| Welcome to World's Armed Forces Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| top ten navies; naval warfare | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 5 2004, 04:45 PM (3,615 Views) | |
| bop_040 | Aug 5 2004, 07:39 PM Post #1 |
|
Informative Member
|
put put the japanese navy much higher up myself, very good frigate/destroyer fleet and decent ssks, so at the moment i would rate their effectivness above chinas and make them asias no1 fleet? |
![]() |
|
| EFA | Aug 5 2004, 08:15 PM Post #2 |
|
Dire Patriot
|
Well, I would include the Spanish Navy in there. The F-100 Link - http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/2776/compos_i.htm ROYAL NAVY UNITED STATES NAVY FRENCH NAVY GERMAN NAVY SPANISH NAVY RUSSIAN NAVY JAPANESE NAVY CHINESE NAVY ITALIAN NAVY SWEDISH ROYAL NAVY I've changed a few things. My opinion, but I believe the RN are edging their way to the top. The training and discipline is far superior. I think you can only put the US in their because of their budget and size. PS: The UK navy is just 'Royal Navy' |
| [size=1]<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>England Expects[/size] that every man will do his duty.</span></span> | |
![]() |
|
| bop_040 | Aug 5 2004, 09:23 PM Post #3 |
|
Informative Member
|
Rn above the USN, think that you are letting nationalism cloud your judgemant there a little. The USN would crush the RN in every senario imaginable. Their airforce itself is probably bigger than the RAF and remember it operates 12 battlegroups, with possibility of 7 at once. RN flagship is the 20000 ton invincible class. Fair the RN has better training but the USN would be a country mile ahead of it and ur comments that RN is better are stupid. |
![]() |
|
| kaza | Aug 5 2004, 11:42 PM Post #4 |
|
Cool Member
|
1. US 2. Russia 3. UK. Japan 5. France, China 7. India 8. Italia 9. Taiwan 10. Spain, S.Korea (2000) US Carriers 12 Cruisers 27 destroyers 52 frigates 35 AWACS 33 (it should be belong to AF but its huge + for navy also) Russia SSBNs 19 SSGNs 8 SSNs 19 Carriers 1 Cruisers 7 destroyers 17 frigaes 10 UK SSBNs 4 SSNs 12 aircraft carrier 3 Destroyer 11 Frigate 23 AWACS 7 Japan submarines 16 Destroyers 42 frigates 12 AWACS 14 France SSBNs 4 SSNs 7 aircraft carrier 1 Cruisers 1 destroyer 4 Frigates 29 China SSNs 5 Submarines 69 destroyers 21 frigates 41 India submarines 16 aircraft carrier 1 destroyers 8 frigates 18 Italia Submarines 7 carrier 1 cruiser 1 destroyer 4 frigates 24 Taiwan submarines 4 destroyer 12 frigates 21 S.Korea submarines 19 destroyer 6 frigates 33 Spain submarines 8 carrier 1 frigates 15 Germany Submarines 14 destroyer 2 frigates 12 |
![]() |
|
| perestroika | Aug 5 2004, 11:53 PM Post #5 |
|
Imaginative Poster
|
i would like to make a statement here,... i really think what bop 04 said is through,...you really are allowing sentimenst into ur sense of judgment,....there is no basis for comparism as far as im concerened between the u.s navy and the royal navy,...in a war scenarior the royal navy will be virtually blown out of the water in days,....quality wise,.training wise inclusive,...........like i said look at the carrier force for example,...the combined royal navy carriers has less offesive and defensive power than just the uss nimitz,..., not only do the u.s has superior frigates and destroyers but they have them more in numbers,...so one begins to wonder if u really know what u saying in ur head EFA |
![]() |
|
| perestroika | Aug 6 2004, 12:22 AM Post #6 |
|
Imaginative Poster
|
it has come to my general notice that most posts in this site are always clouded with sentiments,...it would be good for every one if we can all be a bit realistic to some extent about the facts and figures of the worlds military,...im not american,...i aint that much of a fan of the u.s either but what i say is nutin but facts,....i often hear lots of critisms and biased comments about the u.s military, some even go as far as calling them incompetent,...it really pains me a lot to see all these,.....the u.s militaryt kept the soviets at bay from invading europe,..the u.s military has seen been involved in combact than any other world power of lately ,.. so sometimes i wonder why what so many europeans have against americans,..its really suprising,....ive been through many post in the army and airforce sections and it is really surprising what i see there. |
![]() |
|
| EFA | Aug 6 2004, 12:51 AM Post #7 |
|
Dire Patriot
|
Look, why must everyone say, oh they will be blown out the water blah blah blah. Well of cource they would, i'm not denying that. The RN doesn't stand much chance against the US. My basis for my decision is on training, discipline, strategy and tactics, and once again, I do believe the British Military is better in such areas, and that is my basis for such. I will ignore all stupid posts, and to be honest I couldn't give a flying faggot what the rest of you think. This is my opinion. The US Military is incompetent, read my posts about the US, and how they could of prevented september 11th. Come on, who can honestly say that is the acts of the best trained services in the world? Look at their FF incidents. "sentiments,...it would be good for every one if we can all be a bit realistic to some extent about the facts and figures of the worlds military,...im not american" Just as few minutes ago you were shouting your head off?!?!?!?!?!??! "the u.s militaryt kept the soviets at bay from invading europe" The US and the soviets nearly destroyed this world. America had its finger on the button. Where as the european nations didn't, simply because if they did it would antagonise the Russians. America just kept on antagonising Russia, and so did russia to America, becuase none of them could just say stop. |
| [size=1]<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>England Expects[/size] that every man will do his duty.</span></span> | |
![]() |
|
| bop_040 | Aug 6 2004, 07:14 PM Post #8 |
|
Informative Member
|
were are you from perestroika? |
![]() |
|
| bop_040 | Aug 6 2004, 07:21 PM Post #9 |
|
Informative Member
|
Think in couple of years the royal navy could move down behind france japan and china. In the defense cuts they want to bring the destroyer/frigate fleet to 25 ships. Really this is simply just far to small for a fleet with its commitments. Have to agree with efa on the training issue, but with a fleet this small it is irrelavant as training only gets you so far. Posted an article by the way on this forum which shows an americian military admiral(i think hes an admiral) who says personally that RN submarine training course is no1 in world. |
![]() |
|
| perestroika | Aug 6 2004, 08:48 PM Post #10 |
|
Imaginative Poster
|
i think EFA is the most anoying fellow i ever came across,... if u hate the unites states so what?.....why must u call it incompetent,.......what would u call the brirish military then?....thats more than just incompetent,...the rate of british mjilitary decline ids really amazing,.. the brits sufered the most embarassing military defeat at the hands of the japs and u dare open ur mouth to say shit about a militaryt years ahead of the brits.....training or no training the brits have been reduced to a meduim size power and unless something is done to reverse this trend i fear for the brits,...how long are they gonna have no rely on americas nuclear umbrella for protection against external threats.......they just recently erased their airborne and land based nuclear arsenal,.. leaving them with just a couplke of vanguade subs with u.s supplied trident missiles what kinda militaryt is that?...and a brit have the nerve to call the u.s military incompetent........isnt that the case of the pot calling the kettle black?...as far as im concerend china even has a far more formidable and capable nuclear deterence than britain...... |
![]() |
|
| Iron_Duke | Aug 6 2004, 11:11 PM Post #11 |
|
Iron Man!
