Friday, August 29, 2008

Forum :: Equipment :: World Navies Top 15

Page 1 of 3 World Navies Top 15
Author	Oldest to Newest
Ulysses1006 Joined: 12 February 2006 Posts in this thread: 7	Posted on 25 February 2006 5:23 PM I want to discuss and compare the strength of the Top 15 navies in the world. This thread should be limitied for the three major tasks of every navy which is AAW, ASuW and ASW, because the sea superiority is the condition for using other abilities. And for simplifying the discussion, I want to limit this for units which will enter service until 2008. I made a comparision and made my ranking. Here it is, I hope we will have some nice discussions about it. Please give some reasons or direct comparasions if you're think some countries should have another rank, but remember, the rank represents the mixed three abilities. In some cases quantity will maybe win over quality. 1. USA 2. Japan 3. France 4. Russia 5. China 6. UK 7. Germany 8. Italy 9. South Korea 10. India 11. Spain 12. Netherlands 13. Taiwan 14. Canada 15. Turkey Post Reply
Turkey1004 Joined: 02 February 2006 Posts in this thread: 4	Posted on 01 March 2006 2:29 PM I do not agree about UK position. Royal Navy deserves for sure the second place. Look at the actual amphibious forces and aircraft carriers and future projects. I do not agrre absolutely about the seventh place. Italian navy actually is much more powerful than the German one. First quarter of 2007 with the second new 27.000 tons carrier, Italy will have the third european Navy and for sure the seventh in the world. Germany has only a good technology applied to frigates and submarines but they don't have amphibious assault capabilities and aircraft carriers. Post Reply
Ulysses1006 Joined: 12 February 2006 Posts in this thread: 7	Posted on 01 March 2006 7:02 PM That's the reason why I wrote the conditions in my ranking above. The ranking is about sea superiority. Amphibious forces don't play a role in a sea war and can not be used without sea superiority. And as I wrote for not making to many speculations of the future strength it is limited to units which enter service until 2008. Considering the navies under these conditions, the UK has 3 Light Carriers,8 Type 42 AAW destroyers, 14 Type 23 Frigates (three have been sold to chile), 4 Type 22 frigates, 4SSBNs and 12 SSNs (www.royal-navy.mod.uk) The carriers lack of a real fighter. According to the royal navy website is the primary role to support amphibious forces, everything else is secondary. The only other carrier plane which has less abilities are older Harriers like on indian carriers and brazilian Skyhawks. Comparing the royal navy with the japanese in the areas AAW, ASuW, ASW and Submarines, Japan definetly wins in AAW, having 5 Aegis ships (Kongo-Class) Serveral more destroyers with SM-2 and much more with SM-1. The sensors are more modern as well. Considering ASuW, Japan has 59 Destroyers and frigates, the third largest amount after the U.S. and China. The UK has 18 frigates and 12 submarines for ASuW (AAW destroyers are not fitted for ASuW)and the three carriers which is definetly not enough to compete with the japanese fleet of 59 major combatants and 19 Submarines which are on this high technological level. The same for ASW. Only in the area of Submarines I would say that the UK wins even with less submarines, because these are nuclear powered. You will find similar results for the other navies. Even Chinas AAW ships are better than the UKs, the other navies will introduce some until 2008. France has more surface combatants and a much better carrier which can operate almost the same amount of fighters as the britisch. And the Rafale has a real sea strike capability. The only navy were I see a problem is russia, because we don't know whether all ships are combat ready. Post Reply
Ulysses1006 Joined: 12 February 2006 Posts in this thread: 7	Posted on 01 March 2006 7:20 PM Considering Germany and Italy, it is difficult. You are definetly right if you consider the latest conflicts, because Germany has no amphibious forces. But amphibious forces will not help in a sea war. Until 2008, Germany will have 3 AAW Frigates with APAR and Smart-L, 12 Frigates, primary for ASW and ASuW as well as 2 K-130 Corvettes, 10 Misslie boats and 16 submarines (4 Type 212 with AIP) Italy will have two light carriers (same problem as the british, lack of a real fighter), 1 AAW destroyers from the horizon project, 4 other AAWs with SM-1, 14 Frigates, Corvettes (Without ASuW capabilities)and nine submarines (2 Type 212) In my opinion, Germany still wins in AAW and the area of submarines. Italy is stronger in ASuW. In ASW, both are close together, because some of the italian ships have very weak abilities in ASW. But considering the italian navy after 2008 e.g. until 2015, there is in my opinion no doubt that Italy will be superior about the German Navy with the Horizon project and FREMM even if Germany introduces its F125 and more corvettes. But I limited this thread to 2008 for being close to the reality. Plans can change rapidly until 2015, originally, Germany wanted to built 15 corvettes. I doubt that this will happen and Italy will maybe drop some plans as well. In short words: Currently, I don't see the possibility to one of both is really superior. Post Reply
