Most powerful Navy's in the world today?

[a_propagandist]

Modern navy? Then UK.

 

[dosed150]

1 on 1: UK vs. Russia... who would win on the high seas, and establish maritime superiority...?

its really only theoretical, but it could possibly be fairly close, in the real world i would think itd be a nato fleet that would go up against russia and thats no contest

 

[Evie]

If both fleet were to face each other in relatively good condition, I think I,d give Russia the advantage by virtue of the Kuznetsov's Su-33 being able to pretty much make short work of any British air deployment (Would it only be because the Harrier II don't get Sparrows or AMRAAM or any other decent medium/long-range air missiles, whereas the Su-33 gets them). (As usual, the caveat applies - the F-35 will upset that comparison)

Plus, of course, in terms of surface ship, the Russians have a crushing number advantage.

Of course, that DOES require the Russian Navy to not just rust away along the way, which may be somewhat of a tall order.

 

[Patroklos]

The RN has AWACs, too, you know. Those radars can pick up everything within a 400 mile radius. Guess what the range of a Harpoon is: 195 miles. That gives plenty of breathing room for whatever aircraft launches it, Harrier or Sea King.

No, the RAF has AWACS that are ground based, just like the Japanese The RN has no carrier launched AEW systems (unless you count helos, and the Japanese helos are just as good). So since we are talking about a blue water encounter, neither side would have this asset.

And no, there would be no targeting date shared beteen a Nimrod (which is the airframe I assume you meant which is also RAF) and Harrier IIs, as the Harrier does not have a Link 4A capability. The extent of targeting data shared would be a bearing and range call over the radio. But neither AWACS or Nimrods would be there in this scenario, so the point is mute.

I mean, really, do you think they would equip the Harpoon, or any OTH system, without the wherewithall to use it?

Oh a Harrier could use it (I am taking your word that a Harrier II can carry a Harpoon), but only at a fraction of its range (unless they use another Harrier on a suicide mission to spot) and not very effectively.

They don't have to get near it. 200 miles is quite a ways away. AEGIS won't engage at that range.

Oh really, well perhaps you should quote me the track range of AEGIS, not to mention its detect range. Hint, 200nm is well within both. Not that a Harrier can see 200 miles, and even if it could, the surface ship would be able to see them too.

The JMDF has no air wing to it. As I said, a dozen helos or so does not constitute decent air cover.

Neither does the RN. I am sure the RFA is flattered that you think 24 Harrier IIs negates the advantage of 20 odd major surface combatants and half a dozen odd advanced submarines. Harriers would not be useless (except agains Japans AEGIS vessels), but they certaintly don't take up the slack for the RNs abissmal fleet status.

They MIGHT pick up a RN aircraft on radar, but they aren't going to know where the fleet is. Simply because the RN has aircraft, meager as their compliment is, their range of both detection and engagement is several times larger than the Japanese Navy could ever dream of.

An advantage? Sure, a battle winning one, almost certainly not.

Huh? The Brazilian Navy is a third larger than the JMDF. And the Brazilians have a REAL carrier, Sao Paulo.

Yes, but what exactly are those ships? Its not just quantity, but quality as well. The Sao Paulo is a joke.

Not all carriers are nuclear powered. I imagine that if a navy only has one or two carriers, they'll keep them combat ready at all times, otherwise, what good is it?

That totally depends on the shipyard capacity, and for all the current navies your assumption is wrong (the US gets away with it because we have enough to rotate). France has one dry dock that can handle its carrier (specifically built to build them actually) for example. And ships require periodic overhauls and maintenace out of the water. It has nothing to do with nuclear or gas turbine or whatever, expect a carrier to be in dry dock one year out of four.

I don't know how you define "large fleet." A CBG of 10-15 ships, especially for a smaller navy, should be more than enough, if they are of decent design and technology.

Which RN ships are not relative to Japan. And I was to assume we are talking everthing sea based versus everything sea based. So again, unless you think 24 harriers compensates for 20 odd modern destroyer and a half dozen modern submarine lead, the RN is toast.

True - the RN does have AWACS Sea King. Per Wiki, they only provide OTH targeting for surface ships, but that's wiki, and could easily be wrong.

Its a joke, the Sea King has been obsolete for a decade.

 

[dosed150]

the problem with the royal navy is its at the point were most of its equipment is getting old but theres still a few years till all the new ships and planes come into service

the type 45 destroyers will start entering service in 2009- contrary to what was said earlier in this thread they do have ciws, it has 2 phalanx thats the same as the us arleigh burke class, the queen elizabeth class aircraft carriers equiped with stovl f35 and actually have proper aew aircraft either the e2 hawkeye or a variant of the v22 osprey, wonder what will happen to the invincible class, i doubt we'll keep any could always convert one to join the hms ocean in the helicopter carrier role, probably try and sell them though

 

[Evie]

dosed - I don't think anybody said the Type 45 lack CIWS (though it's possible someone said it and I forgot) ; they're certainly formidable ships, as are the Queen Elizabeth.