|
Please tell me how the British military are incompetent? What are they not doing a good job at? Are you calling them incompetent because of the size of their military? hmm that doesnt make much sense , please elaborate as i dont have a clue what your talking about , and i have a feeling you dont either. I mean look at it like this , in the first Gulf war , 90% plus of the UK casualties were down to the USA , in Afghanastan most of the Canadian casualties where down to FF fron the US again , and the only UK plane lost in the lastest war in Iaqi was shot down by the US , tell me , does that show competence on the US side? I really dont want to get drawn into arguements in this thread , but what does a battle in ww2 have to do with anything being said in this thread? The americans also lost battles in ww2 to , whats your point?? And please tell me how the British are "relying on americas nuclear umbrella for protection against external threats", from against who? the Russians , the Chinese? its not as if they are going to be starting a nuclear war with anyone soon , the UK dont rely on the US for nothing militarily defense wise , the UK already has around 200 nukes which is sufficient enough to deter attacks on the UK . Can you think of anyone who would want to go in an all out war on Britain? believe me , no one would , no matter who it is , although the UKs military isnt the biggest its one of the best around and is sure to give anyone a bloody nose in a war who wants it , ..hell...never mind a bloody nose , a few broke arms and legs. The main reason the UK are allied to US and go into wars with them is Political reasons , not Military reasons, so stop trying to make it look as if the Uk needs the US's protection when they obviously dont. |
![]() |
|
| EFA | Aug 6 2004, 11:19 PM Post #12 |
|
Dire Patriot
|
You are basing your incompetence of the British Forces on the ploitical issue. The facts you mentioned have nothing to do with the Military itself, and are purely down to politics. I have presented facts about the US Military, not Political, but military based, and have proved it... As for my choice, thats mine and i dont believe agree. But I look at it like this. Take the cat and the dog. The dog is stronger and mightier than the cat, and scares them off down the street. However the cat is smarter, sneekier, and is aware. The cat usually gets away from the Dog, in most cases. Now place the RN and USN into that. Tactics, superior training, knowledge experience, adaptability. etc etc etc. lol |
| [size=1]<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>England Expects[/size] that every man will do his duty.</span></span> | |
![]() |
|
| perestroika | Aug 6 2004, 11:26 PM Post #13 |
|
Imaginative Poster
|
Are u still making comparisms, between the royal navy and the U.s navy>,,christ, com of it Efa,...please,... the royal navy is no doubt a formidable force but that dosent mean it stands up to the might of the u.s navy,...the usnavy has been able to archive not only technical and engineering superiority but also numerical advantage,.. so tactics ans training carries liittle point and will make little difference in times of war..... but lets not all forget the fact that the u.s and great britain are the strongst western allies,...so the possiblity of war os preety much remote |
![]() |
|
| EFA | Aug 6 2004, 11:53 PM Post #14 |
|
Dire Patriot
|
Agreed, but still, im just putting the point accross. Training and tactics do amount to a lot... however, that is an argument in its self which i do not wish to get involved. I would like to know how tactics and training do not make a difference? |
| [size=1]<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>England Expects[/size] that every man will do his duty.</span></span> | |
![]() |
|
| EFA | Aug 6 2004, 11:56 PM Post #15 |
|
Dire Patriot
|
Looking at russian fleet numbers is pointless, as half of their commissioned ships are unserviceable. |
| [size=1]<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>England Expects[/size] that every man will do his duty.</span></span> | |
![]() |
|
| perestroika | Aug 7 2004, 12:41 AM Post #16 |
|
Imaginative Poster
|
''It is the only military today that is basically able to fight a world war, i mean 12 carrier groups each with more firepower than all but 3 or 4 of the worlds navies! ''............bop 04,.. get the message dude,.......... |
![]() |
|
| bop_040 | Aug 7 2004, 03:10 AM Post #17 |
|
Informative Member
|
T o be honest here i dont like the bashing of allied troops (british, indian, burhma, nepalese, aus and NZ ect) Who protected india from the Japan in ww2. They were outnumbered ill supplied and fighting in territory that they simply were not used to. No one here has fought in anything like those conditions and hopefully never will so dont start bad mouthing heroes. Thats my take on it anyway |
![]() |
|
| PLA1021 | Aug 7 2004, 03:15 AM Post #18 |
|
Champion Poster
|
That's more like it man. I would put my list exactly like this. |
![]() |
|
| bop_040 | Aug 7 2004, 03:17 AM Post #19 |
|
Informative Member
|
Back to the argument the US is the best navy in the world and is the only world navy that is ready to fight in a major world conflict. It is also the only navy that can provide the logistics to fight in a major conflict. The cat and dog arguement here may be valid but is not correct as the standard of RN ships is similar to USN. Also the two navies do battlegames togehter at all levels. Also they do battlegames through Nato. Come on efa you know your stuff and you must be realistic the RN is on the decrease, at least until the astute carriers and type45 comes along but even then the orders of the type 45 are only 8 now along with 17 frigates, is this enough to call the RN the best world navy? The two carriers are impressive but they are not as good as 12 nimitz! Also when you talk of tactics it is in submarine warfare where these can be best used but again the RN fleet is just simply to small, in comparision to usn russia and soon china. The US will have nothing better than the astute (my opinion) but there will only be around 6 - 8 i believe at a maximum. Again simply not enough? |
![]() |
|
| RBTiger | Aug 7 2004, 12:06 PM Post #20 |
![]()
Field Marshal
![]()
|
My list- 1.US 2. UK 3.France 4.Russia 5.Italy/Spain 6.India/China |
![]() World's Armed Forces Forum-The best Forum around… World's Military Forces “In order to win a war, one must be ready to lose battles” “A country has no permanent friends, only permanent interests” | |
![]() |
|
| EFA | Aug 7 2004, 05:09 PM Post #21 |
|
Dire Patriot
|