Turkey1004 Joined: 02 February 2006 Posts in this thread: 4	Posted on 02 March 2006 5:44 AM Ok about Japan and UK if you don't consider amphibious assault as naval strenght. Concerning Italy and Germany I think that the potential italian naval air force displacement in 2008 will be very effective for AAW up to 40 STOVL aircraft. Furthermore, second carrier Cavour will be equipped with PAAMS and Aster 15 missiles for AAW and Andrea Doria Destroyer also with Aster 30. For ASW Italy will have a very effective ASW Helicopter Fleet. It's the first client ( 46 )of new NH90 NFH, very powerful for ASW. Post Reply
Ulysses1006 Joined: 12 February 2006 Posts in this thread: 7	Posted on 02 March 2006 11:56 AM I think we have a slightly different opinion about Aircraft Carrier. Currently Italy has 18 AV8B Harrier II in service. The old carrier is able to carry 16, the new only twelve as it is stated by the italian navy. In my opinion, I don't assess the european Aircraft Carrier as Aircraft Carrier. The STOL carrier have only the same abilities as the US LHDs like e.g. the Wasp class, the spanish and british even don't have amphibious forces on board. The U.S. ships are even stronger. The new italian carrier has almost the abilities as the U.S ships, but it is a little bit smaller. The U.S. ships are made for amphibious assault and are supported by their Harriers. The Harriers are upgraded but still not really suitable for AAW, because they are too slowly. With the new radar and the amraam are they well equipped for BVR-combat against older planes but not for "real" opponents like the Flanker. As I know have the Harriers not the abilities to exchange data with other units and to intercept missles and cruise missles. Therefore, AAW is not really stronger through these planes. Ground attack is the major role. Americans and french even call these ships Aircraft Carriers. If the Amercians would do, they would have 14 additional Aircraft carriers. But the Horizon frigates will improve the AAW abilities. I think these ships are even better as the current AEGIS class ships and APAR/SMART-L, because of the used missles. These are faster and show better performances as e.g. SM-2 in flight abilities. Until 2008, only the Andrea Doria will be in service. With the second ship in service(and the older ships) I would say that italy will have better AAW abilities as Germany with the three Type 124 AAW frigates which are already in service. Post Reply
Turkey1004 Joined: 02 February 2006 Posts in this thread: 4	Posted on 13 March 2006 4:16 AM New italian carrier is a multiporpose one. In fact if italian navy wants to use Cavour only for aircraft carrier the capability is of 24 aircrafts, but it will be dependent by thje mission and I suppose very rare. It's right that at the moment they don't have more than 18 Harrier, even if they are buying 4 more. If you don't want to consider Harriers for air interdiction that can be right for hig performances planes as you told, anyway you have to consider in some way 2 STOVL carriers. So finally I think that German Navy is more powerful for AAW but due to the 2 italian carriers which Aircraft and Helicopters can perform ASUW and ASW better than Germans, I would say, Italy navy wins 2-1. Post Reply
Ulysses1006 Joined: 12 February 2006 Posts in this thread: 7	Posted on 15 March 2006 6:01 PM I don't see that the italian navy wins in ASuW and ASW 2 to 1. 46 NH 90 will enter Service in the italian navy, but no one is in service yet. Germany is getting the NH 90 as well (38 helicopters). As I said, the italian navy is definetly stronger in ASuW, one reason are of course the carriers. But these are not only carrying ASW helicopters. As I know, only 4. Currently, the AB-212 is the major ASW helicopters on frigates and on some units the Seaking. The AB-212 is clearly not as suitable as the German Lynx and Seakings, but Italy has more helicopters. For me, it is not really clear. And if you consider the submarine fleet, Germany has 16 and Italy 9 submarines. Germany has also 12 frigates especially equipped for ASW. If you compare it in the categories AAW, ASuW, ASW by including the submarine fleet. I would say that Germany wins in AAW and ASW. Post Reply

Scrooge1006 Joined: 18 March 2006 Posts in this thread: 1	Posted on 18 March 2006 11:45 AM I strongly believe that UK deserves a better ranking, perhaps right after, or on par, or even better than Japan. Let me confront the Royal Navy to the Japanese Self-Defense Force Navy. First, we should not forget that all British SSNs are equipped with Tomahawk long range cruise missiles (combat proven in 3 wars of Kosovo, Afghanistan, Gulf War) which can pick off surface ships from hundreds of miles away. The first Astute class boat should join the Royal Navy by 2008 so this should add to the surface striking capability. The first type 45 destroyer will join the Royal navy by 2008, and again, this ship is rumored to be armed with Tomahawk if required. If the Royal Navy would have to confront the Japanese Navy (and of course without the US intervention), the Tomahawks will give a serious concern among the 59 destroyers and frigates. Secondly, I will not underestimate the 3 Invisible class aircrafts that carries a total of 20 aircrafts each (although one ship is already mothballed). The Ocean helicopter carrier could be a 4th carrier too which could carry 20 Harriers with some restrictions. I admit the limitations of the Harriers but they are equipped with Sea Eagle anti-ship missiles with ranges of 50 miles. If the Harriers stayed away from the 5 Aegis destroyers, they can pick off majority of the Japanese destroyers or frigates