Saturday, November 22, 2008

Forum :: Equipment :: World Navies Top 15

Page 2 of 3 World Navies Top 15
Author	Oldest to Newest
Libra1003 Joined: 01 April 2006 Posts in this thread: 2	Posted on 01 April 2006 4:58 PM 1. USA 2. UK 3. Australia 4. Japan 5. China 6. Russia (only because they have good subs) 7. Germany 8. India (up and coming in a few years number 4) 9. France 10. Italy 11. Spain 12. Tiawan (they have to be pretty good there lives depend on it) 13. South Korea (same with them) 14. Sweden 15. Isereal Post Reply

Hydra1005 Joined: 03 April 2006 Posts in this thread: 6	Posted on 03 April 2006 4:04 PM Thats a joke on rankings, as Russian naval commanders have "experience" at stalking CBGs off the cost of Washington State and Maine as late as a few years ago. The Chinese have never ventured into Blue Water and played tag with Ohio Class boomers or CBGs. Its like saying the numerical superior Chinese airforce is superior to the smaller F-15 equipped Israeli airforce. Here are my rankings with strength based on quality ships with less than 15 years of age, crewetraining, blue water experience and or extensive proven combat or training exercises. 1. United States 2. Russia (with 12 boomers with experienced commanders and 2 of the Kirov class terrorizing CBGs) 3. United Kingdom (unless they were to enter Japanese territorial waters) 4. France (unless the DeGaulle keeps her props on and keeps up to a fast moving fleet) 5. Japan (World class but do you see their destroyers in the deep Atlantic or off Chile?) 6. Spain 7. Italy 8. Canada (Don't laugh look at the training and combat experience). The Upholders (Victoria class will have the kinks worked outby 2008) 9. Australia 10. Germany 11. Holland 12. Turkey 13. South Korea 14. Sweden 15. Israel Post Reply
Hydra1005 Joined: 03 April 2006 Posts in this thread: 6	Posted on 03 April 2006 4:06 PM My appoligies to India, they should have been included between Canada and Germany. Post Reply
Hydra1005 Joined: 03 April 2006 Posts in this thread: 6	Posted on 03 April 2006 4:23 PM What do you think the of the two DDH "light carriers" from Japan. For the Chinese sake, they were called 'helocopter dstroyers". Its dead weight will be 13,500 tons and its gross weight 20,000 tons with fuel, water and weapons. Not bad or is japan better off building a Luigi or ocean class assault carrier. Or is that constitutional suicide in the Japanese Diet? Will Japan use the 2 or 3 proposed ships to venture or support UN ops off Africa, or in the Middle East in the future (hospital ships don't count)? Post Reply
Hydra1005 Joined: 03 April 2006 Posts in this thread: 6	Posted on 03 April 2006 4:47 PM The German navy is great looking on paper, and I love the new Type 212s U-Boats, very quiet, but the bulk of her subs are 500 ton Type 206s. If a foreign navy ventured into the North Sea, the German Sachsen and Brandenburg Frigates would hold their own against surface combatants, and the Type 212 UBoats would be a nasty quiet surprise. I just can't find the German navy holding its own on a fair playing field in the mid Atlantic or Med sea with the Swiftsure and Trafalgar Class from the UK and or new French Barracuda class SSNs. Post Reply
Ulysses1006 Joined: 12 February 2006 Posts in this thread: 7	Posted on 07 April 2006 10:38 AM On what is your assessment why the UK is ranked higher than Japan? The UK - Fleet is half the size and lacks of modern ships? Don't tell me they can beat AEGIS Systems and double the amount of ships with experience. The only thing they can offer are Light Aircraft Carriers with Harriers. Why should they be better ranked than France with the Charles de Gaulle and a larger fleet? Why is Canada and Australia better ranked than Germany? Post Reply
Hydra1005 Joined: 03 April 2006 Posts in this thread: 6	Posted on 08 April 2006 11:03 AM Japan finds itself at a disadvantage in its maritime rivalry withany experienced navy like Britain's (or China in the near future). They have superior destroyers and they have the world's best ASW. To help the US Navy perform its missions in East Asian waters, Tokyo has developed impressive "niche" capabilities in areas such as anti-submarine warfare and mine-clearance operations. While these capabilities give the US-Japanese naval force a decided edge in naval combat, the skewed Japanese fleet is ill-equipped to go it alone should situations arise that don't engage US interests. Japanese officers today seemingly can't conceive of operating without their US partners. British naval ''Inferiority'' as you promote would be negated by its clear cut strategic naval superiority, with its SSNs. The nuclear attack submarine (SSN) is one of two vessels that signify a country is a major naval power (the other being the aircraft carrier). To date, five countries (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and