Bop, in your respect you are perfectly right. But what I'm looking at, is not putting the two to have a stand off, but on the ways in which they have conducted themselves in the past conflicts they have dealt with. Sure, the RN wouldn't stand much of a chance against a USN Armada, but the way I examined the situation was by the conflicts etc they have had to handle. I must admit, when I made the list I didn't know who to put up top, but recently, and after IRaq thats just how I made my decision. I mean in a conflict where Naval warfare isn't exactly main in Iraq, the USN still got it wrong. They hit the wrong country loads of times. Okay so that isn't relevant, but its just things like that that the US military do. Your right, the RN is going down and down and down, but Im not saying that if the RN fought the USN they would win, im saying that the way they deal with the situations, the way they train, and the way they discipline is what makes you the best navy. I don't understand why to be the best navy you have to be massive with loads of ships, and have all the money. As a navy, taking everything into account, I believe the RN are the best in the world. If the USN was reduced to the size of the RN, it would not be top on your list. The logistics, training, discipline, conduction of the RN is superior to the USN. ANd I will not make my descision based on numerical numbers, and technology. Sure the USN against the RN, the RN doesn't stand much chance. But im not looking at it like that. The US military has consistantly claimed to be the best because of its size, and what its money can buy. I will leave it up to you to decide. But the way that we have analysed the best armies in the world, and AF's, is by not money or numerical advantage, but all of the above which I mentioned. So why do people have to pit them against each other when deciding navies? |
| [size=1]<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>England Expects[/size] that every man will do his duty.</span></span> | |
![]() |
|
| kaza | Aug 7 2004, 05:34 PM Post #22 |
|
Cool Member
|
I never put my emotion on my list.. including army list too. (which offended you) |
![]() |
|
| kaza | Aug 7 2004, 05:38 PM Post #23 |
|
Cool Member
|
those figures are after exclusing thoes unservicable fleet. (compare to 1995) - 1 carrier -21 cruisers -8 destroyers -110 frigates -11 SSNs -51 submarines |
![]() |
|
| EFA | Aug 7 2004, 05:41 PM Post #24 |
|
Dire Patriot
|
I see, how did you manage to work that out. What I mean to say is how do you manage to know which were servicable, and which wern't? |
| [size=1]<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>England Expects[/size] that every man will do his duty.</span></span> | |
![]() |
|
| kaza | Aug 7 2004, 05:54 PM Post #25 |
|
Cool Member
|
Um I dont know? but I can guess? Doesnt it make sense when you get rid of ships, you usuallly get rid of unservicable ships first and keep the one that works? |
![]() |
|
| perestroika | Aug 7 2004, 06:04 PM Post #26 |
|
Imaginative Poster
|
hey EFA,.. ur much talk about the superior training of the royal navy is without foundationm,...they might be good no doubt about that but what makes the best navy is a navy capable of defending its territory and initiating a first strike,...............in these aspects i think the u.s navy is years ahead the royal navy,.....so ur much talk about .''U.S INCOMPETENSE'' makes little or no difference to this fact,.. of what use is a superb training if u have effective means of utilising them........ |
![]() |
|
| EFA | Aug 7 2004, 06:57 PM Post #27 |
|
Dire Patriot
|
"of what use is a superb training if u have effective means of utilising them........" I think that you got a little confused. And yes, the royal navy does have a way of utilising its training with its fleet. Thats why it has a fleet of ships.... look that is my opinion, so who ever you are, please shut up. You are an idiot, that knows nothing, your arguments are flawed. Everyhting you say has NOT been backed by facts. Even though you claim you have them, and that all arguements should be based on them. You irrational, and edgy. You expect people to agree with you. I don't, so I uderstand people may have a problem with it. And thats fine by me, because its my opinion, and I do not expect it to be yours. I thought that is what this forum is about, Expressing opinions. |
| [size=1]<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>England Expects[/size] that every man will do his duty.</span></span> | |
![]() |
|
| perestroika | Aug 7 2004, 07:07 PM Post #28 |
|
Imaginative Poster
|
well good point,..., if u thought this forum was about expressing opinions then you will at least respect my opnion on certain issues concerning the u.s military and stop seeing it as a point od duty to call them ncomptent each time i say something about em,...listen no one is saying the royal navy aint good,...they have three carries,.. if u go up my list uill see i put them second,..but u trying to match training with resoursec,.. in some aspects in counts a lot but in some aspects also it clearly dosent,......the rn cannot make up for its defficiencies with training when confronting a large nation,......i belive the british navy is the largest and best in europe but in the overal military it takes second place beside france,..i aint beeing biased or anything thats just my view, and can we please stop beeing and loggerheads with each other over any posts i make?.... |
![]() |
|
| bop_040 | Aug 7 2004, 07:13 PM Post #29 |
|
Informative Member
|
"I mean in a conflict where Naval warfare isn't exactly main in Iraq, the USN still got it wrong. They hit the wrong country loads of times" Could you show me some of the times the US hit another country through its naval assets in the gulf? Am interested as this would be a major cockup, but EFA the RN dont have the capability even with training to launch an operation like iraq from the sea were usn so. That is my point, RN dont have the navy to do that - no amount of training can make them capable either, simply dont have resources at their disposal - no one apart from USN and thats why they are no1 Yes if USN was same size and budget as RN RN would be no1 but they dont their budget is larger than entire UK armed forces budget which is main reason why they have a larger more capable and well armed fleet |
![]() |
|
| perestroika | Aug 7 2004, 07:22 PM Post #30 |
|
Imaginative Poster
|
heaves a sight of relief |
![]() |
|
| bop_040 | Aug 7 2004, 07:26 PM Post #31 |
|
Informative Member
|
lol, ur arguements are gud crack to read! |
![]() |
|
| perestroika | Aug 7 2004, 07:39 PM Post #32 |
|
Imaginative Poster
|
where was the seaharriergr7s developed?....i hear its been used by u.s marines,.....i thought the harrier was of british origin |
![]() |
|
| EFA | Aug 7 2004, 09:54 PM Post #33 |
|
Dire Patriot
|
http://www.rense.com/general35/wowdd.htm http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/Swissinfo.htm...143&sid=1729907 This is an incident from the Air Force, and US Navy. Didn't you here it on the news? At least 10 cruise missiles over shot their target. All American. "but EFA the RN dont have the capability even with training to launch an operation like iraq from the sea" The Royal Nay is perfectly capable of launching attacks by sea, just as the US did. There was a RN Task force in the Gulf. And as to the Type 45 Destroyer, yes they are ordering 8, for the first batch. There will be another 4 on the next budget. |
| [size=1]<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>England Expects[/size] that every man will do his duty.</span></span> | |
![]() |
|
| perestroika | Aug 7 2004, 11:53 PM Post #34 |
|
Imaginative Poster
