Dreadnought

Just asking guys have they named them yet? (The Carriers in progress)

tphuang

well, I guess the issue here is what the navies are built for. plan is concentrating on defense against USN intervention in the Taiwan conflict, so that's why it's building a lot of costal stuff and a lot of subs. Whereas in IN is building for dominance in the Indian ocean, so it's getting ACs.

It's true, you can't hide FACs, so I guess let's just use the word stealthy then. They may have been copied from the Australians, but they are still good.

As for the weapons on 052C and 054, the ones I listed are pretty much the consensus weapons listed for all websites. Except for possibly the radar on 052C and also it's AShM. Most people believe that it's using YJ-62 (whose export specs just got posted on Aviation Weekly and most western defense magazines recently), but some believe it's using YJ-85.
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/noy.../091905p09.xml

rickusn

"Just asking guys have they named them yet? (The Carriers in progress)"

Queen Elizabeth
Prince of Wales


"(One of three navies with nuclear carrier)"


Actually only the USN and France. Russia had planned one but it was never built.

The Russian Kuznetsov is conventionally powered with 8 turbo -pressurized boilers feeding four sets of geared steam turbines.

As for rankings:

Much depends on capabilities/attributes/platforms you consider the most important ie:

Carriers
Submarines

SSBN
SSN
SSK

Should you include SSBN's when ranking navies? Or should they more rightly be considerd as Strtegic Assets only?

Not only capabilities should be considered but #s. Or should they? What weight do you give each consideration?

Example:

The UK is drawing down to from 11 to 8 SSNs but Japan has 18 plus 4 (reduced to a training role but still combat capable) SSKs.

Which is better?

For what role? ie defensive/offensive

Surface Combatants

CG(N)
CG
DDG
DD
FFG
FF
FFL(about 1220 tons fl to 2000fl)

Again not only capabilities should be considered but #s also. Or should they? What weight do you give each consideration?


Examples:

Russia's Fleet has approx 30 ships over 3000 tons fl as does and China or soon will have. India has about the same # but eight are smaller at 1400 tons fl.

Plus China has forty something FF/FFL between 1700 and 2400 tons fl.

Some of the Russian ships are not fully operational. Some are overage and due for retirement. Capabilities vary greatly.

China also has some overage ships and widely varying capabilities as does India.

I grouped the above together also because they share many common systems.

Japan has twice as many(over 50 to 26) surface combatants as the UK with the majority as capable or more capable than the Royal Navy ships.

France lags badly compared to both in capabilities at the moment and about the same in #s as the UK but about a third of those ships(A-69 class) are only 1250-1330 tons fl. Plus the five La Fayettes have no sonar??

Turkey and Taiwan have similar #s of large surface combatants as the UK and France. But also lag a bit as regards capabilities. They also have overage Knox class frigates in service four for Turkey and eight for Taiwan. Turkey has included six ex-French A- 69 ships. Taiwan has four ex -Kidd class class DDG's coming into service shortly. Both have OHP FFG ships eight each. Taiwan has six greatly improved (including sonar) French-designed La Fayette FF's and Turkey eight MEKO 200 variants.

Others nations to consider with 8-16 large surface combatants. The first six have 3 to 6 new state-of-the art AAW DDG/FFG type ships either built, building or planned.:

Spain
Italy plus 8 FFL
Germany
Netherlands
S. Korea plus 33 FFL
Austrailia
Canada
Brazil
Chile
Greece

Other important considerations when ranking navies:

Do they have the capability to operate world-wide?

Defensive/offensive capabilities and what weight do you give each.

Fleet replenishment ships important for sustained at-sea operations. They are also important for credible world-wide operational prescence.

Amphibious ships

Mine warfare ships

C4SI capabilities

Airborne & Space assets.

Training

Maintenance

Op Tempo

Modernization programs for existing ships

New Construction programs

Indigenous shipyards and systems design/manufacturing

Naval history of a particular navy


Just my thoughts.

As hard as I try to be objective some amount of subjectivity creeps in.

Then getting complete and accurate info on the Russian and Chinese navies is difficult at best.

Dreadnought

Wow the Brits are giving those two former BB names to the Carriers. Interesting never thought they would use those names again.

Found this artists conception of Queen Elizibeth (expected 2012) & Prince of Whales (expected 2015).

Attached Images

cvfhires.jpg (163.8 KB, 219 views)

TopHatter

All good points. After all, when Argentina took on the British during the Falklands War, they werent just squaring off against a dimished budget-strapped Royal Navy.
They were also doing battle with hundreds of years of British naval tradition (a tradition that mostly consisted of winning), experience and seamanship.

__________________
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.
~John Quincy Adams

UKRNSAILOR

without a doupt the top 5 goes like this.......
1-USA
2-UK
3-FRANCE
4-RUSSIA
5-JAPAN

Shamus

Welcome to the WAB UKRNSAILOR,why don't you pop over to the member introductions forum and introduce yourself?

__________________
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but
it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.

braindead

Shameless , I have to tell you that if you wouldn´t use smileys , I´d be mightily scared on that last reply if I were a first-time poster - considering the avatar , title and handle ....

__________________
....

Shamus

Dectilion

odd to be reopening this thread, and France is definitely better than UK at this point

__________________
ROAD WARRIOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

rickusn

Im not much of one for which is better but DEctilion Im interested on :'

Why do you think France has a better Navy than UK?

The UK has superior and more numerous SSNs and a new class soon o enter service.

DeGaulle is out of service for what 18 months?