that carries Sea Sparrow SAMs with ranges of only 10 miles. Also, the Royal Navy helicopters are very well trained and equipped for the ASW, and if you add the Type 22/23 frigates which are thought to be one of the best ASW ships, these should give grave concerns against the 16 or so Japanese diesel submarines. . Thirdly, I want to give credit to the experience the Royal Navy gained from the 1982 Falkland War. They fought a campaign 8,000 miles away from the homeland. Let’s talk about sea superiority. A single blow against the Argentine cruiser sent the entire Argentine Navy running back to the port. Lastly, I would say the technically advanced Japanese ships are well trained and run, and they are numerically superior against the Royal Navy ships. Unfortunately, these ships are designed for defense purpose only. The only long range weapons they possess are the medium range Harpoon missiles. Whereas, I believe the Royal Navy’s offensive capabilities and experience I mentioned above overrides Japan’s naval strength. Any comments? Post Reply
Ulysses1006 Joined: 12 February 2006 Posts in this thread: 7	Posted on 21 March 2006 6:50 PM You want to tell me that the RN would beat up Japan, China, Russia and France by experience? 1. Thomahawks are land attack missiles, it can not be used against moving targets like ships. A anti ship version was in service with the USN, but the appearing problem was that the Thomahawk range couldn't be used because the enemy must be within sensor range. So far to the Thomahawk. The RN has no anti-ship version of the Thomahawk, only Harpoon is used and it is not installed on the AAW destroyer. 2. The japanese navy has more than double the amount of major vessels which are more advanced then the british with 11 carrying the SM - 2 with a range about 80 miles. 5 Aegis class ships which is each able to attack up to 18 air targets at the same tim from different directions. All 8 RN destroyers have the same abilities together and a much smaller weapon range. The Type 45 will have the same abilities as the Aegis ships, but it will not enter service before the end of 2009. 3. The second point answers the question whether the Harriers can fire Anti ship missels. The must be 30 miles within japanese weapon range, undiscovered against the SPY-1 radar. It sounds a little bit like kamikaze to me. By the way, japanese helicopters can fire anti ship missles as well 4. UK has 18 frigates with 8 Harpoons, Japan has 59 ships with 8 Harpoons each. There is a significant advantage for the japanese navy in ASuW and AAW fire power. 5. More than half of the japanese ships are built for ASW. Major task is to detect nuclear submarines. They are good trained as well by detecting the chinese nuclear submarines for years. The british submarines are still a serious threat, but it will not be easy going. Japan is dominant in AAW and ASuW, pretty strong in ASW. Has more firepower and more advanced technology. France is on the same technological level but has one more ships than the UK and nuclear submarines (which are much easier to detect than modern non-nuclear submarines with AIP like the German or Italian Type 212) The first new AAW - Frigate will enter service next year using the same system as the british Daring which is delayed. Instead of the three light carriers with up to 60 Harriers, the french navy has the Charles the Gaulle nuclear carrier in service which carries up to 40 Rafales. The most powerful Aircraft carriers outside the U.S. The Harriers would be easy meat for the french fighter. Russia has much more submarines, more major ships, better AAW abilities (Are able to engage more targets at the same time than the RN, more ships equipped for AAW), better AsuW abilities (Supersonic Anti-Ship missles) and a superior Aircraft carrier which would beat up all british Harriers with SU-27 and Mig 29 figthers. The russian strengh is still based on the systems developed during the soviet union, the technology is not up to date but still pretty good. China has even a larger fleet than Japan, but half of the ships are crap. Nevertheless, these ships have still strong ASuW firepower. The PLAN has already 4 ships in service which are built after the AEGIS concept which fixed phased array radar and the abilitiy to engage multiple targets from each direction. Except these four ships, all other ships are strongly threaten by the Harriers. But the PLAN has a much higher fire power and, in this case supersonic anti ship missles and anti ship cruise missles. If the PLAN gets the possibility for over the horizen targeting by its helicopters, the PLAN can attack the RN much earlier. But for this case the RN should be able to shoot down enemy helicopters with its Harriers. But I don't belive that the Harriers will be able to sink the complete chinese fleet. And within weapon range, the chinese ships can use the supersonic anti-ship missles as well as others, in many cases, the chinese ships carry up to 16 missles. I am sure that the old british AAW destroyers can defend the fleet against an attack of supersonic missles. The frigates have only missles for self defence. On the other hand, the chinese will have problems to defend attacks of the royal navy as well. But the RN has clearly less fire power, even with its Aircraft carriers. But if there is a rank which could possibly changed, than it is China and the UK, but I would not bet on it. Post Reply
3 2 1

Copyright © 2003 - 2008 deagel.com. All Rights Reserved.