Naval History Forums

Bgile wrote:Third world countries are being supplied with modern submarines by european builders. They are very hard to detect, and modern torpedoes are very destructive.

The reason the Falklands campaign was so difficult for the British is they lacked an airborne early warning aircraft. The Harrier is also not an ideal interceptor. If they had still had F4s and Gannetts the Argentine butcher's bill would have been even higher and British losses would probably have been much lower.

I would not be surprised to lose CVNs to the Chinese. They are extremely useful, but they could indeed be overwhelmed and even one torpedo hit would force one to go home for lengthy repairs.

I was not aware Europe was building submarines for export; thanks for the info. Also i might add that if the British became efficient U-boat hunters in WW2, i would have thought that today it should be even "easier" to track enemy submarines.

The Falklands is far from being my "favorite" conflict to read about, but what i know about it is more than enough to make a point: nasty surprises can happen. I do not know whether the Royal Navy´s command was saying when planning the response to the Argentinian attack: "Well, we do not have airborne early warning aircraft, therefore we will surely have significant losses..."

If a 3rd world country´s air force alone managed to put critical pressure on a naval task force belonging to a 1st world country [although possibly the Royal Navy entered the fray relying more on its historic weight rather than the actual combat prowess they had in the 80s], then Russia [and also probably China and India in a second place] is perfectly and comfortably capable of delivering a blow that is perhaps impossible to describe in its whole scope, and i am not talking nuclear warheads involved, just conventional warheads...

I recall how i was shocked to see a documentary of some anniversary of the Falklands war, where the British commander of the Task Force admits to his interviewer the Royal Navy was it "its limit", and that if some Argentinian bombs that hit some critical British ships had exploded -they were duds-, and the Argentinian conscripts in the Islands had not surrendered, his task force would have abandoned operations and sail back to England with the tail between the legs.

Submarines have a big advantage today. They are much harder to detect than they were in WW2, even considering advances in detection equipment.

I think the Royal Navy should be a bit higher and the Japanese a bit lower, but well done though!

Molot wrote: I recall how i was shocked to see a documentary of some anniversary of the Falklands war, where the British commander of the Task Force admits to his interviewer the Royal Navy was it "its limit", and that if some Argentinian bombs that hit some critical British ships had exploded -they were duds-, and the Argentinian conscripts in the Islands had not surrendered, his task force would have abandoned operations and sail back to England with the tail between the legs.

And when he got back home he would be soundly ''handbagged '' by Margaret Thatcher.

celticmarine10 wrote:I think the Royal Navy should be a bit higher and the Japanese a bit lower, but well done though!

Why the Japanese lower?

Now that the Ark Royal has been decommissioned, where would you place the Royal Navy in the Top 10 list?

The way we are going with our governments policy of disarmament probably straight out of the top ten.

It's much difficult to rank forces of the world. Normally, these forces are rank on the basis of ships, crafts, soldiers etc. It can't be a criteria to rank.

The US Navy will remain the most powerful navy for many years to come. I would change the order of the navies. We cannot forget experience. In this the respect the number 2 slot would have to be the Royal Navy. They have essentially been on a war footing since 9/11 along with the American Navy. After that he number 4 slot (after Russia with thier nuclear subs) would be shared by the Spanish and Japanese navies for the simple fact that they have the AEGIS systems. This system gives them the edge over the Chineese and Indian navies.

jack9999 wrote: T.... the number 2 slot would have to be the Royal Navy. They have essentially been on a war footing since 9/11 along with the American Navy.

Has it? Britain under Cameron is dis-arming to save money. Don't be fooled by the action over Libya, that was only done with the back-up of the French and Americans.

