Top ten most powerful navies in the world

[Karl Heidenreich]

Bgile,

But nowaday is not that easy to attack as in, let`s say, the time of the vikings.

[Legend]

If you have a navy and phassed array coverage then having a long coastline should not be a problem, for when their sensors go off screaming you should have enough time to send your fleet out and intercept them.

[hammy]

I say that one parameter of any "powerful navy" must be the ability to design and produce your own warships . On that basis , none of the South American Navies qualify , and India , which relies on importing its warships would be doubtful for inclusion , especially as it seems only interested in the Indian Ocean .

[Legend]

Doesn't that seem logical though? India is up against one ocean, the Indian Ocean, so they will naturally design their navy to sail and protect those waters.

WHAT IF a US task force wandered through the Indian Ocean and was subsequently attacked and destroyed? Would the Indian Navy count then? Though they do import many of their warships, they are building up quite a force! The amount of power projection being used is not the question here, but how much it has available.

[RF]

I say that one parameter of any "powerful navy" must be the ability to design and produce your own warships .

How many of the Japanese battleships at Tsushima in the 1904 Russo-Japanese War were built in Japan as opposed to British shipyards?

[Gary]

RF is correct.

In the years prior to World war 1, The Armstrong shipyard at Elswick Newcastle Upon Tyne (only about 20 miles from where I live) seemed to specailise in building for foriegn navies and Japan was a leading customer.

I think nowerdays, people would be suprised at the strength of the Brazilian navy - she deserves a mention at least

[hammy]

Sorry , I thought we were talking about today .
Japan had six predreadnoughts at the start of the Russo-Japanese war , losing two to mines .
Plus four Armoured cruisers .
Completely outnumbered by both the Russian Far East Fleet and by the Russian Baltic Fleet .
The Japanese navy was not among the Leading naval powers then , and won by the orthodox method of taking the attack vigourously to the enemy and defeating them in detail .
To a lesser extent the war was a contest between French pattern designs on the Russian side , and British pattern designs on the Japanese side .
All Japanese warships of any size were imported at that time .
Had they been up against the French , US , or British Fleets it is unlikely that the result would have been the same , and as they had no means of replacing any loss from their own yards then ongoing attrition and the difficulty in obtaining spares would have doomed them in the end .
( Pass the Vodka , someone ! )

[hammy]

The point about it being necessary to have your own capability to design , build , crew and have the human element study their profession , is that If you cant do that then you can be powerful today , but that power is temporary and held by the tolerance of your supplier .
For example , there would be nothing to stop the Saudi's buying a couple of big CVs , four big Aegis style cruisers , half a dozen missile destroyers , and a dozen frigates and corvettes , support ships for them , and all the trimmings , but 20 or 30 years down the line you are looking at a heap of scrap metal run up that beach in Pakistan . And if they were ever silly enough to get into a scrap with the west , they would be lucky to get more than a remnant out to sea after 18 months .
Perhaps we need to add a factor of the ability to maintain the state of power from your own resources .

[RF]

Or use different suppliers and building up a stock of spares etc.

The key factor is in keeping up with the supply and developments in technology long term - and it is an expensive option.

Another approach is to obtain financial interests in your supplier - and relocate some or ultimately all of the facilities. That in turn creates issues in the donar country - inward investment in its own industries versus strategic control of your industries. Some of the capability can of course be exported to the donee country on licence, a sort of halfway house.

[yellowtail3]

For example , there would be nothing to stop the Saudi's buying a couple of big CVs , four big Aegis style cruisers , half a dozen missile destroyers , and a dozen frigates and corvettes , support ships for them , and all the trimmings , but 20 or 30 years down the line you are looking at a heap of scrap metal run up that beach in Pakistan . And if they were ever silly enough to get into a scrap with the west , they would be lucky to get more than a remnant out to sea after 18 months .
Perhaps we need to add a factor of the ability to maintain the state of power from your own resources .

I've thought for years we oughta auction off a couple of them...

[RF]

The US is a major arms supplier to Saudi Arabia as it is.....

[yellowtail3]

The US is a major arms supplier to Saudi Arabia as it is.....

yeah... but as mentioned, auctioning off a couple battle groups - heck, let's throw in a couple SSNs - will ensure they'll have to keep paying, and they wouldn't be able to make great use of them for a while, anyways.

On the downside - lots of aircrew/maintenance troops will leave the USN to make a quarter mil a year for the kingdom...

[RF]

While they are there Obama can keep those Saudi oilfields on side from the Islamic religous fruitcakes......

[AngloSaxonVangaurd]

1. United States
2. United Kingdom
3. France
4. Russia
5. Japan
{Gap}
6. China
7. South Korea
8. Italy
9. India
10. Spain

Technologhy, combined firepower, seaman ship, geographic location all count.

Numbers are worthless. For example, a Chinese destroyer/frigate flotila pose a danger to French naval base in the Indian ocean, the French dispatch their Carrier (CDG) and a flotila of 2x anti air frigates and 2x anti/multi role frigates along with 1x supply ship and 1x SSN..........though a smallish force compared with a 8+ flotila of Chinese destroyers/frigates and a few supply ships and SSK/SSNs, the combined firepower of shophisticated French weponry, French seaman ship and superiour technologhy would garuntee a French victory.

The age of industrial warfare of cheep vessels and mass numbers is over, this is not WW2, we live in an age of technologhical warfare.

Nimtz supercarriers are obsolete, its nuclear reactors and dated design make for a very very non-stealthy ship. Any enemy submarine tagging along a USCBG would pose a massive threat.

Think about it, an over sized non stealthy supercarrier protected by a flotila of stealthy Burke class destroyers and an SSN hahaha, that Supercarrier with 5k+ sailors might as well send a message to that submarine saying your wellcome to take my ass boys lol that supercarrier just sticks out like a sore thumb.

Now the new fordclass will include much better stealth features, infact the new British Queen elizabeth class will be even more stealthy thanks to a much more quiet engine, but the dated nimitz is a thing of the past and sadd to say it will make up the majority of the US navys carrier force for the next 30 years and by that time the Ford and Queen eliz class will also be obsolete...........I hardly doubt in a ww3 scenario the USA will put to sea a vunerable Nimitz carrier holding 5k+ lives........

[Bgile]

An aircraft carrier is never really obsolete if she can operate the latest aircraft, and if you think any ship that is 50,000 or more tons can be made steathy I believe you are mistaken. Also, nuclear power is the ideal source of power for a carrier. I don't dispute that they appear to be vulnerable right now, but that is true of less capable carriers like the new British ships as well as the Nimitz class. Whether they are actually as vulnerable as you think is something I doubt either of us can determine with any certainty.