The RN AAW destroyers are by many measures superior and more numerous.

Its ASW frigates trump any of Framces destroyers/frigates by any measurement.

Its training is the envy of the world.

Amphibious warfare ships?

This is not to disparage France but to give a bit of perspective.

And your response?

rickusn

Hers osme relevant info to consider.:

Naval Technology - Horizon Class Anti-Air Warfare Frigates, France/Italy

"The first French vessel, Forbin, began construction in April 2002 and was launched in March 2005. It began combat system sea trials in January 2006 and will be delivered in June 2008. The second, Chevalier Paul, started construction in December 2003, was launched in July 2006 and is due for delivery in May 2009."

Naval Technology - Type 45 Daring Class - Anti-Air Warfare Destroyer

"Production of the first-of-class ship, HMS Daring (D32), was begun in March 2003 and it was launched on 1 February 2006 at Scotstoun. It is due to begin sea trials in late 2007 and enter service in December 2009. Construction of the second, HMS Dauntless (D33), was begun in August 2004 and it was launched on 23rd January 2007. The third, HMS Diamond (D34), was begun in February 2005 and is to launch in November 2007. The other vessels are HMS Defender (D35), HMS Dragon (D36) and HMS Duncan (D37). "

Naval Technology - SSN Astute Class - Attack Submarine

"It is planned that the three submarines will enter service in 2009, 2010 and 2011. The keel for the first-of-class Astute was laid in January 2001 and it was launched on 8 June 2007. Astute is planned to be delivered in August 2008 and enter service in January 2009. The keel of Ambush was laid in October 2003 and that of Artful in March 2005.

In May 2007, the UK MOD awarded BAE Systems a contract to build a fourth Astute Class submarine, HMS Audacious, to enter service in 2013."

kato

UK: 1 LPH (Ocean), 1 light helo carrier (Argus), 2 large LPD (Albions), 4 LPD (LSLs), 5 RoRo (Point)
France: 1 light helo carrier (Jeanne d'Arc), 2 LHD (Mistral), 2 LPD (Foudre), 1 light LSD (Bougainville), 5 light LST (Champlain), 1 light LPD in reserve (Orage)

Carrying Capacity (Amphibious):

UK - 4 LCAC, 4 LCU Mk10 or 8 LCVP
France - 4 LCAC or 8 landing barges, 4 LSM (700-ton EDIC/CDIC), 12 LCU (CTM)

Aviation Capacity (Commando Role):

UK - max up to ~50 helos (light) or ~40 helos (medium) operational from the above ships
France - max up to ~90 helos (light) or ~55 helos (medium) or ~40 helos (heavy) operational from the above ships

With Jeanne d'Arc potentially being replaced by a third Mistral-class (see Meretmarine). And the above of course depends on how you figure existing carriers, reserve ships and escorts into those capabilities.

Depends on where you put your priorities i guess? But overall, France isn't positioned that bad. Especially the two Mistrals add a lot of capability. The UK is better positioned at strategic power projection though.

Dectilion

admittedly its not so clear right now Rick, but i think in about ten years it will be clearer. deGaulle and a conventional cvf are as good as two stovl cvf (perhaps even better) france will be in the midst of commissioning FREMM units, while France will probably only get two (but possibly four) Horizon units, this represents Frances only major failing in the near future, as France has a new class of nuclear attack subs in the pipelines.

Currently however, the British position isnt as good as it seems Ocean is about to enter refit, Ark Royal is an LHD, and Illustrious is a strike carrier without aircraft (which is why the US marines took a visit) To compete with this display, the French have two mistral class. While the Royal navy certainly has an advantage in amphibious assault, Britain currently appear to have no advantage in destroyers

rickusn

"Britain currently appear to have no advantage in destroyers"

How do you figure that?

The two AAW destoyers of the MN are no match for the eight of the RN.

While the two MN Cassard class are newer their missiles and MK 13 launchers were recycled from old converted destroyers.

The RN will have at least six Type 45s and maybe eight. The MN will have two Horizons period.

The MN desperately needs FREMM to replace old units.

The RN has plans for new surface warships but is by no means critical as most of the RN units are quite young and recently upgraded.

The 17 relatively new(and mostly modernized) ASW units typed as frigates of the UK are head and shoulders more capable than the nine mostly old(and worse mostly unmodernized) units of the MN typed as destroyers.

The five La Fayettes have remarkably little combat value with no ASW capability.

And the Astutes are "real" and the existing SSNs are much more capable than the existing MN units and more numerous.

Amphibious wise they are about even in #s if you dont include the new RN Largs Bay class LSD.

Again the RNs vastly greater experience and by all acounts better training cannot be discounted.

And Oceas refit will be far shorter than De Gaulles, their LPDs are more capable than the MNs although one is in reduced commission IIRC.

And the flexibility of the Invincible class light carriers cant be matched by the MN.

And I have refrained from even mentioning the RN's own carrier program(like I have their future surface combatant programs) but if you can mention programs like the Barracuda which wont be commissioned until at least the middle of the next decade I might as well.

This is not to say the RN doesnt have challenges but in no way have you made a case for the MN eclipsing the RN IMHO.

And not to discount the stides the MN has made.

However I think I have made a clear case that they arent even tied when it comes to capability.

If not that the RN is still far more capable than the MN in most all areas.

But think what you will.

Its really not a major issue with me.

But I think your perspective may lack a bit of depth and you should go back and compare/contrast the two navies again like I have based on existing units, experience and training.