Most powerful Navy's in the world today?

[Lotus49]

[...] 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. [...]

There's no way I just read that. I must be really tired.

Anyway, China really ought to sell all those MiG-21s to private buyers here in the U.S. -MiG-21s go for decent money on Ebay. I saw one last year, and me and a co-worker almost went 50/50 on it.

 

[Evie]

That is questionable (primarily on the "how quickly" issue), and not the point of this thread.

Plus, as I added in my latest edit - PLAAF air superiority would still have to deal with some pretty formidable sea-based firepower - and I'm talking the sort of sea-based firepower designed to make life hell for planes that get annoying)

 

[Steph]

Oda: Your list is interesting, but I do not agree completly with it.

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...)

You are listing here only the Aircraft carriers. It's not enough for power projection. I think you should include also the transport ships

The US have many amphibious assault ships : 8 Wasp class, 5 Tarawa class, and many other amphibious transport docks.
Total projection capacity
- 40,000 troops
- 900 aircrafts.

Russia has 1 Ivan Rogov (500 troops), 16 Ropucha (150-225 troops), alligators (400 troops)
Total projection capacity
- 6,000 troops
- 50 aircrafts.

UK has 7 amphibious ships, and several under construction. They also have 3 invincible class carrier.
Total projection capacity
- 3,300 troops
- 24 aircrafts.

France has 9 landing ships, 2 ordered of the new Mistral class
- 3128 troops (800 on the De Gaulle)
- 40 aircrafts

So on power projection, I would consider that
1 - US (by bar)
2 - Russia
3 - France
4 - UK

France and UK will exchange place depending on what they finish to build first. For instance, the new British landing ship in construction could add 1,200 troops, for the French it's 900. And for the US it's 9,000

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)

Here, again, you forgot to factor a few things, like the cruisers.

Russia has still 5 cruisers, the only country to have cruisers beside the US. And they still have a lot of submarines. So I think the list should be

1 - US navy
2 - Japanese (large and modern ships)
3 - Russia
4 - France
5 - UK
6 - India
7 - China

 

[Evie]

As I noted - France's fleet is not a floating train wreck.

Russia's fleet looks big on paper, but it has a tendency to reel from disaster to disaster. I frankly wouldn't trust even the Kusnetzov to handle the strain of continued combat operations for very long at all.

I mean, when even your SSBN can't manage to actually launch their ballistic missiles...

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

As I noted - France's fleet is not a floating train wreck. Russia has been reeling from naval disaster to naval disaster since the end of the Soviet Union.

And military spending has been rising by 25% per year. Russia is improving it's situation drastically and have brought several submarines into service since 1991.

 

[Evie]

Russia has begun to improve the situation, yes, but it still has a very long way to go to get back to having a truly capable fleet.

And, as I noted elsewhere, my comparison was as of 2007. Within 5, ten years the situation will have vastly changed - China will almost certainly have at least one carrier under construction (and Japan is all too likely to try to match) ; India will have two-three modern carriers, England will have the two Queen Elizabeth, etc. Where will Russia stand then? I'm not sure.

But right now, I wouldn't be all that terrified of the Russian navy. They aren't weak by any stretch of the imagination ; but their actual capability to wage war isn't so hot.

 

[Lotus49]

[...]
The US have many amphibious assault ships : 8 Wasp class, 5 Tarawa class, and many other amphibious transport docks.
Total projection capacity
- 40,000 troops
[...]

Hmmm, power projection in terms of number of troops. Well, technically speaking, the USMC is within the Derpartment of the Navy... so, let's add that ~1/4 million Devildogs onto the pile. Plus the Marine Corps has an air arm that most people (even U.S. citizens) don't respect even 1 sliver of what they would, if they knew it's numbers, and true capability. It's a branch, in and of itself, but -technically- Dept. of the Navy.

[...]Russia has been reeling from naval disaster to naval disaster since the end of the Soviet Union.

Yeah - but they're hard core, and you can't take that away from them.



Hey, Pasi - if you've really got good contacts in China, set me up w/ a MiG-21. At least find out what they're asking for one. That's about the most bang for your buck you can get, for general aviation / private aircraft. The one I saw on Ebay a few months ago was bidding around 40k, IIRC. But, I'd pay up for one fresh out of service, well maintained. Main price point, is the engine. Take that out, and the airframe is 10k or less. I'll take whatever avionics they'll let me have. -Then I'll go sign up for the 'Red Team' over at Nellis AFB, and go kick some F-15 @ss!

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Let me know when you're done trolling.

 

[Steph]

Hmmm, power projection in terms of number of troops. Well, technically speaking, the USMC is within the Derpartment of the Navy... so, let's add that ~1/4 million Devildogs onto the pile. Plus the Marine Corps has an air arm that most people (even U.S. citizens) don't respect even 1 sliver of what they would, if they knew it's numbers, and true capability. It's a branch, in and of itself, but -technically- Dept. of the Navy.

