 to 1 number does not count transport or utility types.

I suggest you look things up before you post next time.

As for the missile range, you may have a valid point. However, that assumes that all engagements would occur at maximum missile range; this is unlikely in practice. Also, this is a thread about naval warfare. The Japanese navy has formiddable anti-air capabilities, and combined with the Japanese air force would be a difficult nut to crack.

Yes, this is a thread about naval warfare, but the Chinese would take command of the air and with that comes command of the sea. You would do wise to put together some numbers here about the anti-air capabilities of the Japanese navy. Simply repeating "the Japanese navy could easily wipe out the PLAAF" ad nauseum is unbecoming of you.

Besides, I think you have a misleading picture of aerial warfare. You do not have surface units firing into a cloud of gnat-like fighters like in Star Wars. Aerial engagements, particularly over the vast open ocean, most often take place without interference from ground units, particularly at altitude where most dogfights would take place.

 

[Evie]

The thread is not merely about naval warfare. It's about the most powerful navies.

Last I checked the PLAAF (and JASDF) are not navies by any stretch of the imagination. And so, they aren't relevant to this contest. It's the PLAN, and the PLAN alone.

And, until they get their carriers, the PLAN doesn't stand much of a chance in a straight fight against the JMSDF.

(As for numbers, the Japanesse field (or will soon field, the 6th is launchec but not yet in active service), 6 AEGIS destroyer, outfitted with the SM-2MR guided missile (with a range of 70-160 KM depending on configuration), up to 90 (Kongo-) or 96 (Atago-) of which can be ready to launch at a given time on each ship. In addition their four older Guided Missiles ships (not the AEGIS system) each carry the SM-1MR (30+KM) ; each of them able to have 40 such missiles ready to launch at a given time.

The non-guided missile destroyers instead rely on the Sea Sparrow Missiles (20 KM range), or, for the more modern vessels, the evolved sea sparrow (50+ KM range), which can act as a semi-guided missile. They have 8, 16 or 32 such missiles ready for launch at any given time ; those with fewer generally can be easily manually reloaded

Needless to say, virtually every such ship pack a pair of Phalanx CIWS anti-missile system)

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

But in a shooting war, Japanese naval superiority would be irrelevant as the PLAAF would obtain air superiority fairly quickly.