Once they all get off the slipway, and the F-35 enter service, RN vs JMSDF isn't even a contest.

 

[Patroklos]

dosed - I don't think anybody said the Type 45 lack CIWS (though it's possible someone said it and I forgot)

I did, because when they were launched they were going to rely soley on missiles for missile defense and leave the point defense mounts vacant. That would work if they were going to feild ESSM like the new Arleigh Burks (ESSMs plus the SM2 still gives you two layers of missle defense) but the Daring was't, they were going to rely soley on their Aster 30s. Apparetnly the outrage over that changed their mind.

 

[dosed150]

I did, because when they were launched they were going to rely soley on missiles for missile defense and leave the point defense mounts vacant. That would work if they were going to feild ESSM like the new Arleigh Burks (ESSMs plus the SM2 still gives you two layers of missle defense) but the Daring was't, they were going to rely soley on their Aster 30s. Apparetnly the outrage over that changed their mind.

i can imagine some cost cutting politician tried to cut ciws and someone in the navy told them how stupid that was

 

[joycem10]

This thread reminds me of playing the old Harpoon naval war game on my Mac back in the nineties.

Nothing like rolling the Backfires down the gap between Iceland and Scotland to smash a US carrier group, except maybe ambushing a bunch of Backfires with Tornadoes out of Faslane or F-15s out of Keflavik.

 

[Patroklos]

Harpoon!

How odd that is the weapon system brought up most often in this thread too.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Huh? The Brazilian Navy is a third larger than the JMDF. And the Brazilians have a REAL carrier, Sao Paulo...

No it is not by any means. What source are you using? Japan has over twice as many surface combatants and over 4 times as many subs. Your figure includes Brazillian coastal patrolships that cannot engage in blue water operations as well as landing craft and other support ships. To top it off thats comparing it to Japanese destroyers and subs only. Japan as has support ships and they happen to have more of them than Brazil. Japan has a much larger navy and many more warships than Brazil. Brazil couldn't get past Japans sub fleet alone.

The carrier has A-4s. If Japanese destroyers are good at anything its shooting down obselete aircraft such as this.

Not all carriers are nuclear powered. I imagine that if a navy only has one or two carriers, they'll keep them combat ready at all times, otherwise, what good is it? ..

I know which is why I mentioned a carrier and a nuclear carrier. Nuclear carriers deploy much longer. The maintenance is very time consuming but much less frequent than a conventional carrier. If a navy has one carrier it is not combat ready at all times because it needs maintenance. If it has two then there will be times when only one is available.

I don't know how you define "large fleet." A CBG of 10-15 ships, especially for a smaller navy, should be more than enough, if they are of decent design and technology.

Basically to maximize the effectiveness of using carriers you need enough good ships to accomodate multiple CBGs and still be able to have other types of independent task forces such as submarines. The navy would have to be pretty big to accomadate such a balance. If the US loses 1 carrier, it is still a balanced navy that benefits from the use of carriers. If a 1 carrier navy loses a carrier, then your limited benefits from the carrier are reduced to.....

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

No it is not by any means. What source are you using? Japan has over twice as many surface combatants and over 4 times as many subs. Your figure includes Brazillian coastal patrolships that cannot engage in blue water operations as well as landing craft and other support ships. To top it off thats comparing it to Japanese destroyers and subs only. Japan as has support ships and they happen to have more of them than Brazil. Japan has a much larger navy and many more warships than Brazil. Brazil couldn't get past Japans sub fleet alone.

The carrier has A-4s. If Japanese destroyers are good at anything its shooting down obselete aircraft such as this.

That's all true.

I know which is why I mentioned a carrier and a nuclear carrier. Nuclear carriers deploy much longer. The maintenance is very time consuming but much less frequent than a conventional carrier. If a navy has one carrier it is not combat ready at all times because it needs maintenance. If it has two then there will be times when only one is available.

Yes, but now we're talking Grand Strategy, not Naval Tactics. This thread is assuming that the maximum possible deployment is occurring, so no ships are in harbor.

Basically to maximize the effectiveness of using carriers you need enough good ships to accomodate multiple CBGs and still be able to have other types of independent task forces such as submarines. The navy would have to be pretty big to accomadate such a balance. If the US loses 1 carrier, it is still a balanced navy that benefits from the use of carriers. If a 1 carrier navy loses a carrier, then your limited benefits from the carrier are reduced to.....

So then there are two navies that can stand that: The US Navy and the Marine Nationale.

 

[Evie]

As it stands, the only non-USN carrier fleet with any sort of carrier redundancy is the RN, and their carriers are small, VTOL carriers.

