The top 20 Navies - in your opinions?

[Jade]

US
Russia
China
UK
Japan
...

The rest are not real players!

From TTs more insight is expected on ranking, not mere listing the names, after all you people are the brain behind the forum.

On the issue, I see China and India to be the rising stars, while most in top 10 are stagnant, China and India are not. They in fact are increasing their Navy budgets by leaps and bounds. With future acquisition of two more AC groups with around 80 Rafales M or F-35's on board, half a dozen more nuke submarines, and SLBMs, India is a rising star.

With in just ten years, the rankings will be

US
China
Russia
India
UK

...

Rest.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

I think this is exactly what the MOD and the IN is out to address by inducting - more A/c's, a dozen more Subs, a 100 odd new large vessels, recon aircrafts, 4th and 5th gen fighters, Special strike forces, sub launched missiles etc.

I think their target is to feature in the top 4 navies in the world in the near future.

First of all; AFAIK MoD and the IN are not all looking at the 'Billboard Top 10' rankings or even seeing the IN appear on this thread in PDF. Let the Somalis, Mongolians, Nepalis and Swiss do that.

Now let us understand what the IN sees as its area of operations: from Straits of Bab-el-Mandeb and Sea of Oman to Mallacca Straits and then southwards to south of Sumatra and Seychelles . Now if you overlap the fleet growth plans you can see how this overlaps on this area of Ops. Why do you think (for instance) MoD has fast-tracked the acquisition of P-8Is along with the inevitable follow-on orders. This is the area where IN wants to have the capacity to both monitor and control movements.

So far as ASEAN is concerned, India's Look East policy is not a Gunboat policy ala the 'Agadir'. Actually it has all the overtones of a 'softly-softly' method which will work better. The ASEAN area is rather volatile and is a state of flux. Realignments are bound to happen and the littoral countries in that region will interact more with India going into the future as will Australia.

One important thing to understand is how the Indian Peninsula and offshore islands command the area of Ops for the IN. There can be no better A/C than this. Will that not explain why the Southern Air Command of the IAF has gained prominence in recent years.
And its not even part of the IN.

 

[illusion8]

First of all; AFAIK MoD and the IN are not all looking at the 'Billboard Top 10' rankings or even seeing the IN appear on this thread in PDF. Let the Somalis, Mongolians, Nepalis and Swiss do that.

Now let us understand what the IN sees as its area of operations: from Straits of Bab-el-Mandeb and Sea of Oman to Mallacca Straits and then southwards to south of Sumatra and Seychelles . Now if you overlap the fleet growth plans you can see how this overlaps on this area of Ops. Why do you think (for instance) MoD has fast-tracked the acquisition of P-8Is along with the inevitable follow-on orders. This is the area where IN wants to have the capacity to both monitor and control movements.

So far as ASEAN is concerned, India's Look East policy is not a Gunboat policy ala the 'Agadir'. Actually it has all the overtones of a 'softly-softly' method which will work better. The ASEAN area is rather volatile and is a state of flux. Realignments are bound to happen and the littoral countries in that region will interact more with India going into the future as will Australia.

One important thing to understand is how the Indian Peninsula and offshore islands command the area of Ops for the IN. There can be no better A/C than this. Will that not explain why the Southern Air Command of the IAF has gained prominence in recent years.
And its not even part of the IN.

My statement there was not in the literal sense but more on the capabilities sense..I think I have that much sense at least to know that the IN would not be formulating plans based on a "Top 10 listing" neither would be they be interested on making an appearance on PDF with their capabilities.

 

[Speeder 2]

Key point: only indigenous tech count.


If no, Saudi or Ethiopia or Solomon Islands would become #2 if it buys a CV, Aegis destroyers, and some N-subs from the US.

Or for another example who has the most powerful racing-cars, Ferrari or I? I surely, if i buy several top line Ferrari from Ferrari to pitch against the average Ferrari from Ferrari then? Even if My Ferrari lose to Ferrari, i am still more powerful than Nissan, Renault, WV, Ford then? clearly as anyone can see that this is not rational as imported tech should not count.

So it's critical for any ranking that all key and turnkey technolgies and sub-systems such as radars, missiles & other major weapon systems, n-reactres, other power-systems, ship-borne planes, AWACs, HELOs, etc, etc, MUST be indigenous.

This, seperates the true naval powers and the wannabes.


Then we have:


1. US


2. Russia & China & UK & France & Japan - roughly in the same league currently with Russia in the lead.

- Russia: the quality and the quantity of Russia N-subs renders it the leader of this group, even though its surface fleet is less advanced than the rest.


- China: the quality and size of advanced Aegis-equivalent surface fleet are fastly catching up, with the biggest growth momentum in this group.

- UK / France: about the same level on N-subs (UK's missiles are imported from the US though, same with ship-borne warplanes F-35 and possible AWACs)... UK better at destroyers while FR has a CV.

- Japan : current Aegis surface fleet, the largest within the group, is even better than Russia and China(some areas of key tech such as Aegis radar, missiles, etc. depending on the US though)...coventional subs are amongst teh top of the world and with decent quantity, but lacking critical N-subs and CV capabilities due to restrictions.