This is a complex question to answer without establishing some parameters. As an example, the Chinese navy would clearly be more powerful than say the French, Spanish or Italian navies in home waters of the Pacific, however the Chinese navy would be hard pressed to project its power far beyond home waters, with its present resources. That would be true for most navies, with the US, British and French navies being the best at power projection. Technology is a key factor in naval warfare, but we cannot discount experience and training. Things like damage control are critically important, and proved their worth in WWII, especially in the Pacific. These factors must be added. As an example, the Russian navy looks good on paper, with a relatively large fleet and modern warships, but when one takes a closer look it all starts to unravel. Many ships would be unable to leave port, crew experience is low, well below standard for most western navies, and most crews would not be able to use their technology to its full extent.
The Indian navy is another example. They have a relatively large fleet, though projecting power beyond its shores would be very difficult, a good number of modern warships and some leftover traditions from the royal navy. However, when I was posted to India their navy had repeated accidents at sea where their ships caught fire and were severely damaged, being put out of service for months at a time. This is during peace time. One can only imagine what would happen during wartime.
One should also not underestimate the size of a navy. While both Spain and Italy have carriers, one good missile or torpedo hit would immediately illuminate that capability. In addition, how effective would a handful of Harriers be in high paced, intense combat against a modern enemy? Would a dozen Harriers be able to do damage to the Chinese navy?

Sorry for such a long post, but I don’t think the question can be answered easily or simply. The US Navy remains number one, far ahead of all others because of its technological advantage, size, crew experience and training, as well as being able to project its power anywhere in the world. After that, things become murky. The British and French navies can project power, of a limited nature, maybe half a dozen combatants. That would be sufficient to take on a small nation, one with limited naval capability or less advanced air force, but unlikely to defeat China, India or Russia by themselves. These latter countries would have the same problems. So how do we judge? Is this a scenario where the navies are placed in a wide swath of sea and start going after each other in a simple death match? Or is it a real world scenario where things like refueling, resupply, power projection, and similar factors are taken into account?

agesilaos wrote: Would a dozen Harriers be able to do damage to the Chinese navy?

There are some very good points in this post and the analysis leaves little to disagree with.

One observation - the RN had only a dozen or so Harriers in the Falklands campaign, which largely kept the Argentine surface fleet trapped in its home waters. Given how far the RN was operating from its home bases and the long supply chain, that was quite an achievement.
That was thirty years ago - but it still suggests that the answer to the quoted question above might be yes.

The US Navy remains number one, far ahead of all others because of its technological advantage, size, crew experience and training, as well as being able to project its power anywhere in the world. After that, things become murky. The British and French navies can project power, of a limited nature, maybe half a dozen combatants.

I very much agree with this statement, however, the Royal Navy and French Navy can most certainly [and independent of allies] project naval power with more than half a dozen combatants. Any nation with a touch of naval ambition can project power of a limited nature - it would be a gross underestimation of UK and French naval capabilities to throw them in with 2nd or 3rd tier naval powers.

Admittedly the Royal Navy is at its weakest point since the 1500s, but its situation will only improve.

I hope the situation for the RN will improve, but Britain is becoming increasingly dependent on its NATO allies to remain an effective fighting force at long range.

It is on issues such as the Falklands, where Britain may not have NATO or US support, where the question of capability arises.

Incidently with respect to the Falklands there has been an announcement by the UK Government that they are to spend £150 million on construction of an inmternational airport for St Helena - an airport that will only take flights from South Africa and Ascension Island. I suspect that a miliary capability is included in this ''development'' package.

i would note that the USN never lost an essex class carrier even when threatened by the divine wind which was in fact a cruse missile attack that pushed the defense of the time to its limit. attacks of 50 or more were common but while lesser ships were killed the top targets went largely safe. none sunk and very few even mission killed for any length of time. even the light carriers only lost one ship. the layered defense was developed and proven in the last part of WWII. today's cruise missiles are not that much faster for the most part but the defenses are much stronger. even the best missile lacks the flexibility of a human pilot both in defense and offense. CVNs may be hit and even mission killed [ for how long may be in question. WWII experience showed that even what appeared to be a badly wounded ship could often be returned to action in hours or days] i would consider the sinking of one to be a long shot at best.