All stats are from Wikipedia. You know the history with Wikipedia so this is done with caution...besides its for comparison only. You're looking at a tale of two navies...one optimized for coalition warfare...the Royal Navy and the other it appears capable of independent action.
I am more impressed with the Japanese Navy than I ever thought possible. CDR Salamander is right. We have a European tilt to our view of defense issues. The Japanese Navy with the help of the S. Koreans and Australians should allow for a MANAGEABLE/SENSIBLE SLIGHT reduction in defense spending with out endangering our stance towards China.
NOTE: Is it time to start looking at the European forces as one entity instead of a collection of forces? They haven't reached the desired level of integration but its apparent that they are tailoring their forces with that goal in mind.
Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force...
Royal Navy...
I am more impressed with the Japanese Navy than I ever thought possible. CDR Salamander is right. We have a European tilt to our view of defense issues. The Japanese Navy with the help of the S. Koreans and Australians should allow for a MANAGEABLE/SENSIBLE SLIGHT reduction in defense spending with out endangering our stance towards China.
NOTE: Is it time to start looking at the European forces as one entity instead of a collection of forces? They haven't reached the desired level of integration but its apparent that they are tailoring their forces with that goal in mind.
Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force...
Present fleet
[edit]Helicopter Destroyers-(DDH)
.jpg)
[edit]Guided Missile Destroyers-(DDG)
[edit]Destroyers-(DD)
.jpg)
The JMSDF does not appear to use the term frigate. Thus smaller destroyer vessels in the JMSDF are often cited as Small Destroyers or simply Frigates.[3]
- Akizuki class destroyers (Three more to enter service)
- Takanami class destroyers
- Murasame class destroyers
- Asagiri class destroyers
- Hatsuyuki class destroyers
[edit]Destroyer Escorts-(DE)
[edit]Submarines-(SS)
- Sōryū class submarines (Three more to enter service)
- Oyashio class submarines
- Harushio class submarines
[edit]Patrol Boats
[edit]Mine-countermeasure vessels
- Uraga class minesweeper tenders
- Yaeyama class minesweepers
- Enoshima class minesweepers (Two more to enter service)
- Hirashima class minesweeper
- Sugashima class minesweeper
- Uwajima class minesweeper
- Niijima class minesweeper controllers
- Ieshima class minesweeper controllers
[edit]Training Ships
- Kashima class cadet training ships
- Shimayuki Class training vessel
- Asashio Class training submarine
- Training support ships
- Kurobe (ATS-4202)
- Tenryu (ATS-4203)
[edit]Landing ships
- Ōsumi class tank landing ships
- Yura class utility landing ships
- 1-Go class utility landing ships
- Yusotei 1-Go (LCU-1)
- Yusotei 2-Go (LCU-2)
[edit]Landing craft
- YF 2121 class mechanized landing craft (eleven in service)
- YF 2150 class Mechanized landing craft (two in service)
- Landing Craft Air Cushion (six in service)
Royal Navy...
Submarines
| Class | Picture | Type | Boats | Displacement[N 1] | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Submarines (10 in Service) | |||||
| Astute-class |  | Fleet submarine (SSN) | HMS Astute (S119) | 7,400 tonnes | Six more to be commissioned. |
| Trafalgar-class |  | Fleet submarine (SSN) | HMS Tireless (S88) HMS Torbay (S90) HMS Trenchant (S91) HMS Talent (S92) HMS Triumph (S93) | 5,300 tonnes | This class is gradually being replaced by the Astute-class submarines. |
| Vanguard-class |  | Ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) | HMS Vanguard (S28) HMS Victorious (S29) HMS Vigilant (S30) HMS Vengeance (S31) | 15,900 tonnes | Initial planning/work underway on the replacementof the Vanguard-class submarines. |
[edit]Surface fleet
[edit]Assault ships
| Class | Picture | Type | Ships | Displacement | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Assault ships (4 in Service) | |||||
| Albion-class |  | Landing platform dock (LPD) | HMS Albion (L14) HMS Bulwark (L15) | 19,560 tonnes | Albion is in extended readiness.[2] Bulwark is the current Fleet Flagship.[3] |
 | Amphibious assault ship (LPH) | HMS Ocean (L12) | 21,500 tonnes | ||
| Invincible-class |  | Aircraft carrier | HMS Illustrious (R06) | 22,000 tonnes | In service as helicopter carrier.[4] Due to be decommissioned in 2014. TwoQueen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriersare under construction, which are due to enter service in 2016 and 2018. |
The Royal Fleet Auxiliary possess three Bay class Landing ship docks (LSD). The Royal Marines operate a varied fleet of landing craft which operate from and in conjunction with the above vessels and those of the RFA.
