Top ten most powerful navies in the world

The warships of today's navies, current naval events, ships in the news, etc.
Ludovico
Junior Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: Top ten most powerful navies in the world

Post by Ludovico »

RF wrote: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.
With the introduction of the Queen Elizabeth class the RN will not only improve but become less dependent on NATO for power projection, especially at sea. However, we have to come to terms with the fact that we will always have to rely on NATO and other allies for some capabilities. The Falklands require only to be defended, not to be re-took. The Navy would play a very side lined role in the defence of the Falklands even if we had the big QE class in service now.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7689
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Top ten most powerful navies in the world

Post by RF »

lynn1212 wrote: ..... 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. ...
Comparing a Kamikaze with a Tomohawk missile is facile and really gross hyperbole.

The kamikaze was a hit or miss dive bomber - even on a horizontal trajectory.

A Tomohawk is a computer programmed missile with absolute pinpoint accuracy. Remember those video films from Desert Storm and the second war against Iraq - the missiles were sufficiently pinpoint to penetrate precise parts of buildings including doors, windows and ventilation pipes. The kamikaze was nothing like as accurate or decisive a weapon as a guided missile and many of them were shot down. They didn't push the defence of the time to its limit, the defence of the time simply concentrated its firepower. Iraq had no defense against ''cruise'' missiles. Not one was shot down.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
lynn1212
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 2:41 pm

Re: Top ten most powerful navies in the world

Post by lynn1212 »

compare the tech base available for each time period. the zero was 300 kts but was being countered by manually loaded and human operated weapons some of which were underpowered [20mm]. yes there was fire control for the 40s and 5in but it too was mostly optical and human aimed. even the 40mm was considered light which it was replaced by 3in as soon as possible [after the war]. however accurate the tomahawk is [ which is not a usual anti ship weapon] it like most all anti ship missiles does not change the axis of its attack. usually the only change made is between popup or straight in. most anti ship missiles are subsonic which only gives them double the speed of the zero. they do not hide behind clouds nor duck in and out of showers and they don't change targets at the last minute not do they fly between ships which can cause blue on blue fire. without fighter support WWII weapons were short ranged [ under a few thousand yards except for the 5in]. modern missiles are faster and more accurate but they are also subject to being spoofed by ECM and IR smoke and flares. they are countered by missiles from over the horizon and closer in as well. these weapons are also very accurate but face no jamming. the WWII layered defense was only a mile or three deep. the modern one may be a hundred miles deep not counting fighters. last consider payload. modern skip killers often have a warhead of 2 or 3 hundred pounds. the japanese attackers could carry 1000 pounders and a fair amount of fuel. also their large piston engines were a weapon themselves.
now a more personal note fro what its worth. your comparing desert storm tomahawks to anti ship missiles is also erroneous to a large degree. different guidance systems, targets that could be surveyed within inches and didn't often move. land attack tomahawks are pretty much unjammable but need to be given a fixed reference point to aim at. anti ship missiles need to be guided by means that can be countered. their over the horizon targeting can be messed with [ ecm or killing the guide - chopper, sub, small craft] and their built in guidance can also be defeated [ again jamming , smoke, chaff, stealth]. they also make pretty easy targets since the really don't maneuver all that much.
caribman

Re: Top ten most powerful navies in the world

Post by caribman »

Everyone is placing the Royal Navy too high up based on history. The Royal Navy has no carrier support at this time though there is the promise of the two carriers under construction. Until then the Royal Navy should be scored lower down, though one has to consider her strong submarine fleet
the brain
Junior Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 2:13 pm

Re: Top ten most powerful navies in the world

Post by the brain »