|
Nationalistic sentiments again efa,...the royal navy u and i know lacks the capacity for a full scale military involvment,....the u.s navy was desighned to fight 2 or three large wars simultaneously and emerge victorious,,..u make a point about cruise missiles missing their targerts... so what?....,.. it happnes in war,.. missiles go off target sometimes that dosent mean the brits have anything better for the navy than cruise missiles,....u very quick to point out flaws in d u.s navy EFA, |
![]() |
|
| EFA | Aug 8 2004, 12:04 AM Post #35 |
|
Dire Patriot
|
I made that point ages ago, and someone asked for a link. So I gave it. Besides does it really matter that much to you? Anyway, if you say that about the RN, then that must be true for the restof the worlds Navy. Is that what your saying? And how can you say that the RN is uncapable of fighting a war? Facts figures? |
| [size=1]<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>England Expects[/size] that every man will do his duty.</span></span> | |
![]() |
|
| perestroika | Aug 8 2004, 12:20 AM Post #36 |
|
Imaginative Poster
|
the royal navy is super capable of fighting a miduim sized naval conflict but definately not a long prtracted war of attriction,....other navies are worse of in this aspects,......what im trying to say here is that it will take a really formidable force top challenge the u.s navy at sea at the moment and for now i see no such fporce on the horizon.the british navy is among the worlds best no doubt about it,.to me the second best but the u.s enjoyes an unchallenged lead |
![]() |
|
| EFA | Aug 8 2004, 12:27 AM Post #37 |
|
Dire Patriot
|
This could be true. I do not know much about these navies. However I do know the Indian Navy does buy elder warships off the UK. For instance, I believe they maybe receiving the Type 42. |
| [size=1]<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>England Expects[/size] that every man will do his duty.</span></span> | |
![]() |
|
| perestroika | Aug 8 2004, 12:40 AM Post #38 |
|
Imaginative Poster
|
THE INDIANS BYE HARDWAR FROM ANYONE,...THEY TOOK DELIVERY OF VOCTOR CLASS ATTACK SUBS FROM RUSSIA SOME YEARS BACK,..AND I THINK THEY ALSO TOOK DELIVERY OF ONE BRITISH CARRIER,.....THE RNN HERMES I THINK..AINT SURE ABOUT THAT THOUGH |
![]() |
|
| KJlost | Aug 8 2004, 12:44 AM Post #39 |
|
Lieutenant
|
The Indian Navy is lot more balanced and 3-dimensional than PLAN. They have decently sized and equipped surface fleet and subsurface fleet. The carrier is a plus, but more than that, they are capable of fielding open-ocean fleet at least in the neighboring waters. |
![]() |
|
| PLA1021 | Aug 8 2004, 01:27 AM Post #40 |
|
Champion Poster
|
Like i did. |
![]() |
|
| PLA1021 | Aug 8 2004, 02:23 AM Post #41 |
|
Champion Poster
|
As i said, the reason China has no carrier. 1.THey are more concerned on subs. 2.Carriers, in my opinin, are sort of antiquated. Without aeigs they will be sink nicely by either missles or subs. 3.CHina wants to build its own carriers instead of buying. 3 Soviet carriers, including the Kiev are lying right in Chinese water. Its not like CHina has no money to buy carriers, its the quality of the carriers. China bought them just to disect it and examine it so CHina can build its own carriers. Indian neighbouring...sure... now look at CHina's neighbouring ocean! Taiwan, Japan, SK, and USS based in Aisa. BTW, what countries are capable of building 8,000+ tons DDG and SSN all by themselves? US, Russia, UK, France, China? and whoelse? |
![]() |
|
| kaza | Aug 8 2004, 03:32 AM Post #42 |
|
Cool Member
|
'As i said, the reason China has no carrier.' Currently PLAN have a semi carrier.(Mink, 20,000 tons) also developing with France and Russia to build a carrier (48,000 tons class, which can carry upto 24 airfighters) 'BTW, what countries are capable of building 8,000+ tons DDG and SSN all by themselves?' KDX-III is supposedly 10,000 tons(max loaded), ROK is planning to build 3 of KDX-III by 2008(probably finished by 2006, and then testing for 2 more yrs), also developing 4000+tons SSN. Japan is also planning to build 2~4 more Kongo class(9500 tons) DDG. I wouldnt bragg about PRC's submarines much,, they shoulda been retired already by western standard long time ago, they make too much noise. often P-3C detects PLAN SSNs from far distance. PRC bought 4 kilo class submarines from Russia back in 2000, 3 of em's battery system got broken and couldnt replaced it so its just staying in harbor. '3 Soviet carriers, including the Kiev are lying right in Chinese water. Its not like CHina has no money to buy carriers, its the quality of the carriers. China bought them just to disect it and examine it so CHina can build its own carriers. ' um as for Kiev.. ROK bought 2 carriers from Russia (98 i think, for 4.5 million $, Minsk and Kiev) it was nothing more than bulk of steel then sold it to PRC. |
![]() |
|
| KJlost | Aug 8 2004, 03:57 AM Post #43 |
|
Lieutenant
|
That India is capable of fielding and sustaining a fleet at sea isn't a feat to be snorted at. That means they have the basis, unlike so many others. The strength of India Navy, as I've said, does not come from carriers, but the fact that they have a pretty balanced force and few in the region that even has some kind of blue-water capability. |
![]() |
|
| RBTiger | Aug 8 2004, 04:12 PM Post #44 |
![]()
Field Marshal
![]()
|
Just FYI, the Chinese navy is supposedly inferior to their Indian counterparts. India has the only Blue water navy in the Indian ocean. |
![]() World's Armed Forces Forum-The best Forum around… World's Military Forces “In order to win a war, one must be ready to lose battles” “A country has no permanent friends, only permanent interests” | |
![]() |
|
| perestroika | Aug 9 2004, 03:06 PM Post #45 |
|
Imaginative Poster
|
i completely agree with rbtiget...rbtiger,..the chicoms are usually overestimated when it x comes to military matters,....as far as im concerened in an allout war between the indian navy and the chinese navy the indians will come out ti tops but with one arm of course,....most of chinas naval vessels are of old soviet desighns,..there submarine forceis a complete joke,..i foten hear stories of chinese submarine sailors staying 10 days at sea and longing to go back home and join their families,..the sailors can even endure ten days at sea unboard the subs partly because of the quality of subs the chinese are amasing,..on paper it looks incredibel but on the battlefie;d its near worthless against nuclear powered subs,the only praise worthy vessel in the chinese arsenal is the sovre,menny class destroyers they just purchased from russia,.there warships can be fitted with the supersonic sunburn missiles that has the ability of bypassing the aegis defense system and sinking a carrier ,.....the pacific fleet of the u.s submarine force can easily take out the sovremenny of course before a first shot id fired.i think for now the chinese navy do not ruls the seas of asia as some might want to believe.. |
![]() |
|
| bop_040 | Aug 9 2004, 04:48 PM Post #46 |
|
Informative Member
|