[edit]Frigates and destroyers
| Class | Picture | Type | Ships | Displacement | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frigates and destroyers (18 in Service) | |||||
| Type 23 or Duke-class | .jpg) | Frigate | HMS Argyll (F231) HMS Lancaster (F229) HMS Iron Duke (F234) HMS Monmouth (F235) HMS Montrose (F236) HMS Westminster (F237) HMS Northumberland (F238) HMS Richmond (F239) HMS Somerset (F82) HMS Sutherland (F81) HMS Kent (F78) HMS Portland (F79) HMS St Albans (F83) | 4,900 tonnes | This class to be gradually replaced by the Type 26 frigate currently in development. |
| Type 45 or Daring-class |  | Guided missile destroyer | HMS Daring (D32) HMS Dauntless (D33) HMS Diamond (D34) HMS Dragon (D35) | 7,500 tonnes | Two more to be commissioned in 2013. |
| Type 42 or Sheffield-class |  | Guided missile destroyer | HMS Edinburgh (D97) | 5,200 tonnes | To be decommissioned in 2013. |
[edit]Mine countermeasure vessels
| Class | Picture | Type | Ships | Displacement | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mine countermeasure vessels (15 in Service) | |||||
| Hunt-class |  | Mine countermeasures vessel | HMS Ledbury (M30) HMS Cattistock (M31) HMS Brocklesby (M33) HMS Middleton (M34) HMS Chiddingfold (M37) HMS Atherstone (M38) HMS Hurworth (M39) HMS Quorn (M41) | 685 tonnes | |
| Sandown-class |  | Minehunter | HMS Penzance (M106) HMS Pembroke (M107) HMS Grimsby (M108) HMS Bangor (M109) HMS Ramsey (M110) HMS Blyth (M111) HMS Shoreham (M112) | 600 tonnes | |
[edit]Patrol vessels
[edit]Survey vessels
| Class | Picture | Type | Ships | Displacement | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Survey vessels (4 in Service) | |||||
| Echo-class |  | Multi-purpose survey vessel | HMS Echo (H87) HMS Enterprise (H88) | 3,470 tonnes | |
 | Ocean survey vessel | HMS Scott (H131) | 13,500 tonnes | ||
 | Coastal survey vessel | HMSML Gleaner (H86) | 26 tonnes | ||
[edit]Classic ships
| Class | Picture | Type | Ships | Displacement | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Classic ships (2 in Service) | |||||
 | Ship of the line | HMS Victory | 3,556 tonnes | Flagship of the First Sea Lord, permanently docked in Portsmouth Naval Base.[5] | |
| Type 82 or Bristol-class |  | Guided missile destroyer | HMS Bristol (D23) | 6,400 tonnes[6] | Permanently docked in Portsmouth Harbour as a training vessel. |
Sol,
ReplyDeleteI've already posted a couple of times in your other post about this, but i'll add one thing here.
1) don't forget 2x QE class on the way.
2) I'll admit I don't know masses about the Japanese navy, so could you break down the capabilities of those destroyers/frigates/destroyer escorts a bit for a more accurate comparison.
For example, I know the Kongos are on par with Burkes, so i'd suggest similar to a T45. But what are the other classes tasked with/equipped for? Which of them are dedicated to ASW like a T23, what are the others for etc?
Would also be useful to know which classes are on their way out. As in the British comparison above, i'd think some are in the process of winding down and the replacements are also in the list.
Finally, how capable are those subs, are they capable of long blue water stints like the Aussies are after? Or more coastal like some European SSKs.
(Just as a side note, I had a look at manpower differences, but it was a little hard to take anything away from, with Japanese regular personnel numbering 45,000 to the RNs 37,000. But the RN also has, according to wiki, over 25,000 regular reserve personnel.)
The RN suffered because the "enemy" in the 20th century was European and land based. The trouble is the British, their politicians, their army, and their air force think this has been the way of British defence from time in memoriam. We now have an airforce that believes it can go anywhere and do anything yet struggles to mount a campaign on the edge of Europe with US help. We have an army that forgets it can go and anywhere without the US's sea, air, diplomatic, and economic power smoothing the way.Britain has forgetten the 450 years proceeding 1914 where the navy was the country's bulwark. The time when GB went from minor power to the world power.
ReplyDeleteAsia is rather like pre-WW2. They made trade together. But nationalism is always on display. Unlike the UK the Japanese's continental mainland is enemy territory. A clear threat always focuses the government's mind. And for the Japanese that threat comes across the sea. In the UK defence is always discussed in terms of joint operations with other states, of never doing anything on our own, which is all shorthand for hoping the US will rescue us.