:stop: :stop: :stop:

p: :stop: :stop:Canada will emerge a succesfull navy soon enough. With all of the up grades we are going through it is only a matter of time before the world will see our true potential. We have vast lands from shore to shore that is flowing with natural resources. Hundreds of years worth. We have endless supplies of fresh water and our country is growing every day. Now that the north is opening more due to ice thaws Canada will have to increase their navy and airforce substantially. That will in turn propell us into the next generation. We are in talks for amphibious vessels which will help increase our role in the missions abroad. We have a strong compliment of surface vessels that we can use to form a battlegroup and we have a small submarine fleet for under water observation and protection of such a naval force. With the possible up grade to the F35 we could look towards a VTOL variant, couple that with a heli assault force supported by LCAC's and APC's and we would be a serious contender on any foreign beach. With the vast distances in our Northern region to cover who's to say we don't start looking towards full sized carriers to be able to expand our protection and observation needs. We are a young country in respects to some of the other countrys mentioned in this list and yet in the short time we have exsisted we have done nothing but smile at people and quietly build our country into an industrial powerhouse that has grown and expanded substantially every year. While some of these countrys may have the naval upper hand at this point in time Canada will emerge the naval victor in a few short years i'm sure of it.
prahal joshi

Re: Top ten most powerful navies in the world

Post by prahal joshi »

i think indian navy comes just next US, Russia and PLAN ..it has purchased gud number as well as quality frigates and
1 aircraft carrier in recent couple of years.however though the submarine arm require quite a lot of improvement..number of destroyers should also be increased.
User avatar
RNfanDan
Supporter
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:06 pm
Location: USA

Re: Top ten most powerful navies in the world

Post by RNfanDan »

Wow....I didn't realize there ARE ten navies in the world, today! :lol:
Image
Polaris

Re: Top ten most powerful navies in the world

Post by Polaris »

In my opinion, unless a criteria is designed and agreed, it's not possible to have an "accurate" list which is close to reality. I think the major factors for deciding navy strength are:
1. Quality of hardware (ships, airplanes ...). Weight factor 10.
2. Quality and readiness of operators (army personals). Weight factor 5.
3. Quantity of hardware. Weight factor 1.

US is no doubt the #1, but much more info is needed to see who's 2nd, 3rd ...
lynn1212
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 2:41 pm

Re: Top ten most powerful navies in the world

Post by lynn1212 »

all of the third world navies have a serious problem with graft, theft, and mismanagement which degrades their abilities in several ways. bad equipment or nor enough stuff. poor training. poor living conditions. breakdowns and shoddy repairs. by the way i include russia as third world here
indian

Re: Top ten most powerful navies in the world

Post by indian »

Russians have an obsolete fleet.Its kuzetonov is escorted by tugboats not destroyers and frigates .

PLAN has a large fleet of conventional submarines more than Russian Navy.
Also a dozen destroyers and frigates.

The Royal Navy has 100% nuclear submarine fleet and aHMS Elizabeth and S Prince of Wales ACs .

Indian Navy has 14 conventional submarine fleet.1 Akula class and 1 Arihant SSBN
With 2 under construction and 6 Scorpenes under construction and. It
Has the new 45,000 ton Vikramadityaditya and another 45,000 ton INS Vikrant under construction. It has an Austin -Class LPD . Its also going to float a RFP for 4 Amphibious LHD or LPD while it already has. 9 landing tanks and RFP for 6 next gen submarines.Its plans to build 9 nuclear SSN submarines and a Nuclear powered CATOBAR AC INS Vishal .It also has started the construction of the largest naval base in Eastern hemisphere..Its naval air arm has 220 aircrafts.
It has 9 Destroyers ,15 Frigates, 25 corvettes and 67 auxillary vessels. With 140 vessels more than Royal Navy and French Navy and South Korean Navy.
triranga

Re: Top ten most powerful navies in the world

Post by triranga »

India now has 2 aircraft carriers and 2 more in construction 1 nuclear submarine in commission with upto 3 more being built....the Indian armed forces also has the fastest cruise missile and several frigates and attack submarines ............. almost 50 more ships of various classes will be inducted into service before 2020 and as of 2015 has about 210 vessels at sea ..........and they are incorporating ingeniously aircraft's to their carriers(both fixed wing and rotary wing).............. they have the technology to build almost any war machine man can imagine...........
Guest

Re: Top ten most powerful navies in the world

Post by Guest »

indian wrote:Russians have an obsolete fleet.Its kuzetonov is escorted by tugboats not destroyers and frigates .

PLAN has a large fleet of conventional submarines more than Russian Navy.
Also a dozen destroyers and frigates.

The Royal Navy has 100% nuclear submarine fleet and aHMS Elizabeth and S Prince of Wales ACs .

Indian Navy has 14 conventional submarine fleet.1 Akula class and 1 Arihant SSBN
With 2 under construction and 6 Scorpenes under construction and. It
Has the new 45,000 ton Vikramadityaditya and another 45,000 ton INS Vikrant under construction. It has an Austin -Class LPD . Its also going to float a RFP for 4 Amphibious LHD or LPD while it already has. 9 landing tanks and RFP for 6 next gen submarines.Its plans to build 9 nuclear SSN submarines and a Nuclear powered CATOBAR AC INS Vishal .It also has started the construction of the largest naval base in Eastern hemisphere..Its naval air arm has 220 aircrafts.
It has 9 Destroyers ,15 Frigates, 25 corvettes and 67 auxillary vessels. With 140 vessels more than Royal Navy and French Navy and South Korean Navy.
bro you forgot to mention the induction of hal tejas, rudra and the ongoing design and manufacturing of hal AMCA and DRDO AURA
User avatar
OSCSSW
Junior Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2021 2:47 pm

PLAN ship Numbers

Post by OSCSSW »

This is from The Diplomat April 7 Issue. IMO Mainardi knows what he is talking about. I also think, just as the US military's best friend was the Soviet Union in the annual Budget battles, the PLAN now serves the same purpose for the USN. I also think the island chains being in the hands of US Allies imposes a huge penalty on the PLAN. One point he did not dwell was on the use of Taiwan as very effective "Shield" for US CSGs. The PLAAF attrition rate will be huge as long as Taiwan IADS is even partially intact. By positioning our carriers East of Taiwan we really complicate the chicomms problem of finding them, attacking them and defending against our precision stand off missile "Alpha" Strikes. So while the PLAAF is taking down Tiawan's IADS we are hitting their bases with our Naval and land based air. No matter how you look at it Taiwan is a very tough nut to crack without using Nukes. Do any of you really think the ChiComm leadership wants a nuclear war with the US? I don't.

Those Island chains form choke point the PLAN must transit and it is in the choke points navies die. Even their subs, such as they are forced to use the same choke points. That means ASW forces know where to deploy their assets, which makes a sub's life very, very difficult. It also materially enhances the deadliness of modern sea mines.

Those masses of small missile ships are nothing but easy targets for modern aircraft and anti-ship missiles.

I am assuming dementia Joe, although bought by the Chicomms, may not stay bought and would not deliver on his part of the deal.


Yes, China Has the World’s Largest Navy. That Matters Less Than You Might Think.

China’s fleet relies disproportionately on smaller classes of ships – and U.S. capabilities are bolstered by its allies’ navies.

By Benjamin Mainardi
April 07, 2021

Since the release of the Department of Defense’s “2020 China Military Power Report” this past September, much has been made of China’s securing the title of the “world’s largest navy.” Indeed, the United States Office of Naval Intelligence has confirmed that the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has surpassed the United States Navy in total battle force ships, approximately 360 to 297, with future projections expecting the gap to grow. By 2025, the PLAN is predicted to field as many as 400 vessels whereas the United States plans only to field 355. Quantitative discussions of this sort have fostered an increasing level of hysteria in the U.S. media and even parts of its foreign policy and defense establishments.

What such discussions fundamentally misunderstand about the two fleets, however, are the major differences in force structure as well as the incomparable regional ally differential maintained by the United States. In fact, most discussions about the size of the PLAN inflate its surface warship fleet by including either small coastal patrol ships or its amphibious transports and landing ships.

