What's new

The 5 Most Deadly Navies in Asia

SvenSvensonov

PROFESSIONAL
Oct 15, 2014
1,618
207
9,882
Country
United States
Location
Sweden
you think Russian and Indian navy are weaker then the Navies listed in article in Asia. You call yourself a professional :rofl:
I mentioned them in my analysis on page four. Take a look. Also, I'm not a professional dickmeasurer or military strategist, I'm an electronic warfare wizard, so yes, I do call myself a professional.
 

nvKyleBrown

FULL MEMBER
Jul 17, 2014
473
1
425
Country
United States
Location
United States
Why is USA in the list?

Why India and Russia not in list?
India could make a better claim than Russia, which is spread very thin in naval assets. Russia doesn't really have an compelling interests in the Pacific - just there to annoy Japan and the US really. Their focus for the last 100 years has been Europe. Nobody is going to invade Kamchatka. Sakhalin might be of interest to Japan, but given current Japanese culture and politics, it's not going to happen.

The US has one carrier permanently stationed in Japan, and Guam is a US territory with a substantial military presence. If Japan is an Asian naval power without a CATOBAR carrier, you'd have to think that the US carrier in Japan makes the US an Asian naval power too.

Not to mention treaties and agreements with many other countries in the region, and the best naval power projection and logistic capability in the world, bar none. USN is an every-ocean navy. Only a few inland/restricted waters pose any trouble (e.g. Black Sea).

If you want to exclude the USN from the list, as a way to compare just the regional players, make it "The 5 Asian countries with the Most Deadly Navies" I suppose.
 

timetravel

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 10, 2012
2,665
-1
1,606
Country
India
Location
India
I mentioned them in my analysis on page four. Take a look. Also, I'm not a professional dickmeasurer or military strategist, I'm an electronic warfare wizard, so yes, I do call myself a professional.
Oops, My mistake. You did include India, Russia :) Thanks :)
 

Shotgunner51

RETIRED INTL MOD
Jan 6, 2015
6,131
46
20,172
Country
China
Location
China
My list of the Top 5 Asian navies ( including U.S)

Based on their Naval capabilities & capacity to execute the necessary missions
1. U.S. Navy
2. JMSDF
3. People’s Liberation Army Navy
4. Indian Navy
5.
ROK Navy

Based on their ability to win a Naval war in Asian waters
1. U.S. Navy
2. People’s Liberation Army Navy
3. Indian Navy
4.JMSDF
5. ROK Nav
y

Based on the quality standard of Naval forces
1. U.S. Navy
2.JMSDF
3. ROK Navy
4.Republic of Singapore Navy (RSN)
5.People’s Liberation Army Navy
I think James Hardy's examination in more in-line with your "Based on the quality standard of Naval forces" so his list is close to yours. And I concur with that
1 USN
2 JMSDF
3 ROKN
4 RSN (or swap position with ROKN)
5 PLAN (or taken by Russian Nany, very close anyway)

I would say comparing quality to size is more like comparing per capita GDP to total GDP, hence the angle is very different. These maybe considered in quality of a navy:
- Per capita investment, defense spend
- Per capita tech spend (a way to measure how mush hardware is thrown upon the navy, an indirect way to measure how hi-tech it is)
- Hours of formal training
- Combat experience
- Quality of personnel (e.g. education, comparative salary). Modern navy are hi-tech, and require highly skilled personnel
- Quality of leadership
- Maturity of protocols
- Morale, spirit, courage, shared value. Heritage is important, it plays a critical role in the combat capability
Etc etc. Just some thoughts for sharing. So seems countries more advanced in economy, tech and education will rank higher in this list.
 
Last edited:

timetravel

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 10, 2012
2,665
-1
1,606
Country
India
Location
India
India could make a better claim than Russia, which is spread very thin in naval assets. Russia doesn't really have an compelling interests in the Pacific - just there to annoy Japan and the US really. Their focus for the last 100 years has been Europe. Nobody is going to invade Kamchatka. Sakhalin might be of interest to Japan, but given current Japanese culture and politics, it's not going to happen.

The US has one carrier permanently stationed in Japan, and Guam is a US territory with a substantial military presence. If Japan is an Asian naval power without a CATOBAR carrier, you'd have to think that the US carrier in Japan makes the US an Asian naval power too.

Not to mention treaties and agreements with many other countries in the region, and the best naval power projection and logistic capability in the world, bar none. USN is an every-ocean navy. Only a few inland/restricted waters pose any trouble (e.g. Black Sea).

If you want to exclude the USN from the list, as a way to compare just the regional players, make it "The 5 Asian countries with the Most Deadly Navies" I suppose.
I have no problems with US being in the list.