Within 5-10 years,however, China would likely become #1 in this group due to sheer incease of numbers of Aegis-equivalent destroyers and CVs(tranditional and/or n-powered). its N-subs, despite of improvement, may be still behind Russia/UK during the said time frame, though.


The rest are jokes : either too small to compare, or with >90% key tech imported, I mean "indigenous" in case of India, from above countries.

 

[Indrajith]

Key point: only indigenous tech count.


If no, Saudi or Ethiopia or Solomon Islands would become #2 if it buys a CV, Aegis destroyers, and some N-subs from the US.

Or for another example who has the most powerful racing-cars, Ferrari or I? I surely, if i buy several top line Ferrari from Ferrari to pitch against the average Ferrari from Ferrari then? Even if My Ferrari lose to Ferrari, i am still more powerful than Nissan, Renault, WV, Ford then? clearly as anyone can see that this is not rational as imported tech should not count.

So it's critical for any ranking that all key and turnkey technolgies and sub-systems such as radars, missiles & other major weapon systems, n-reactres, other power-systems, ship-borne planes, AWACs, HELOs, etc, etc, MUST be indigenous.

This, seperates the true naval powers and the wannabes.


Then we have:


1. US


2. Russia & China & UK & France & Japan - roughly in the same league currently with Russia in the lead.

- Russia: the quality and the quantity of Russia N-subs renders it the leader of this group, even though its surface fleet is less advanced than the rest.


- China: the quality and size of advanced Aegis-equivalent surface fleet are fastly catching up, with the biggest growth momentum in this group.

- UK / France: about the same level on N-subs (UK's missiles are imported from the US though, same with ship-borne warplanes F-35 and possible AWACs)... UK better at destroyers while FR has a CV.

- Japan : current Aegis surface fleet, the largest within the group, is even better than Russia and China(some areas of key tech such as Aegis radar, missiles, etc. depending on the US though)...coventional subs are amongst teh top of the world and with decent quantity, but lacking critical N-subs and CV capabilities due to restrictions.

Within 5-10 years,however, China would likely become #1 in this group due to sheer incease of numbers of Aegis-equivalent destroyers and CVs(tranditional and/or n-powered). its N-subs, despite of improvement, may be still behind Russia/UK during the said time frame, though.


The rest are jokes : either too small to compare, or with >90% key tech imported, I mean "indigenous" in case of India, from above countries.

How do you compare Russia with China -- Russia have a real Blue water Navy & what about China

France they have the best technology in submarines & what about china

To be frank if Indian Navy is joke then Chinees is in par nothing better or tell me with a substantial evidence or point

 

[ANPP]

Key point: only indigenous tech count.


If no, Saudi or Ethiopia or Solomon Islands would become #2 if it buys a CV, Aegis destroyers, and some N-subs from the US.

Or for another example who has the most powerful racing-cars, Ferrari or I? I surely, if i buy several top line Ferrari from Ferrari to pitch against the average Ferrari from Ferrari then? Even if My Ferrari lose to Ferrari, i am still more powerful than Nissan, Renault, WV, Ford then? clearly as anyone can see that this is not rational as imported tech should not count.

So it's critical for any ranking that all key and turnkey technolgies and sub-systems such as radars, missiles & other major weapon systems, n-reactres, other power-systems, ship-borne planes, AWACs, HELOs, etc, etc, MUST be indigenous.

This, seperates the true naval powers and the wannabes.


Then we have:


1. US


2. Russia & China & UK & France & Japan - roughly in the same league currently with Russia in the lead.

- Russia: the quality and the quantity of Russia N-subs renders it the leader of this group, even though its surface fleet is less advanced than the rest.


- China: the quality and size of advanced Aegis-equivalent surface fleet are fastly catching up, with the biggest growth momentum in this group.

- UK / France: about the same level on N-subs (UK's missiles are imported from the US though, same with ship-borne warplanes F-35 and possible AWACs)... UK better at destroyers while FR has a CV.

- Japan : current Aegis surface fleet, the largest within the group, is even better than Russia and China(some areas of key tech such as Aegis radar, missiles, etc. depending on the US though)...coventional subs are amongst teh top of the world and with decent quantity, but lacking critical N-subs and CV capabilities due to restrictions.

Within 5-10 years,however, China would likely become #1 in this group due to sheer incease of numbers of Aegis-equivalent destroyers and CVs(tranditional and/or n-powered). its N-subs, despite of improvement, may be still behind Russia/UK during the said time frame, though.


The rest are jokes : either too small to compare, or with >90% key tech imported, I mean "indigenous" in case of India, from above countries.

I would like to correct this list-

1. US

2. Russia

3.China & UK & France & Japan.

China is in list just due to #.
IN really way back than those in overall.

 

[Speeder 2]

I would like to correct this list-

1. US

2. Russia

3.China & UK & France & Japan.

China is in list just due to #.
IN really way back than those in overall.

more or less oke.