In order of descending size, the PLAN’s surface force is comprised of two aircraft carriers, one cruiser, 32 destroyers, 49 frigates, 37 corvettes, and 86 missile-armed coastal patrol ships. In addition, China’s submarine fleet includes 46 diesel-powered attack submarines, six nuclear-powered attack submarines, and four ballistic missile submarines. This is further supplemented by the China Coast Guard, which fields roughly 255 coastal patrol ships. In sum, China has a surface warship fleet of 121 vessels, a submarine fleet of 56 platforms, and another 341 coastal patrol ships.

For its part the United States Navy boasts a surface fleet of 11 aircraft carriers, 92 cruisers and destroyers, and 59 small surface combatants and combat logistics ships. Its submarine fleet is comprised of 50 attack submarines, 14 ballistic missile submarines, and four cruise missile submarines. As such, the United States maintains a surface fleet of about 162 vessels, depending on the inclusion of its small combatants and combat logistics ships, and a submarine fleet of 68 platforms.

Here we clearly see that talk of China’s massive navy is rather out of proportion. It should be noted that China’s fleet relies disproportionately on smaller classes of ships, like the frigate and corvette, which are widely considered not to be major surface combatants. Even still, the bulk of its numbers advantage comes from its coastal patrol ships which, while not insignificant, have limited capacity to project power beyond China’s near seas. Further, the United States maintains a massive carrier advantage. Wherever one falls on the debate over the continued viability of aircraft carriers, the fact remains that both states are interested in producing them.

Even more confounding is the conspicuous failure to account for U.S. allies, which are generally referenced only as brief afterthoughts in discussions of the need for the United States to ramp up its naval forces. Ostensibly, the naval buildup is aimed at reassuring U.S. regional allies. Yet the naval forces of such allies are seldom, if ever, part of the equation. At a time when much of the U.S. national security ethos has placed emphasis on “making allies pay their fair share,” it’s a rather paradoxical initiative.

For reference, China’s single formal ally – North Korea – maintains a handful of submarines and coastal patrol vessels. In contrast, the United States has formal military alliances with six Indo-Pacific states – Australia, Japan, New Zealand, the Philippines, South Korea, and Thailand. Moreover, many regional powers – notably India, Indonesia, Singapore, Taiwan, and Vietnam – maintain ever-deepening security relationships with the United States due precisely to concerns over potential threats from China.

While the United States does remain the primary guarantor of security for states such as Japan and South Korea, they are by no means helpless. Indeed, the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force maintains one of the largest surface fleets in the world, containing 51 major surface combatants. Likewise, South Korea’s naval forces total 23 major warships, with eyes on major expansions. Nonetheless, the role of allied fleets goes largely unmentioned in U.S. national security discourse.

All this is not to say that the United States should neglect its naval forces. Far from it, the United States Navy is arguably the most important day-to-day component of the U.S. military on the international stage. Rather, I would encourage a greater degree of skepticism toward distinct force goals. It would likely serve U.S. interests better to shift focus towards modernizing current platforms and investing in developing new systems.

American analysts and commentators would do well to remember that the United States is not alone in its concerns about the expansion of the China’s navy. That calls for the massive enlargement of the United States Navy, notably to 500 vessels, seldom acknowledge the potential roles and contributions of allies is startling.

Benjamin Mainardi is a postgraduate student in the Department of War Studies at King's College London. His research has largely focused on naval affairs and Indo-Pacific security.
"You see those battleships sitting there, and you think they float on the water, don't you?... You are wrong, they are carried to sea on the backs of those Chief Petty Officers!" Admiral William Halsey USN :wink:
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7689
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Top ten most powerful navies in the world

Post by RF »

China's fleet is Pacific - or rather South China Sea centric - whereas the US Navy has worldwide commitments, particulary with NATO and facing off the USSR, sorry, yes its now called Russia.

Comparison of the small size Kriegsmarine in 1939 with the strength of the RN proved to be as misleading in the context of the six years of conflict that ensued.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Post Reply