Skip to comments.The worlds second strongest navy (vanity)
Posted on 05/29/2012 2:10:46 AM PDT by moonshot925
What do you think?
The Royal Navy and French Navy are similar in size.
Royal Navy (4 SSBNs, 7 SSNs, 4 assault ships, 7 guided missile destroyers, 13 frigates and 24 patrol vessels and 170 aircraft)
French Navy (4 SSBN, 6 SSNs, 1 CVN, 4 assault ships, 12 frigates, 16 patrol vessels and 208 aircraft)
The French Navy has a nuclear powered aircraft carrier.
Also take the Russian Navy, Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force and People's Liberation Army Navy into consideration.
We could easily deafeat Canada.
Canada only has 35 million people. The USA has 314 million.
80% of the Canadaina population lives within 60 miles of the US border.
Leaving aside SSBNs, and aircraft carriers (and the French CV capability is pretty limited) it’s the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force, hands-down - it’s not even close.
Because at the current direction America is going Canada will soon be on it’s own.
First of all, Taiwan does not have a stronger navy than China. Not even close. The current Taiwanese navy couldn't really stand up against the current Chinese navy (and against what the Chinese are currently building for the future it is even more of a joke comparison). The Taiwanese are fielding obsolete submarines because no country is willing to sell them modern D-E boats, and their current strategy is to rely on fast-attack missile boats armed with supersonic missiles to try and buy a day or three.
By the way China does have SSBNs. It has had one Jia class in service since 1981, and 2 or 3 of the new Jin class boats since 2010.
As for the PLAN not being good in logistics I think it is important to note that a prudent service prepares not only for what the probable enemy is capable of now, but also what the probable enemy will be capable of in the future. The Chinese, a scant 10 years ago, wouldn't have been able to do an amphibious assault against Taiwan. They couldn't be able to replenish at sea, or perform missions far away from home base. The Jia I was referring to above (there were originally two, and one apparently/allegedly was lost) was not even leaving base. In the last 5 years the Chinese have jumped leagues from where they used to be, and they are currently engaged in anti-piracy duties (read: training missions) far from base.
Anyways, to answer your original question, pound for pound the Japanese Navy is the second strongest after the US. Sure, it may not have the number of vessels the French, Brits, Russians and/or Chinese have; and they also do not have any vessels that are nuclear powered or carry nuclear weapons; but their vessels are quite advanced. The South Koreans also have some advanced vessels (their AEGIS class is arguably the 'best'), but they don't have the numbers of the Japanese. My number two in terms of pound for pound would be Japan, while my number two overall for now would be the French (like the Brits, but far more likely to use their weapons compared to the Brits, contrary to all the silly and dated 'wussy French' tripe one finds).
However, the clear future number two is easy ...China. By 2025.
the PLAN is still primarily a coastal defense navy given a 300nm coastal zone. this means their ships are supported by land-based aircraft and ground-based SSMs. while they are weak in blue water power projection, this combination makes for a serious defensive position.
Exactly. From such a base they can progressively expand their envelop.
The Taiwan Navy is good but not better than China. My mistake.
However, i think the South Korean Navy is stronger than the Chinese Navy due to advanced American missiles and radars.
2 Sejong the Great class destroyers and 4 more planned
1 x 5 inch (127mm/L62) Mk-45 Mod 4 naval gun
1 x 30 mm Goalkeeper CIWS
1 x RAM Block 1 CIWS
4 x 4 SSM-700K Hae Sung anti-ship missiles
80-cell Mk 41 VLS SM-2 Block IIIB/IV
48-cell K-VLS 32 x Hyunmoo III land attack cruise missiles
16 x K-ASROC Red Shark in (VLS)
2 x 3 K745 LW Blue Shark torpedoes
6 Chungmugong Yi Sun-shin class destroyers
1 x 5 inch (127mm/L62) Mk-45 Mod 4 naval gun
1 x 30 mm Goalkeeper CIWS
32-cell Mk 41 VLS SM-2 Block IIIA
8 x Harpoon anti-ship missiles
3 Gwanggaeto the Great class destroyers
1 × OTO Melara 127 mm (5 inch)/54 gun
2 × Signaal 30 mm Goalkeeper CIWS
2 × quadruple Harpoon missile canisters
1 × Mk.48 mod2 VLS with 16 RIM-7P Sea Sparrow missiles
2 × triple 324 mm (12.8 in) torpedo tubes (Mark 46 torpedoes)
9 Ulsan class frigates
8 x Harpoon (2 quadruple launchers) Anti-Ship Missile
6 x 324 mm Blue Shark torpedo (2 triple tubes)
2 x Otobreda 76 mm/56 Gun
3 x Otobreda 40 mm/70 (2 twin) compact CIWS
The Swiss Navy.....never defeated in battle.