Cheers EFA for those posts, learn somthing new every day. That is shockking that precision guided missles can go that far off course (the US must be training their technicians to the standard of argentina ones during the falklands!joke). Dont think that the navy will get the second batch of type 45s now because of cutbacks. Inthe defense review Hoon said that a destroyer/frigate fleet of 25 would meet the countries requiremants. 8 destroyers and 17 frigates. Got an article here from Richard Scotta a military analyst and it includes comments from admiral west on the cutbacks - hes not pleased UK Royal Navy cutbacks increase the risk factor By Richard Scott How will recently announced cuts in ship and submarine numbers impact on the operational capability of the UK Royal Navy? Chief of Naval Staff and First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Alan West offers his personal views to JNI. Reductions in the size of the UK Royal Navy's (RN's) destroyer/frigate (DD/FF) fleet and nuclear attack submarine (SSN) flotilla mean that the RN will be conducting future operations at "enhanced risk", Chief of Naval Staff and First Sea Lord (CNS/1SL) Adm Sir Alan West has warned. Speaking candidly about the force adjustments announced recently by Secretary of State for Defence Geoff Hoon, the RN's most senior officer acknowledged that the costs associated with the reorganisation and recapitalisation of the future British Army have left the RN and the Royal Air Force to shoulder a disproportionate share of the cutbacks in front-line forces. He also made it clear that he was uncomfortable with the cuts in DD/FF and SSN numbers, but insisted that, given current resource constraints, their sacrifice was necessary to safeguard funding for the Future Aircraft Carrier (CVF) programme as "the centrepiece of UK expeditionary forces for decades to come". Under future capability plans laid out to parliament on 21 July 2004, the RN will see its DD/FF force reduced from 31 to 25 with the retirement of three Type 42 Batch 1 destroyers and three Type 23 frigates. The SSN force will drop down to just eight boats, and mine countermeasures vessel (MCMV) numbers will be cut to just 16 with the early paying off of three Sandown-class minehunters and the expected retirement of three Hunt-class MCMVs currently roled for Northern Ireland patrol duties The reduction in DD/FF numbers causes concern to Adm West, who believes that a force of about 30 ships is in fact needed. "People should be under no illusions," he said. “With only 25 ships, we will be very close to the cusp.” |
![]() |
|
| EFA | Aug 9 2004, 08:51 PM Post #47 |
|
Dire Patriot
|
These defence cuts are rediculous in my opinion, as in many others. Soon, there will have to be a change in spending. The military will be unable to support itself, and its commitments. With good old Toy Blair committing our troops all over the world, its unthinkable to think that an already overscrethced Force is to go further. |
| [size=1]<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>England Expects[/size] that every man will do his duty.</span></span> | |
![]() |
|
| bop_040 | Aug 9 2004, 10:16 PM Post #48 |
|
Informative Member
|
I know thats somthing that i dont simply understand, UK has gun ho Tony Blair at the helm wanting to be involved in every conflict there is going but at the same time is cutting his countries military. Did you know that in an interview chief of the armed forces mike jackson said that the UK is ready and able to send a batallion of 5000 men and equipment to the Sudan if the un calls for it. There goes yet another 5% abroad, simply unsustainable in a force whos men are at the point of breaking! |
![]() |
|
| perestroika | Aug 10 2004, 12:42 AM Post #49 |
|
Imaginative Poster
|
why are the british making such drastic ruductions to their once proud armed forces in this vlatile world?.......baffles me really |
![]() |
|
| perestroika | Aug 10 2004, 12:43 AM Post #50 |
|
Imaginative Poster
|
why are the british making such drastic ruductions to their once proud armed forces in this vlatile world?.......baffles me really,...i know definately the brits can afford to raise defense spending two folds and still maintain a standard of living still higfher than most eiropeans.so why all the cuts? |
![]() |
|
| EFA | Aug 10 2004, 01:04 AM Post #51 |
|
Dire Patriot
|
Because our health and education spending is going through the roof. Over 60 Billion pounds added on to the Health budget in this governments term alone! Another point to make is, the British public services are coming to one of the best in Europe with the extra spending, yet they still want to find more. But to be honest, it is possible to increase the Military budget, however not an extent, on comparison the US have. |
| [size=1]<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>England Expects[/size] that every man will do his duty.</span></span> | |
![]() |
|
| bop_040 | Aug 10 2004, 05:37 PM Post #52 |
|
Informative Member
|
US defense budget is riduclous, come on its gonna pass 500 billion dollar mark soon! With ur economic problems it could be reinvested, eg whats ur budget deficit these days? Also ur economic growth i heard isnt producing as many jobs as people hoped? |
![]() |
|
| perestroika | Aug 10 2004, 07:46 PM Post #53 |
|
Imaginative Poster
|
wrong there,..economically the u.s is more in a league of its own,...the size of the u.s economy is about that of jaoan, italy and britain combined,...they can raise defense spending by six folds and still sustain their current way of life,...u dont call it ridiculous bop,.....u dont maintain the worlds lkargest navy, airforce and over 11,00 nuclear warheads on a thin budget,........ |
![]() |
|
| bop_040 | Aug 10 2004, 09:26 PM Post #54 |
|
Informative Member
|
Fair enough ur economy is the largest, but your people are complaining (at least on bbc) about how many manufacturing jobs are being lost to countries like china and some high tec jobs to india. Also i heard a democratic congressman complain about how under the bush admin more jobs have been lost and the so called economic growth after the slump is not producing as many jobs. Surly money from defense could also go to ur medicare project. I study economics and the US is borrowing heavily at the minute. Thsi is worrying for the future is it not? |
![]() |
|
| perestroika | Aug 10 2004, 10:09 PM Post #55 |
|
Imaginative Poster
|
first of all bp i am not american,..., true there is unemployment every where,.the unemployment rate in most ueropean economies is higher than those of the u.s ,. u should know by now the nature of the american society,.all what u heard on bbc might contain a lil bit of fact but mostly its propaganda work,..if a republican comes to bbc to air his view heill surely talk about how the american economy has rebounded,.how jobs have been created in some sectors and so on and he may be right,.the democrats may be right too,....what im trying to say it u cant use that to judge,.the americans are the only world power that spends less on defense than on anything else,..... ...its estimated that they spend just 4 % on defense,.conpared to 25%on health and 27% on education,......so what are we talking about?.....cmon lets face,..true 390 bilion dollars a year might seem colossal to some but if lets say the soviets ever attained that kind aeconomic status u can be rest assured almost half will go into the armed forces,. so i dont think its fair to say they spend colosally,......every man cuts his or her coats according to his or her own size.........,. forget what those propagandist republicans or democrates say on an election season,..the real fact is that the u.s economy is doing considerably well despite all what has been going on |
![]() |
|
| kaza | Aug 11 2004, 08:54 AM Post #56 |
|
Cool Member
|
500 billion defense budget? gosh what are they defending against? aliens? the thing is... their deficit is catching upto their defense budget.. thanks to Bush. he single handedly trashed whole nation's economy. (I remeber back in Clinton era, their surplus was like 200billion) |
![]() |
|
| bop_040 | Aug 11 2004, 02:48 PM Post #57 |
|
Informative Member
|
Thats exactly what i was told |
![]() |
|
| RBTiger | Aug 11 2004, 08:17 PM Post #58 |
![]()
Field Marshal
![]()
|
"Over 60 Billion pounds added on to the Health budget in this governments term alone!" That makes me laugh when I think that India's defence budget in totality is 4 bn US $!!! |
![]() World's Armed Forces Forum-The best Forum around… World's Military Forces “In order to win a war, one must be ready to lose battles” “A country has no permanent friends, only permanent interests” | |
![]() |
|
| kaza | Aug 12 2004, 12:03 PM Post #59 |
|
Cool Member
|
I think its more like 15~16 billion US D now (2000~2001 it was around 13 billion) anyway 60 billion pounds for health budget? what kind of drugs r they on? |
![]() |
|
| EFA | Aug 12 2004, 03:21 PM Post #60 |
|
Dire Patriot
|
Actually its around 100 Billion Pounds now, thats what, 200 Billion USD. But for one the Health of the country is getting a lot better, and education. "what kind of drugs r they on?" lol, the Health budget is probably the largest of all in 1st world countries. |
| [size=1]<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>England Expects[/size] that every man will do his duty.</span></span> | |
![]() |
|
| RBTiger | Aug 14 2004, 12:28 PM Post #61 |
![]()
Field Marshal
![]()
|
What is the average lifespan of Brits? |
![]() World's Armed Forces Forum-The best Forum around… World's Military Forces “In order to win a war, one must be ready to lose battles” “A country has no permanent friends, only permanent interests” | |
![]() |
|
| perestroika | Aug 14 2004, 08:55 PM Post #62 |
|
Imaginative Poster
|
ummmm. no idea |
![]() |
|
| EFA | Aug 14 2004, 10:29 PM Post #63 |
|
Dire Patriot
|
erm, i think its over 80 now. |
| [size=1]<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>England Expects[/size] that every man will do his duty.</span></span> | |
![]() |
|
| PLA1021 | Aug 16 2004, 01:25 AM Post #64 |
|
Champion Poster
|
Without outside help, Japan couldnt build 9500 DDG. Is KDX Korean something something? Actually dude, the kilos are working fine according to my resource. of course they could be wrong. |
![]() |
|
| KJlost | Aug 16 2004, 06:54 AM Post #65 |
|
Lieutenant
|
Of course they could. They just wouldn't be able to build them of same calibre as they had. As for KDX-III, I just posted something below if you're interested or whatever. |
![]() |
|
| kaza | Aug 16 2004, 11:21 AM Post #66 |
|
Cool Member
|
Japan dont need help to build over 10k tons DDG, or carriers. (Japan is 2nd in the world in ship building, and 1st in the world in super computers) They could develope their own aegis system but they decided not to. (they chose to upgrade their arms in short time) KDX probably means korean DDX? KDX-3(with aegis system) supposedly weight 7500tons (they picked Hyundai to develope it by end of 2008) with SPY-1D(V) radar (max range 1054km, trace upto 900 object and counter 15 objects at a time) it is supposedly armed with 32 ship to surface missiles (like tomahawk) 16 anti submarine missiles, 80 ship to air missiles like SM-3, SM-4. also it has 3 step air defense. (other destroyers with aegis system have 2 step air defense) About that kilo class submarines,yes they are working now but check their history since 1998 (2) and 2000 (2). |
![]() |
|
| KJlost | Aug 16 2004, 08:12 PM Post #67 |
|
Lieutenant
|
7000ton-ish light. Full load is expected to be over 9000ton mark and closer to 10,000ton. |
![]() |
|
| Edward Nigma | Aug 18 2004, 12:07 AM Post #68 |
|
Major
|
USN is largest with most craft as of right now and so it would be at the top. Navy in my mind is the key to power and the U.S. has proved its reasoning. |
|
I do not know with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein Information on the World | |
![]() |
|
| EFA | Aug 18 2004, 03:24 AM Post #69 |
|
Dire Patriot
|
Actually the money the US goverment is given every year is, 2 Trillion USD. With 500 Billion USD spent on defence, that means 1/4 is spent on defence. Too much. |
| [size=1]<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>England Expects[/size] that every man will do his duty.</span></span> | |
![]() |
|
| RBTiger | Aug 26 2004, 03:25 PM Post #70 |
![]()
Field Marshal
![]()
|
That's absoltely correct. That way, North Korea spends 90% on Defence. |
![]() World's Armed Forces Forum-The best Forum around… World's Military Forces “In order to win a war, one must be ready to lose battles” “A country has no permanent friends, only permanent interests” | |
![]() |
|
| EFA | Sep 1 2004, 07:44 PM Post #71 |
|
Dire Patriot
|
The USN to date doesn't enjoy naval dominance as the former RN of the colonial period enjoyed. The USN has not to date defeated all other modern navies, and does not rule the waves as much as the former RN did. The RN enjoyed complete dominance, which no other navy, or coalition, could threaten. It may have an unparralled lead, but not as much as the former RN. And I don't believe that there will ever be a navy that enjoys such a lead again. Hmmmmm |
| [size=1]<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>England Expects[/size] that every man will do his duty.</span></span> | |
![]() |
|
| RBTiger | Sep 1 2004, 08:25 PM Post #72 |
![]()
Field Marshal
![]()
|
As of today, USN certainly is by far the best navy and dominates the world's waters. 12 carriers in today's world is just too much. |
![]() World's Armed Forces Forum-The best Forum around… World's Military Forces “In order to win a war, one must be ready to lose battles” “A country has no permanent friends, only permanent interests” | |
![]() |
|
| EFA | Sep 1 2004, 09:19 PM Post #73 |
|
Dire Patriot
|
Actually I dont think the USN has complete dominance. The USN can not walk into Europe, there are fleets in europe which put together out number the USN, which was not there during the colonial period. |
| [size=1]<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>England Expects[/size] that every man will do his duty.</span></span> | |
![]() |
|
| bop_04 | Oct 10 2004, 03:35 PM Post #74 |
|
Commander
|
What exactly is the norweign navy made up of? What ships, numbers? I believed that the swedish navy was as good if not better than norweign navy. Does norway have subs in its navy? what type are they? |
|
"Honour the Gods, Love your wife, Defend your country" Hector | |
![]() |
|
| bop_04 | Oct 16 2004, 07:41 PM Post #75 |
|
Commander
|
Cheers guest, why dont you sign up? Have to say ur Nansen class is a fine ship also ur new coast guard ships look very nice! Although i dont know why the hull is being built in Romania of all places? These will prob be very important as they are also a tug with the increased russian oiltankers activities. Displacement: 3,000t+ Dimensions: 86m x 15.5m Crew: 16 Propulsion: 2x4000kw main engines, 18-20 knots cruise speed Tug capacity: 115+13 tonn bollardpull Other: 1000 mł tank for collection of oil spills |
|
"Honour the Gods, Love your wife, Defend your country" Hector | |
![]() |
|
| bop_04 | Oct 17 2004, 07:12 PM Post #76 |
|
Commander
|
To be honest i think that both countries navies both are generally evenly matched. Am a great fan of the swedish armed forces and nearly all of their indigenous units. The swedish navy would be better than the norweign navy in defending their country but i think that norways forces are better trained and possibly better in projecting power futher from its shores as the swedish armed forces doctrine is basically to defend the country rather than to project power. This is just my opinion but here goes, Norway has a larger submarine force but i dont know its capabilities! Were in the Gotland class sweden have one of the best subs around - so good than the US has asked to lease one and its crew for over a year to act as the enemy in the US navies training and war games. Also while norway operate the Oslo class corvete/frigates i think that sweden will have the edge with the visby corvetes - the only stealth ships around and highly capable. Also the swedish Gotborg calss large missle boats are excellent and very capable. However by 2006-2009 this could change with the arrival of the 5 Nansen class frigates. These multipurpose will increase norweign power projection and will provide ur navy with alot more capabilities. Also ur new patrol vessels look excellent and superior to swedens. So in the future i would go with norway but with swedens new visbys and Gotlands i say they would have the edge at present. (only my opinion tho! u probably know more about norways capabilities than i do). Also have done some reading about a norway navy - royal navy exercise in the Norweign fjords were one of ur subs took out a RN task force i think the exercise was in 2003 -04? Hve u heard anything about this, got it off an internet source? |
|
"Honour the Gods, Love your wife, Defend your country" Hector | |
![]() |
|
| bop_04 | Oct 18 2004, 11:55 PM Post #77 |
|
Commander
|
That was the exact exercise i was lookin for! The norweign sub was KNM Utvaer ithink? It was an impressive performance but not unexpected. In the fjord provides perfect conditions for the smaller ssk in use by norway they are much more silent and manuverable than other ships and subs which makes conditions perfect. However in a war senario the UK would use ASW helis operating from an LPH carrier. Also the SSNs would probably not enter the fjord, they would wait at the mouth until the diesel sub had to surface, then they would go in. But yes the norweign navy is very well trained. The fact also that there army along with the marine comandos were in change of protecting the northern mountain range in the senario of a soviet invasion during the cold war also shows that ur land land forces are also of a high standard. Hve actually just joined that forum with Europa only havent posted there. Like here. |
|
"Honour the Gods, Love your wife, Defend your country" Hector | |
![]() |
|
| RBTiger | Oct 23 2004, 12:41 PM Post #78 |
![]()
Field Marshal
![]()
|
Welcome guest, why don't you sign up? We canb have nice arguements here! |
![]() World's Armed Forces Forum-The best Forum around… World's Military Forces “In order to win a war, one must be ready to lose battles” “A country has no permanent friends, only permanent interests” | |
![]() |
|
| Shaan14 | Nov 29 2004, 10:30 PM Post #79 |
|
Brigadier
|
is the swedish navyt that good> i swear the danish fleet is strongers anyone know? personally i think that it shouldnt be on there |
![]() [size=7]WILL RISE AGAIN!!!![/size] [size=14]INDIA[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| John US Seals | Dec 10 2004, 12:51 AM Post #80 |
|
Captain
|
Top 10 Navies: From my work within Naval forces, I must say that those are the: 1) US Navy- NO DOUBT! 2) British Navy- NO DOUBT! 3) Russian Navy 4) French Navy 5) German Navy 6) Chinese Navy 7) Indian Navy 8) Japanese Navy 9) Italian Navy 10) Spanish Navy / Israeli Navy |
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| Shaan14 | Feb 11 2005, 01:41 AM Post #81 |
|
Brigadier
|
the indian anvy actually has more ship and they are of better quality and half the russian navy is rusting away in Murmansk so i would alter some places. yes the chinese navy is bad. |
![]() [size=7]WILL RISE AGAIN!!!![/size] [size=14]INDIA[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| kaza | Feb 13 2005, 01:43 PM Post #82 |
|
Cool Member
|
ok but I wonder how you could pick French (well its understandable since they have nuclear subs and a carrier), Germany (???), Indian (???) over Japanese Navy?? |
![]() |
|
| PLA1021 | Feb 18 2005, 02:23 AM Post #83 |
|
Champion Poster
|
pch~~ those ships are in public park on exhibition. PLAN dont need carrier to liberate taiwan, which is the main short term goal. yeah, btw, 2 more 052c class is coming up for the PLAN. |
![]() |
|
| PLA1021 | Feb 18 2005, 02:30 AM Post #84 |
|
Champion Poster
|
wahahah the Chinese navy is bad? Maybe the USN, RussianN and RN have the authority to say this, but the Indian navy..??? what have they got my dear friend? At least the PLAN was able to build their own 054 DDG, 20,000 tons landing crafts, Yuan, Song, 093, 094 subs and 052 frigates, what do the IN have? The only power they have is a purchased 40 year old CV and 10 purchased Kilos. Ignorance and arrogance lead you to nothing my friend. |
![]() |
|
| PLA1021 | Feb 18 2005, 02:33 AM Post #85 |
|
Champion Poster
|
and how many KDX are in service? |
![]() |
|
| Shaan14 | Mar 28 2005, 05:54 PM Post #86 |
|
Brigadier
|
personally i think that if a navy has an aircraft carrier its shuld be better than most other navies who dont have carriers. |
![]() [size=7]WILL RISE AGAIN!!!![/size] [size=14]INDIA[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Shaan14 | Mar 28 2005, 05:56 PM Post #87 |
|
Brigadier
|
p.s indian navy is one of the biggest in the world. thanks for the support my mysterious indian friend. |
![]() [size=7]WILL RISE AGAIN!!!![/size] [size=14]INDIA[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| bop_04 | Apr 4 2005, 02:54 AM Post #88 |
|
Commander
|
"personally i think that if a navy has an aircraft carrier its shuld be better than most other navies who dont have carriers" Have to disagree shan, an ac on its own is a sitting duck for most ships. Look at tailand they have an aircraft carrier. But they can hardly afford to put it do sea never mind defend it. |
|
"Honour the Gods, Love your wife, Defend your country" Hector | |
![]() |
|
| bop_04 | Apr 7 2005, 12:18 AM Post #89 |
|
Commander
|
A carrier on its own is easy prey for any ssk/ssn |
|
"Honour the Gods, Love your wife, Defend your country" Hector | |
![]() |
|
| Shaan14 | Apr 22 2005, 09:29 PM Post #90 |
|
Brigadier
|
ok yeh sorry i wos wrong on that one what i meant was an ac with a fleet. like a couple of subs,frigates and destroyers, which i might add, the indian navy has got. ... thailand has an ac? who did they buy it off? |
![]() [size=7]WILL RISE AGAIN!!!![/size] [size=14]INDIA[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Shaan14 | Apr 22 2005, 09:37 PM Post #91 |
|
Brigadier
|
p.s i still think that the indian anvy is one of the best around. it has one of the biggest navies in the world and their ships are not bad quality. i admit they do not match up to the british navy ship for ship but some of the new one we have been building could match up to most other european ships of the same class. |
![]() [size=7]WILL RISE AGAIN!!!![/size] [size=14]INDIA[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| bop_04 | Apr 23 2005, 02:50 AM Post #92 |
|
Commander
|
Tailand bought it off spain. Its a small a/c most a helicopter carrier think it displaces around 12000 tonnes, will check it up for you. http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/thail.htm |
|
"Honour the Gods, Love your wife, Defend your country" Hector | |
![]() |
|
| Shaan14 | Apr 23 2005, 07:53 PM Post #93 |
|
Brigadier
|
spain??!! ok.. thanks a lot bop. 12,000 tonnes isnt that much we are building are own carrier 47,500 which is more than 1.5 times more than the british carriers and i think half as much as the american carriers which means it will be the biggest carrier is asia when it comes out am i right? or does anyone know and bigger ones being built or existing owned by an asian country. |
![]() [size=7]WILL RISE AGAIN!!!![/size] [size=14]INDIA[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Shaan14 | Apr 23 2005, 07:56 PM Post #94 |
|
Brigadier
|
sorry the carrier is 37,500 tonnes |
![]() [size=7]WILL RISE AGAIN!!!![/size] [size=14]INDIA[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| bop_04 | Apr 27 2005, 02:36 AM Post #95 |
|
Commander
|
Yeah ur rite shann, india has just started construction of a new carrier. Here is a good article in defense news about it. http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=778786&C=asiapac She was however designed by an italian firm, Fincantieri and they will over see construction i think although she is being built in indian shipyards. Looks like a capable ship but i think that the most important thing that is happening is the construction of 19 new frigates and corvettes which will greatly increase the indian navies capabilities in the future and provide better support for the 2 new carriers (the other one is the current russian Admiral Gorshkov, which is going under a huge re fit before she is delivered to the indian navy). Read an article that indian defense ministry was also looking at buying the current UK sea harriers for the new carrier but not to sure, will see if i can find it. Think the gorshkov will carry migs? However on a personal note i think that it was a mistake to make the new carrier a STOBAR, they should have gone CATOBAR. |
|
"Honour the Gods, Love your wife, Defend your country" Hector | |
![]() |
|
| Shaan14 | Apr 29 2005, 12:28 AM Post #96 |
|
Brigadier
|
wow thanks for the article it wos really good i didnt know that we were getting that 40000ton carrier in 2008
i thought we would get it erlier and actually the indian navy is designin most if the a/c .
that means that by 2012 we will have a whole bunch of new ships AND 2 aircraft carriers and damned big ones too. that would mean that the only countries who would have bigger carriers than us then would be the US and Russia right? |
![]() [size=7]WILL RISE AGAIN!!!![/size] [size=14]INDIA[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| bop_04 | Apr 29 2005, 02:33 AM Post #97 |
|
Commander
|
No basically when the next wave of carriers are built india will have 2 carriers both around 40000 tonnes, the UK will have 2 carriers around 60000 tonnes and 1/2 helicopter carriers around 20000 tonnes ocean and they will prob look at another based around the invincible class carrier design with a flat deck. France will have 1 CDG 40000 tonne and 1 60000 tonne Pac2 carrier and 2 mistral class 20000 heli carriers (they are basically heli carriers although are discribed as LPD) USA will operate probably 11/12 carrier groups, along with 40000+ tonne wasps heli carriers, taras ect ect needless to say they have more firepower than all the rest of the world combined. Russia will operate 1 carrier 40000 tonnes Japan will operate 1-3 20000 tonnes helicarriers (asw platform similar to invinsible class in terms of size) Italy will operate 1 22000 tonne Andrea Doria, and maybe the Garibaldi not to sure. Spain will have 1 carrier prob 20000-25000 tonne Brazil will continue to operate the aging sao paulo for the next while China will most prob look at heli carriers very soon, and south korea is getting a 20000 heli carrier. May be slighly wrong here but that will be the general look of carriers and helicopter carriers fleets in the next 10 years. |
|
"Honour the Gods, Love your wife, Defend your country" Hector | |
![]() |
|
| Shaan14 | Apr 30 2005, 03:21 PM Post #98 |
|
Brigadier
|
i thought that russia would have more than one carrier being a major power but they do have a "lack of funds" but still ony France UK and USA will have bigger carriers than us. the rest have roughly the same tonnage or they have less if they are heli carriers. 10/11 countries is actually quite a lot of nations having carriers. the world is still advancing but we are catching up. i think in a couple of years our current carrier "Viraat" will be out of service. im not sure if we will sell it but i think that we might scrap it. do you know bop? |
![]() [size=7]WILL RISE AGAIN!!!![/size] [size=14]INDIA[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| bop_04 | Apr 30 2005, 06:16 PM Post #99 |
|
Commander
|
Yes Indias navy is developing along very nicly and will have a very capable blue water fleet very soon. However it id important not to base how good a navy is by there carrier fleets. While a carrier is the ultamate tool to project power, it is nothing without escorts and i would consider subs to be more important in war time, especially for a country in asia. Viraat will be decomissioned very soon yes, she is very old and was actually decomissioned as HMS hermes by the RN over 20 years ago. |
|
"Honour the Gods, Love your wife, Defend your country" Hector | |
![]() |
|
| Shaan14 | May 1 2005, 02:43 PM Post #100 |
|
Brigadier
|
ok thanks for the facts. where are all the regular members of this forum? where have they all gone? |
![]() [size=7]WILL RISE AGAIN!!!![/size] [size=14]INDIA[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Navy · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2











i thought we would get it erlier and actually the indian navy is designin most if the a/c .
1:42 PM Jul 11