the People’s Republic of China) have these vessels in service, while at least India is looking into deploying them. The Britis Trafalgar-class of 7 boats is considered on par with the American Los Angeles class. Armed with five 21-inch torpedo tubes, the Trafalgar carries Spearfish torpedoes, along with the Harpoon and Tomahawk missiles. The Trafalgar-class subs (and the Astute-class, an evolved Trafalgar design) are much smaller in number, however, their edge lies in the training of their commanding officers. The British “Perisher” course is arguably the best training for a submarine commander in the world. As for French carrier superiority, the Degaulle rarely leaves port due to its reactor leaks, faulty props (making it 30% slower than planned), and oh yes, its Rafales have nevr seen combat, and no foreign govt. has purchased any, like the Tornado and JSF. The new UK CVF Royal Navy aircraft carriers will be best non-US carriers in the world, and the French have acknowledged that by asking to co-operate on the production of a third. HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, are expected to enter service in 2012 and 2015. They will both displace 55,000t to 65,000t, a size between the USA's 100,000t Nimitz class and the French 43,000t Charles de Gaulle class, and three times larger than the 20,000t UK Invincible class carriers. Post Reply
Libra1003 Joined: 01 April 2006 Posts in this thread: 2	Posted on 10 April 2006 12:21 AM I agree with you on most points although I think your giving entirely too much cradit to the russian navy, the only commanders that have great experience and can probably hang with their western counterparts are the Submarine commanders they dont really have a modern up to date naval force the Russians are very good at building Subs maybe just as good and in some ways better than us Americans but with their money situation their other ships have gone by the wayside and they havent really faught any great sea battles in recent history that I can remember and definatly not on the scale that the Amsericans,British and the Germans have Post Reply
Hydra1005 Joined: 03 April 2006 Posts in this thread: 6	Posted on 12 April 2006 3:02 PM Good points, and yes, my point was that with the Russian Navy being so depleted and rusting away, they still could muster funds in an emergency to deploy her surface fleet. Her submarine forces are a fraction the size of her 1985 peak, but their commanders are well experienced in playing cat and mouse with US CBGs. That is a compliment since we all know that the USN is in a league of its own. The bulk of the surface fleet has reactor and boiler problems, so you can forget 60% of the inventory off the bat. Lets not forget that so called (from a previous post)much smaller(non rusting away ships)Russian surface fleet as what it could do to a Chinese or Japanese fleet (as some on this site advocate are superior). The Sovremenny Class destroyer is similar in size to the USA Navy's Aegis-equipped missile cruisers. It is armed with 48 air defence missiles, eight anti-ship missiles, torpedoes, mines, long-range guns and a comprehensive electronic warfare system. I believe of the 18 that have been built for the Russian Navy , eleven are in service in 2006 according to Janes, six are no longer operational and one more (launched in 1994) is awaiting commission. The Chinese navy has two Sovremenny destroyers, and a further two were to be delivered by the end of 2006, with an option on two more. The ships have the world's best anti-ship cruise missiles (someone mentioined that cruise missiles are not anti shipping weapons previously?). The Moskit SS-N-22 Sunburn is a sea-skimming missile with velocity Mach 2.5 and armed with a 300kg high-explosive warhead or a nuclear 200kt warhead. The range is 120km. This missile is the scurge of the US CBG, and Iran might of purchased 150 of them according to the Guardian. Most Chinese and Russian export surface ships from Russia are equipped with the Moskit or Sunburn (Yank term. Not many people talk about the missile, since it never was fired in combat, but is twice the weapon the Harpoon, or Exocet is in capability. Post Reply
Turkey1004 Joined: 02 February 2006 Posts in this thread: 4	Posted on 24 April 2006 6:33 AM In do not agree about your evaluation of ASW capability of Italy and Germany. In fact the 8 Maestrale Frigates are more specialized in ASW than the F122 Frigates, having torpedoes of both caliber 324mm and 533 mm. Germans only have 324mm. After that from 2002 Italy has developed the new very effective Milas System together with France increasing its ASW capability. Up to 2008 the Marina Militare will have a great part of the NFH90 Helicopters ordered. So definitely I think Italy has a stronger navy tha Germany. Post Reply
3 2 1

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