That is expected to change very shortly. Of the nine current carrier powers :

-The USN plans to keep tons of carriers around, as usual - and that's without counting those Landing Carriers that are the Tarawas and Wasps.

-India plans to go up to one VTOL carrier, on full carrier in 2008 (could be delayed), and then two full carriers in 2012, scrapping the VTOL.

-The RN plans to scrap her two mini-carriers with larger ones in 2014 and 2016..

-The Marine National plans to get her second carrier by 2015.

-The Marina Militare should, in theory, commission their second carrier (Cavour) sometime this month, if Wiki is to be believed.

-The Russian Navy has plans afoot to build an unspecified number of new mid-size carriers.

Which would leave the Thai, Brazilian and Spanish fleet as the only single-carrier fleets in the world.

You can probably put money on the PLAN getting *some* sort of carriers as soon as they possibly can manage it.
(And once the PLAN starts building them...I'd watch Japan very carefully. The return of Kido Butai may not be so far off)

 

[dosed150]

As it stands, the only non-USN carrier fleet with any sort of carrier redundancy is the RN, and their carriers are small, VTOL carriers.

That is expected to change very shortly. Of the nine current carrier powers :

-The USN plans to keep tons of carriers around, as usual - and that's without counting those Landing Carriers that are the Tarawas and Wasps.

-India plans to go up to one VTOL carrier, on full carrier in 2008 (could be delayed), and then two full carriers in 2012, scrapping the VTOL.

-The RN plans to scrap her two mini-carriers with larger ones in 2014 and 2016..

-The Marine National plans to get her second carrier by 2015.

-The Marina Militare should, in theory, commission their second carrier (Cavour) sometime this month, if Wiki is to be believed.

-The Russian Navy has plans afoot to build an unspecified number of new mid-size carriers.

Which would leave the Thai, Brazilian and Spanish fleet as the only single-carrier fleets in the world.

You can probably put money on the PLAN getting *some* sort of carriers as soon as they possibly can manage it.
(And once the PLAN starts building them...I'd watch Japan very carefully. The return of Kido Butai may not be so far off)

doesnt india have more carriers than that planned, theres that russian one theyre modernising and then arent they going 2 build 2 of their indigenous design

britain technically has 3 of the invincible class, and we have a helicopter carrier-the sort of carrier the us marines have hms ocean,

the new french carrier is going to be a modified version of the new british carriers

the spanish will have something that a stretch could be an aircraft carrier coming in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buque_de_Proyección_Estratégica
although 4 harriers hardly makes it a carrier

 

[Evie]

The third Invincible is technically mothballed right now,so doesn't count.

The Spanish ship would give them a second VTOL carrier (it can get up to 30 carriers if in dedicated carrier mode, which one assume it would be switched to, if and when the Principe were to become unavailable), so not bad.

I do remember seeing something about a third upcoming Indian Carrier, but when I looked for it yesterday, I couldn't find a thing.

In fact, the Indian navy is decidedly getting up there. Their frigates are getting pretty old, but their destroyers are improving - the Delhi-class sounds pretty nifty, and the upcoming Kolkata-class sounds like nasty pieces of work. And Kilo-class subs always have had a reputation as quiet killers.

 

[dosed150]

The third Invincible is technically mothballed right now,so doesn't count.

The Spanish ship would give them a second VTOL carrier (it can get up to 30 carriers if in dedicated carrier mode, which one assume it would be switched to, if and when the Principe were to become unavailable), so not bad.

I do remember seeing something about a third upcoming Indian Carrier, but when I looked for it yesterday, I couldn't find a thing.

In fact, the Indian navy is decidedly getting up there. Their frigates are getting pretty old, but their destroyers are improving - the Delhi-class sounds pretty nifty, and the upcoming Kolkata-class sounds like nasty pieces of work. And Kilo-class subs always have had a reputation as quiet killers.

theres the former Admiral Gorshkov-INS Vikramaditya,
and according to wikipedia 2 of the vikrant class will be built
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikrant_class_aircraft_carrier

the indian navy might be buying amur class subs its an enhanced and quieter kilo class

 

[Evie]

Ahhh, there you are. I didn't check the "number of ships in class" statistics.

Yeah,with the Ex-Gorshkov and the two Vikrants they will have a more than respectable navy.

 

[Trafalgar]

The Chinese navy surprises the US navy?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=492804&in_page_id=1811

 

[a_propagandist]

Also, carrier subs, viable or not? We should be expanding our sub fleet.


Question: Why do navies scrap ships when they are still cost and battle effective? It seems decommissioning ships is something fun.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Question: Why do navies scrap ships when they are still cost and battle effective? It seems decommissioning ships is something fun.

It's probably cheaper to build new ships with scrap from other ships than to buy new steel and other metals.