But India, China, US, Russia are the top 4 Navies in Asia without any doubt. (Exact positions can vary depending upon viewpoint and area of Warfare being Indian Ocean, SCS etc)

Anyone from Japan or Korea (or if someone prefers some other country)could claim the 5th rank no problems.
 

Shotgunner51

RETIRED INTL MOD
Jan 6, 2015
6,131
46
20,172
Country
China
Location
China
I have no problems with US being in the list.

But India, China, US, Russia are the top 4 Navies in Asia without any doubt. (Exact positions can vary depending upon viewpoint and area of Warfare being Indian Ocean, SCS etc)

Anyone from Japan or Korea (or if someone prefers some other country)could claim the 5th rank no problems.
The fact is that JMSDF has only around 50,000 personnel, ROKN has 67,000 (incl 25,000 marines), and RSN as small as 4,500. The list is to compare quality of navies, not size.

No one needs to build at that scale any more. :tup:

There are no more open wars between the great powers.

Though of course having a large industrial base is never a bad thing, and China/America/Japan still have the largest manufacturing bases in the world.
Scale is off-topic here, but You and @nvKyleBrown are both right, industrial base in China/US/Japan is important to sustain future hi-intensity and prolonged war. Lessons to learn for China:
- Manchu Dynasty bought themselves at time the biggest fleet in Asia from overseas, still end up lost to Japan's smaller but self-sufficient navy.
- Yamamoto Isoroku saw Japan's relative weakness in manufacturing potential before Pearl Harbor and was one the few who voted against war with US, and as nsKyleBrown pointed out, they finally got out run by US's gigantic production machine.
 

xunzi

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 18, 2013
4,744
-2
10,973
Country
China
Location
United States
Size plays a big role in any warfare so as the capability to replace lost one. When it comes to naval strategy, it is pretty clear we don't even think of Japan. We focus on the USN, so having the USN on top is fine with us as they have deadly submarine. As far as India, they deserve to be 4 but their operational submarine is pathetic. They can't even fix it, maintain, or know how to utilize it.
 

Aepsilons

ELITE MEMBER
May 29, 2014
24,976
118
35,590
Country
Japan
Location
United States
I think outside the US, Japan and Australia, there aren't many people that really get the size, scope and nature of the Pacific naval war in WWII. Started out reasonably even, but by the end, IJN had been reduced to a punching bag.

We talk about carrier construction sometimes - during the war, the US produced 27 aircraft carriers in the 30,000 ton class, in addition to producing 211 subs, 349 destroyers, 48 cruisers, 10 battleships, 100+ lighter carriers, and ~80,000 landing craft. Numbers vary a bit by source, but pretty impressive. There were some qualitative advantages by the end, but mostly Japan lost due to being wildly outproduced.

No one anywhere builds like that now.
At the beginning of the Second World War, the Japanese Navy (or, in the Japanese language, Nihon Kaigun, or even Teikoku Kaigun, the Imperial Navy) was arguably the most powerful navy in the world. Its naval aviation corps, consisting of 10 aircraft carriers and 1500 topnotch aviators, was the most highly trained and proficient force of its kind. Its 11 (soon to be 12) battleships were among the most powerful in the world. And its surface forces, armed with the superb 24" Type 93 (Long Lance) torpedo.

Collectively -- this was the full strength of the Imperial Japanese Navy throughout the Great Pacific War

Battleships : 12
Fleet Carriers: 21
Light Carriers: 4
Cruisers: 44
Destroyers: 169
Submarines: 171

----------------------------------------

The war of attrition --- and the eventuality of America breaking the Japanese Naval Code --- led to the American upper hand throughout the rest of the war. Tho, the Imperial Navy fought gloriously to the end.
 

xunzi

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 18, 2013
4,744
-2
10,973
Country
China
Location
United States
We conquered French Indochina in 5 days, the Symbol of British Power (Singapore) collapses to is in 7 days. The Dutch , we eviscerated as well. The force that drained our resources were the Americans. It was the US Navy that broke the Imperial Navy. Thus I have utmost respect for their adaptive ability and capability.

JMSDF --- we only really fear one power --- the USN.

Even the PLAN -- we do not fear them as much as the USN.
Give me a break, my friend. The British focus entirely on Nazi threat and you are just a secondary force in the Axis Alliance. In fact, this is how you easily conquered Southeast Asia as the two powers (Britain and France) were busy fighting the Nazi.
 

GoGetIt

FULL MEMBER
Dec 11, 2014
125
-1
282
Country
China
Location
China
Indian Navy:
Delhi-class destroyer x3
Kolkata-class destroyer x1
Rajput-class destroyer x5
Talwar class Frigate x6
Aircraft carrier x2
Godavari-class frigate x3
Brahmaputra-class frigate x3
Shivalik-class frigate x3
Shishumar-class submarine x4

Sindhughosh-class submarine x8

It seems that Indian navy is not as strong as indians think,a lot of ships are quite old and out-of-date:-)








As for Japan,most of their destroyer are for air defense,and they don‘t have aircraft carrier battle groups like US,so they lack of attack ability now.
 