China in the list is not only due to #, but also due to

1. currently the 2rd largest Aegis-equivalent surface fleet after Japan, soon to be the largest AND the arguablely most advanced within the group if you count 052D alone (even better than type 045 on some key aspects), 055 aside.

2. N-sub, though behind those of the UK/France/Russia, is far stronger than JP, which has 0.

3. CV + J-15, is only second to France on paper, given time it's stronger than JP (0), UK(0), RU (almost obsolete)
anyway.

China cons: N-sub, blue navy experiences
China pros: growth momentum on all fronts, on both # and quality.

 

[Koovie]

1. USA

------ huge gap


2. Russia
3. UK
4. France
5. Germany
6. China

Germany? !

China on 6?

What da fudge... Where did India & Taiwan come in this

why not India? pretty decent fleet, latest technology and a massive number of new inductions of ships in the next few years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Indian_Navy_ships

 

[Indrajith]

Mere number on paper doesnt make any Navy big US, Russia, France & UK has pooved their ability as a blue water Navy , For China their AC is just a name sake , there submarines cannot be validated as worldclass

Yes China is growing unless it shows it can go away from its shore , no point in arguing -- India has atleast shown their courage in Somalia - what about China

 

[Speeder 2]

... India has atleast shown their courage in Somalia - what about China

what courage? you mean insisting curry breakfast being hostages?

 

[Speeder 2]

How do you compare Russia with China -- Russia have a real Blue water Navy & what about China

France they have the best technology in submarines & what about china

To be frank if Indian Navy is joke then Chinees is in par nothing better or tell me with a substantial evidence or point

Which is blue navy which is blue blue deep purple navy? It’s all blah blah. Show what you have!

It depends on what weight one puts on N-subs in the full picture though. I rate n-subs highly that’s why putting Russia ahead. Russia is definitely behind China on surface ships, quality-wise, and its increasingly becoming apparent in the next several years.

Taking n-subs out, one can get entirely different ranking like

1. US.
2. France & Japan
4. China & UK
6. Russia

btw, what Indian navy is indigenously good at ? At French sonar? Or Israeli radar? Or Russian missiles? Or Italian fire control? Or British BAE torpedoes, steel or maingun? Or American engines? Or DRDO’s press conference?

Oh, almost forgot, Or “the courage in Somalia”?

 

[Grevion]

^^ I am sorry to say but the logic you applied seems not valid to me sir. The indigenous production of defence products shows the power or technological capability of your defence sector not the power of your air or naval forces ,but the number of assests,quality and usage of advanced technology does and their is no doubt that India and Japan has one of the best in the world.

 

[Speeder 2]

^^ I am sorry to say but the logic you applied seems not valid to me sir. The indigenous production of defence products shows the power or technological capability of your defence sector not the power of your air or naval forces ,but the number of assests,quality and usage of advanced technology does and their is no doubt that India and Japan has one of the best in the world.

Yours is false logic, I am afraid. Purchased "power", what is also called "paper tiger", is no real power.

In your logic, Saudi Air Force must have MUCH HIGHER ranking than UK, France and Germany putting together. Perhaps Kwait and UAE too! No? why not? because "the number of assests,quality and usage of advanced technology" of Saudi Air Force are more than those of the later . e.g. how many EF Saudi and UAE have? I know the UK has far fewer.

It's just pity that Saudis are not interested in sea power though, else it'd probably rank 2rd in the world in naval power as well should it get a Nimiz and 2 Seawolf etc form the US.


Yours could be called "naval presence ranking " not "naval power ranking", "power" is out of innate (i.e.self dependent) capability on key technolgies which is an entirely different animal from "purchased ownership". Re-read my above ferrari analogy.

 

[Indrajith]

Dear sino Friends do not be blinded by your nationalism, tell me any major chinees Navies operational achievement other than showcasing some funny pictures of illuminating AC , Check about the operational history of US, Russian, UK & French Navy

 

[Grevion]

Yours is false logic, I am afraid. Purchased "power", what is also called "paper tiger", is no real power.

In your logic, Saudi Air Force must have MUCH HIGHER ranking than UK, France and Germany putting together. Perhaps Kwait and UAE too! No? why not? because "the number of assests,quality and usage of advanced technology" of Saudi Air Force are more than those of the later . e.g. how many EF Saudi and UAE have? I know the UK has far fewer.

It's just pity that Saudis are not interested in sea power though, else it'd probably rank 2rd in the world in naval power as well should it get a Nimiz and 2 Seawolf etc form the US.


Yours could be called "naval presence ranking " not "naval power ranking", "power" is out of innate (i.e.self dependent) capability on key technolgies which is an entirely different animal from "purchased ownership". Re-read my above ferrari analogy.

When I said no. of assets and the use of advanced technology I was talking in the context of firepower not purchasing power, purchasing power does matter because it decides firepower. Surely the saudis have more purchasing power than britain but it only matters if you fully use of it, lets say if saudis decided to purchase some f-18,rafael,pak fa,f-35 in good numbers than I will surly keep it more powerfull than britain on the list and we all know that is possible but its not gonna happen. Real power of any forces in term of assets is always decided by what you currently have and what you are going to get but not by what you can get if you want.