True, but I used only the Amphibious and docking ships, and even with only that, the USN navy completly outclass the others. No need to go for overkill .

My main point was that you cannot use ONLY aircraft carriers to estimate power projection, and amphibious capacity should be taken into account.

To that regard, I would put Russia second. Without it, it would be 5th or 6th.

 

[steveedster]

I think within the next 10-20 years the UK may very well move up to 2nd in that list.

With a new generation of nuclear subs mooted and also a vast overhall in surface ships including a couple of 'super carriers' With a proposed specification of 65,000 tonnes displacement each, these will probably be the most modern in the world (if not the largest, a bit smaller than USA super carriers)...

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Still with ski jumps.

 

[steveedster]

aahhh just found another image, looks like the above picture is an earlier design... heres the new one...

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/cvf4.html

 

[Steph]

I think within the next 10-20 years the UK may very well move up to 2nd in that list.

With a new generation of nuclear subs mooted and also a vast overhall in surface ships including a couple of 'super carriers' With a proposed specification of 65,000 tonnes displacement each, these will probably be the most modern in the world (if not the largest, a bit smaller than USA super carriers)...

If we get the right president, France should build another super carrier based on the same design, but 75,000 tonnes, and equipped with Rafale.

The little drawback is it will not be nuclear powered, to match the design of the British carriers, as the British rejected nuclear power.

 

[bhsup]

The new Ford class carrier that the US Navy will have by 2015 is going to have electromagnetic catapults rather than steam. Anyone in the know around who can explain the advantages there?

EDIT: Oh, and just to get in a "mine is bigger" jab, it'll be 100,000 tons.

 

[steveedster]

The new Ford class carrier that the US Navy will have by 2015 is going to have electromagnetic catapults rather than steam. Anyone in the know around who can explain the advantages there?

EDIT: Oh, and just to get in a "mine is bigger" jab, it'll be 100,000 tons.

I have no idea the new Royal Navy carriers will use this system too, as will the French one in all probability, just a new tech I suppose.

The UK will also use the in development Joint Strike Fighter along with the USA.

Will it looks like with all these developments the west will certainly remain on top for some time

 

[bhsup]

SOme quick digging and it seems it may be a pre-emptive move as steam catapults are reaching the limits of how much weight they can launch. Also, there is a quicker turnaround time.

An electromagnetic catapult can launch every 45 seconds. Each three-second launch can consume as much as 100 million watts of electricity, about as much as a small town uses in the same amount of time. “A utility does that using an acre of equipment,” says lab engineer Mike Doyle, but due to shipboard space limitations, “we have to take that and fit it into a shoebox.” In shipboard generators developed for electromagnetic catapults, electrical power is stored kinetically in rotors spinning at 6,400 rpm. When a launch order is given, power is pulled from the generators in a two- to three-second pulse, like a burst of air being let out of a balloon. As power is drawn off, the generators slow down and the amount of electricity they produce steadily drops. But in the remaining 42 seconds between launches, the rotors spin back up to capacity, readying themselves to release another burst of energy.

 

[Steph]

The British one is using Ski jump.
The French standard catapult system (same as Nimitz class)
The American electromagnetic...

 

[steveedster]

The British one is using Ski jump.
The French standard catapult system (same as Nimitz class)
The American electromagnetic...

"The deck will support simultaneous launch and recovery operations. The deck is fitted with a 13° bow deck ski jump.

No catapult or arresters will be fitted in the initial build but the carrier will be built to accommodate a future back-fit. The carrier will be fitted with a steam catapult or electromagnetic launch system and arrester gear, if the option to convert the carrier to the conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) variant proceeds. "

Doesnt look like the Brits have decided yet.

 

[Verbose]

The little drawback is it will not be nuclear powered, to match the design of the British carriers, as the British rejected nuclear power.

Afik, isn't the problem with having a carrier equipped with nuclear propulsion that you won't be able to us it to advantage unless the rest of the task-force is also nuclear propelled?

Since neither the UK or France have plans to build all-nuclear support ships (too damn expensive), it shouldn't bo too much of a disadvantage, no?

 

[Steph]

Afik, isn't the problem with having a carrier equipped with nuclear propulsion that you won't be able to us it to advantage unless the rest of the task-force is also nuclear propelled?

Since neither the UK or France have plans to build all-nuclear support ships (too damn expensive), it shouldn't bo too much of a disadvantage, no?

It's more a question of seeing it as a step backward regarding French nuclear technology, and general nuclear policy of France that actual military decision.
It's true that if you fleet is fully nuclear, you don't have to refuel. However, if the carrier is nuclear, you can use the space used to normally store fuel to put more aircrafts.... Or simply keep fuel there, and use it to refuel the escort ships.
So it's still better.