Shotgunner51

RETIRED INTL MOD
Jan 6, 2015
6,131
46
20,172
Country
China
Location
China
Size plays a big role in any warfare so as the capability to replace lost one. When it comes to naval strategy, it is pretty clear we don't even think of Japan. We focus on the USN, so having the USN on top is fine with us as they have deadly submarine. As far as India, they deserve to be 4 but their operational submarine is pathetic. They can't even fix it, maintain, or know how to utilize it.
Naturally size is critical to total combat capability, but the key takeaway from this list is that PLAN should see areas that it lags behind the advanced navies (big or not, be it RSN or even Israeli Navy if it matters) so that it knows what needs to be improved.

A bit off-topic, but say JMSDF shouldn't be undermined. The strategic opponent of PLAN is USN + JMSDF + ROKN + RSN (maybe even TW Navy) combined, in which JMSDF plays critical role in anti-sub warfare, and that's why PLAN should seriously look into "how good" are their combat capabilities, not just "how big". About India, its doesn't matter for the time being.
 
Last edited:

xunzi

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 18, 2013
4,744
-2
10,973
Country
China
Location
United States
You can cite any battles you want. Fact is the British navy's MAIN FOCUS is to defend British main territory and fight against the Nazi in the Mediterranean. Their force in Southeast Asia is secondary and why they don't immediately send reinforcement. Distance and also they divert their force attention to the Nazi. It is also why after the defeat of the Nazi, your force were so pathetic and easily destroyed when they started to focus on the Pacific front. The amount ships they sink you on a daily basis is extraordinary.

Naturally size is critical to total combat capability, but the key takeaway from this list is that PLAN should see areas that it lags behind the advanced navies (big or not, be it RSN or even Israeli Navy if it matters) so that it knows what needs to be improved.

A bit off-topic, but say JMSDF shouldn't be undermined. The strategic opponent of PLAN is USN + JMSDF + ROKN + RSN combined, in which JMSDF plays critical role in anti-sub warfare, and that's why PLAN should seriously look into "how good" are their combat capabilities, not just "how big". About India, its doesn't matter for the time being.
Our main strategy had always been seeking to limit US's involvement and we will be the winner. That is why our AA/AD doctrine is entirely made up to target the USN, not Japan. Without USA, Japan can be defeated. Although difficult but prolong, they won't stand a chance.
 

Aepsilons

ELITE MEMBER
May 29, 2014
24,976
118
35,590
Country
Japan
Location
United States
Naturally size is critical to total combat capability, but the key takeaway from this list is that PLAN should see areas that it lags behind the advanced navies (big or not, be it RSN or even Israeli Navy if it matters) so that it knows what needs to be improved.

A bit off-topic, but say JMSDF shouldn't be undermined. The strategic opponent of PLAN is USN + JMSDF + ROKN + RSN combined, in which JMSDF plays critical role in anti-sub warfare, and that's why PLAN should seriously look into "how good" are their combat capabilities, not just "how big". About India, its doesn't matter for the time being.
The Japanese Navy --- is not just proficient in submarine warfare, which it is quite proficient in --- but she is developing not only her fleet carrier force (6 helicopter carriers: 2 osumi class, 2 hyuga class, 2 izumo class), has a formidable amount of destroyers (+ BMD capabilities vis-a-vis the Atago class and Kongo class et al). One thing that should be emphasized is that Japan is developing + enlarging her amphibious warfare capabilities-- and is resurrecting the Rikusentai (the maritime ground force of the Imperial Navy) to meet the needs of this century's future exigency.

I expect to see the Japanese Navy deployed overseas within this decade.

You can cite any battles you want. Fact is the British navy's MAIN FOCUS is to defend British main territory and fight against the Nazi in the Mediterranean. Their force in Southeast Asia is secondary and why they don't immediately send reinforcement. Distance and also they divert their force attention to the Nazi. It is also why after the defeat of the Nazi, your force were so pathetic and easily destroyed when they started to focus on the Pacific front. The amount ships they sink you on a daily basis is extraordinary.
Nevertheless -- the Allied Powers were eviscerated -- Dutch, British, French. The only ones who mattered were the Americans -- who drew out most of Japan's resources. It was they (Americans) who had the qualitative and quantitative edge -- and took majority of Japan's military resources. Afterall, it was they (Americans) that broke our naval code --- and pin pointed our future positions. The British, French, Dutch, et al -- never were capable of accomplishing this.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom