Talk:Blue-water navy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Blue-water navy article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

/Archive to 24 Oct 06

/Archive2 created 10-Jul-2007

Contents

[edit] Russian Navy

Try reading and understanding first.

The British Navy has 3 carriers and 16 nuclear submarines

The French Navy has 1 carrier and 10 nuclear submarines

as the discussion pointed out, these are the ships needed for blue water ability of a navy.

The Russian Navy has 1 carrier and 49 nuclear submarines on 1st January 2002

so even if only 20% of the Russian Navy are fit, it still equals the blue water ability of the French Navy. With 30% fit it equals roughly the UK. Very early in this discussion it was pointed out that Russia has a different blue water doctrine than the USA or the UK.

Further questions? Wandalstouring 13:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Does the Russian navy still deploy in a blue-water fashion? I know they tried a Med cruise a few years back and it didn't do so well. Still, I'd put them in as Blue Water, if only becuase from time to time a Kirov-class can bring up steam. I think their subs give them a more theoretical Blue Water capability, since IIRC they hold them back in Arctic waters, both as SSBNs and to guard the SSBNs. No need to send them out further afield.

The Royal Navy has only two operational carriers (three total, but they only use two). I think 100% of the Russian fleet could be "operational" and it still would not count as blue-water because Russia does not have the money to deploy them to any significant degree. Russia spends $18 billion (Duma budget for 2005) for a military of 800,000. Naturally, there's a lot of wastage, and this is most often seen in the navy. Yeah the Russians have all these great assets, but they are used nowhere near as often as the Americans, the British, and the French use whatever they have.UberCryxic 22:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Only two Carriers, INVINCIBLE has been decommissioned. ILLUSTRIOUS is active at the moment and ARK ROYAL is just undergoing activation training following her recent refit.ALR 09:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


Your comments about Russia not having the money to deploy the Navy in blue water capacity are unsourced and are POV. The Russian Navy has 1 aircraft carrier, 5 cruisers, 15 destroyers and 40 nuclear submarines while the Royal Navy has 2 aircraft carriers (which are quite obsolete and will be replaced) 0 cruisers, 8 destroyers and 13 nuclear submarines. How can the Royal Navy have greater power projection if the Russian fleet is almost triple the size, and the British fleet and has only 36,000 sailors compared to Russia's 142,000? Let's be serious.User:Ilya1166 2 June 2007

I have not seen any documented evidence that the Russian navy has made many significant blue water cruises in recent years. By all means show a cite, but extraordnary claims require extraordinary evidence. Rhialto 14:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The USSR navy was the second largest in the world and most of its fleet was transferred to the Russian Navy. It ALREADY HAS blue water cruisers and the second largest fleet of nuclear subs in the world, the burden of proof not on me but on you to prove that it isn't a blue water navy. It is still the second largest navy in the world. Also, the Russian navy is building a fleet of new and state of the art nuclear subs, one of which has already been launched, see Borei class submarineUser:Ilya1166 3 June 2007

The USSR collapsed due to a variety of factors. One significant consequence of that was that the miltary, icluding the navy, became underfunded, and many of their ships became either un-used or un-usable. I just looked through the wikipedia article on teh Russian navy, and see nothing to suggest it has recovered to the strength of the former Soviet navy. Remember, it isn't just about what is there, it's about what it does.

Also, please stop reverting the article. Once challenged, the onus is on the proposer to back up the material they propose, with cites. I have not seen any of that. I'm not going to revert right away, since I know you'll only revert back immediately anyway (wp:3rr). But unless I see some cites added soon, it will go back to before, since the status you are claiming for the Russian navy is unsupported by the evidence available. Rhialto 09:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if "many of their ships became either un-used or un-usable", it still exceeds the capabilities or the British or French navies. Yes, after the USSR collapse they stopped maintaining many ships, but the USSR was operating 170 nuclear subs, while now it operates 40, still easily the second largest in the world. And did you not see the article about the fleet of Borei class submarine the Russians are building? The recent steps to modernise and restart navy shipbuilding has been made possible by Russia's spectacular economic resurgence based on oil and gas revenues. The military is in the process of a major overhaul in Russia's military infrastructure, with the government in the process of spending about $200 billion (what equals to about $400 billion in PPP dollars) on development and production of military equipment between 2006-2015, of which a large chunk is going to the Navy. With this significant influx of funding, (former) defence minister Sergei Ivanov stated that he wanted to exceed the Soviet army in "combat readiness".[1] User:Ilya1166

I said "many of their ships became either un-used or un-usable". I still say you could have a thousand aircraft carriers, but if you don't use them in an ocean-going cruise, they may as well not exist. the Russian navy, certainly failed that criterion in the immediate aftermath of the Soviet collapse, and hasn't shown signs of a full recovery yet. As for the Borei class submarine, they aren't actually in service yet, and the article is about present-day activity, not future potential. Regardless of whether the military is in major overhaul and growing rapidly, the article is about what it is able to do NOW, not in the near future. Rhialto 06:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Why do you assume that the Russian Navy does not maintain Continuous At Sea Deterrence with their fleet of nuclear subs? They do form part of Russia's nuclear deterrent.--Ilya1166 11:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't deny that the Russians have such a fleet, which is why I consider them an example of a navy with considerable blue water capability. However, a ballistic missile submarine fleet is designed to attack land based targets; it can't control a given area of water, and controlling the space is one of teh key characteristics that makes a navy have blue water status. A submarine fleet which has such weapons is, at best, hiding in blue waters. Rhialto 19:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Rhialto, your logic is flawed. Russia in operation have more ships, balistic nuclear submarines, attack nuclear submarines than UK or France therefore it is capable to project its power at least as France or UK do. And lets talk about that "power projection" of the UK and France! It is sufficent enough only to bully litlle third-world undeveloped countries. Main purpose is to keep under control regimes of their ex-colonies or other small countries (oil rich ofcourse). And not even thats is always possible. Do you remeber Egypt, Korea, Vietnam, Falklands? Anyway, Russia doesnt wage a war against defenceless regimes over seas and that the main reason of "inactivity" of their surface fleet. However if need arises it is capable to "project power" to protect its interest at the sea. But I find very unlikely that Russia will go to attack some country 10.000 km away from Russia. Main purpose is to protect its merchant fleet. 147.91.1.44 17:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
It isn't just about numbers, but demonstrable usage. I haven't seen any real evidence that Russia has in recent years operated its ships in a blue-water capacity. Yes, you're right, Britain and France mostly use theirs to "bully litlle third-world undeveloped countries". Fortunately, this isn't a discussion about the ethics of how a navy is used. (Aside: if you had to use the navy ethically to qualify, not one country could be counted.) As you note, Russia *doesn't* wage wars over international waters. You have very neatly explained exactly why it doesn't have a blue-water navy. It may (arguably) be capable should it see the need; Japan is too. But the list is about actual present-day blue-water navies, but potential blue-water navies, and part of being an actual blue-water navy is acting like one, which, as you stated, Russia's doesn't. Rhialto 22:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest that sustaining CASD is more than just the launch platforms, those platforms need force protection and adequate waterspace management to assure survival to launch. There is an argument that numbers matter here, so that a level of attrition can be compensated for and reducing the force-protection requirement. We know from previous doctrinal decisions that high attrition is an acceptable strategy for Russian forces.
Whilst I would not suggest that the Russian Navy has adequate force protection for their launch platforms, if we consider the attrition approach it could be considered that there is a marginal capability, although I'm not convinced by my own argument.
All that said I think the argument that Russia has a viable CASD capability is a little specious, their hulls are, according to open source material, in a pretty poor state and their deployments are routinely reported by various security monitoring firms.
ALR 20:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Arguments? Sources? NPOV? 147.91.1.44 17:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Russian Navy, they have a lot of problem to solve. But still can be in the Examples of navies with considerable blue water capabilities list.[1][2][3][4] Chanakyathegreat 13:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Revival?[5][6] Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

They made the blue water cruises without any incident. It's a revival of the Russian Navy. [7]. Adm. Gary Roughead, U.S. chief of naval operations, downplayed the incident and said it reflected Russia's emerging naval power.

"I think what we are seeing is a Russian military or Russian navy that is emerging and, in the case of the navy, desiring to emerge as a global navy," Roughead told reporters at the Pentagon.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 09:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the whole world with the exception of possibly some Russians view only the UK, US and France as having blue-water navies. Your argument about the UK and France using their navies to bully other countries is also a bit rich when we see how Russia is crumbling internally, bullying all of its bordering neighbours and its democracy is about as democratic as Hitler's Germany. Russia has a long way to go before it becomes a fully fledged naval power again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.97.11 (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC) You also seem to fail to understand that while Russia may have more vessels than any other nation it does not mean they are of the same quality. It is a well known fact that The Soviet Union often went for numbers over quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.97.11 (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Japan

What about adding Japan to the list? Their Kongo's are certainly Blue Water units, though I admit to being unfamiliar with their deployment habits.

Japan seems to lack abilities to carry out offensive strikes -- no aircraft carriers, no cruise missiles. This might change quite swiftly should the political will be present in the future. Rama 21:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
In any case, the list is meant to serve as examples. It is NOT intended to be an exhaustive list. Trying to make an exhaustive list is what caused teh article to get bogged down in edit wars before. I hope we've moved past that. Rhialto 22:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Well Japan lacks the ability to project power because the JMSDF does not have a carrier, they are in a similar situation as China, if we are to include Japan, shouldn't we include China as well? 68.95.126.191 04:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
That section is meant to be examples, not an exhaustive list. Look at the archives to see the mess and flamewars that result from trying to make that section an actual list. Also, one major reason Japan isn't noted as a full blue-water navy is their constitutoion essentially forbids such operations. Japan's navy is significantly more powerful than China's though. While they don't have a true carrier, they do have amphibious assault vessels, and their destroyers do in fact have the capability to carry vtol aircraft, so they can simulate a carrier quite well should the need arise. Rhialto 07:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
They have the potential to be a blue-water navy but that doesn't mean they have a blue-water navy as of now. You can say China has the potential to have a blue-water navy as well with their booming economy, SSN/SSBN and good AshM. But I understand the purpose of being examples so I won't change anything. 66.142.43.32 20:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] India - yet again

Just to clarify the apparent lack of understanding of the topic which prompts the persistent attempts to wordsmith Indias position on the page:

Nuc tipped cruise missiles are not a strategic deterrent, so do not constitute CASD. They're a tactical weapon of limited utility.

Merely having flat tops isn't enough, they need to be supported by adequate logistic capability and escorts and should be effectively deployable.

ALR 15:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Examples

I see that the examples of others navy (Franch, Italian, Russian, etc.) were many time removed and readded... the examples have to be only the UK and Usa navies...why??? I think it is the usual not neutral anglo-saxon POV ...please!!! --79.6.115.228 (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there were many times removed and added, and the flame wars from them were quite fiery. It was finally agreed that the intention was that it should show examples to illustrate the concept, not be an exhaustive list. Since these examples (indeed, this entire English-language wikipedia) are aimed at anglophone people, using examples of non-anglophone navies is not useful, since fewer of the expected readers would be familiar enough with those navies to gain an understanding of the concept through them. Detailed information of the specific status of other navies is of course available on the specific article on each navy. Rhialto (talk) 08:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Adding more navies would also lead to nationalistic cries of, "If country X is in, why not also country Y?" This would ultimately lead to the focus of the article changing from describing what a blue-water navy is and into a mere listing of navies. Rhialto (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
or you remove all the examples, or you have to let another one to put his examples (obviously with the proper sources), because when you chose one and not another, you are the first not neutral as required...--87.2.115.97 (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
You appear to have missed the whole point of what "examples" means - the fact that they are called "examples" acknowledges that it is not an exhaustive list. To accept your logic would destroy the article. Rhialto (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
no, perhaps it only destroys the section with your list (because you choose to have a list, where you put some countries and not others, and this can be considered a personal POV, not very neutral…when you start a list, even an example list, you have to accept the POV of others, when it is with sources, otherwise you have to remove the list…) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.10.115.157 (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a reason it is called "examples of" and not "list of". It isn't meant to be a list. And it is not "my" examples either. I am just preserving the status quo that was agreed on after a very long and heated discussion. Rhialto (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)