The US Navy is more powerful than all the worlds Navies combined.
Depending on how technical one wants to be, the 11-12 most powerful navies in the world are American. The 'second place' competition is actually for number 14 or 15. That's the blessing you as Americans have - it is up to you to maintain that deep legacy or watch it waste away.
My second stage comparison (after numbers of ships in each class) of: "where is the weakness?" downrates the French on the basis of anti air warfare capabilities.
Only 4 ships, and only two of them state of the art (the 2 others being effectively Charles F Adams equivalents). That's not an effective force.
To answer the original questiom, my "Who's got the ships" spreadsheet says there are 3 second level navies (PRC, Russia, Japan), and on the basis of technological level, I'd have to give the Silver to Japan, despite being the smallest of the three, no SSNs, and only being a Self Defence Force, not a Navy.
Was the world better off with Imperialism? I believe it was. In Africa average life for a male was 55 years—now its 35. The idea that ending the great Empires would usher in a new era of democracy hasn’t panned out—only replaced colonial administrators with tin horn dictators.
I’m not convinced that Canada has the depth of the warrior spirit that America has. It seems to me that Canada depends on it’s tiny percentage of warriors to give it glory and a token defense, but that it is just barely large enough to maintain an illusion.
Texas produces about 20% or 25% percent more military personnel annually than the entire nation of Canada does.
Don't confuse military superiority with the ability to defeat someone. We have been through that before.
The people who live out in the boonies would be a lot more labor intensive than the city folks.
All silliness aside, considering we import more oil from Canada than the Saudis, I think it is to our mutual benefit to keep things friendly.
A few summers ago I was on a small day cruise heading from Seattle to Victoria.
As we pulled into the harbor it was announced that on the starboard side, a “GU-11 was about to land on a Canadian carrier”.
Heading to the other side I remember thinking: Canada doesn’t have any carriers!
I got there just in time to see a seaGULL join the rest of the flock on a piece of driftwood floating in the water.
Having looked at the figures, I can’t quite see how we are ‘richer in absolute terms and could certainly afford more’.
Our current deficit is greater than all our previous deficits added together.
“We lended you $31.4 Billion from March 1941 to August 1945 under Lend-lease. This is during a time when your GDP was $30 Billion in 1939.
35 American escort carriers were transfered from the US Navy to the Royal Navy from November 1942 to August 1944. Bririan only produced 6 escort carriers during the entire war.
We lended another $3.3 Billion to you from 1947 to 1951 to rebuild. Why did we lend you money during a time of need? Was it a mistake?”
Of course it wasn’t a mistake. The US loaned that money and sent that equipment so we could fight our common enemy. It was in America’s interest that we kept fighting and it was a loan, not a gift which we have now repaid with interest. Likewise the UK sent gold and Spitfires to Russia so they could keep fighting, but like you, we did so because it was in our interest to do so.
Our per capita income (including purchasing power) is higher the reason for the deficit is because of ridiculous levels of welfare spending, which wasn’t the case back in the day. If we weren’t paying so much money to bribe the poorer end of the electorate (and even the better off, who cannot perceive the amount being robbed from them in taxes compared to how much they are receiving in benefits and healthcare), we would have plenty of money to spend on defending the realm and its interests...
Indeed, but we are paying off all that welfare spending, so we can’t afford more for defence. I’d prefer it to be different, but it isn’t.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.