Sol,
ReplyDeleteHave to agree with what Grim says. The total combined strength of the UK Naval Service is around 38,000 however only 80% of that is the Royal Navy, so the RN has about 15,000 less personnel to play with compared to the JMSDF. Also after having a quick flick through the impressive Japanese fleet (and it is impressive), I would pick two faults with the frigate numbers, the Destroyer-escort Abukuma class has no SAM or PDMS only the 76mm gun and phalanxs CIWS so wouldn’t want to go near the Chinese in those and 3 of the Hatsuyuki class destroyers have been converted to training ships. Saying that they still have 2 more AAW destroyers and 2-3 times the number of frigates as we currently have.
Hope you don’t mind Sol but I have also done a bit of quick wiki searching and have done a quick comparison of some major European navy’s in some areas to show why although the RN is small you shouldn’t think that we are slowly going to combine all of Europe’s navy’s together to form “EuroNavy”.
ReplyDeleteSubmarines
Royal Navy: 6 (up to 7)
French Navy: 6
German Navy: 4
Italian Navy: 6 (down to 4)
Spanish Navy: 3
Dutch Navy: 4
Total: 28(25) - RN provides 25%(28%), also RN SSN's are TLAM capable
Frigates & Destroyers
Royal Navy: 19
French Navy: 11 (could go down to 8, final 3 FREMM not confirmed yet)
German Navy: 11
Italian Navy: 12 (could go down to 8, final 4 FREMM not confirmed yet)
Spanish Navy: 11 (could go down to 9, final 2 frigates not confirmed yet)
Dutch Navy: 6 (could go down to 4)
Total: 70(59) - RN provides 27%(32%)
Amphibious Shipping
Royal Navy: 7 (5100 Marines) NB excludes Point class sealift ships
French Navy: 4 (3600 Marines)
German Navy: 0 (0 Marines)
Italian Navy: 5 (1750 Marines)
Spanish Navy: 3 (2100 Marines)
Dutch Navy: 2 (1150 Marines)
Total: 21(13700 Marines) – RN/RFA provides 33% of shipping and 37% troops carried
Fleet replenishment Vessels
Royal Navy: 9 (6x Fast Fleet Oilers (limited dry stores), 3x Solid stores)
French Navy: 4 (4x Replenishment oiler)
German Navy: 4 (2x Oiler, 2x Replenishment Oiler)
Italian Navy: 3 (3x Replenisment Oiler)
Spanish Navy: 2 (2x Replenishment Oiler, one leased to RAN)
Dutch Navy: 1 (1x Joint Logistic Support Ship)
Total: 23 - RFA provides 40% of fleet replenishment assets
Total tonnage of Spanish Navy: 233,596 Tons
Total tonnage of German Navy: 242,508 Tons
Total tonnage of Dutch Navy: 154,323 Tons
Total tonnage of Italian Navy: 295,000 Tons
Total tonnage of Royal Navy: 374,785 Tons (excluding landing craft and RFA)
Total tonnage of Naval Service: 854,291 Tons 285 Vessels (RN, RM landing craft and RFA) as of 2012
I couldn’t find the current tonnage numbers of the French Navy but I hope the above gives a good snapshot as too why a combined euronavy would not work. Between the UK and France we provide somewhere between 50% – 60% of the total naval forces in each category, the UK by itself usually manages somewhere between 25% - 35% in each category. Only the French and ourselves conduct routine long endurance submarine patrols because we have SSNs. The RN is the only navy in Europe that can and trains to deploy a full brigade in an amphibious assault and we almost provide 50% (it could actually be 50% based on volume carried) of replenishment vessels. The French wont as a rule get involved in something that does not directly affect them, so on any given mission there goes 1/3 of your EuroNavy. The RN is not going to subsidise the rest of the b**dly Europeans for them, so that leaves the various odds and sods to work together to form an affective EuroNavy and that’s why it won’t work*.
* Bit harsh on the cloggies there. The RNN and RN train together regularly, as do our marines, to the point where if there any operation where we are both involved the Netherlands Marine Corps becomes part of 3 Commando brigade in the UK/NL Landing Force, allowing us to deploy a brigade+ sized unit from the sea. This is also why we signed a bi-lateral defence agreement with France and pissed of the rest of Europe. We both realised that we have similar requirements and roles in the world and that we shouldn’t let the rest of Europe essentially freeload of us. So between the UK/NL landing force and the French we should be able to deploy a Division- sized force in a large scale amphibious landing operation and between us and the French we will be able to keep a carrier permanently on station if required (post 2020 when QE and PoW/Ark Royal VI are in service)
Sorry for the long rambling sol
NICELY DONE! i get your rationale and the Royal Navy continues to punch above its weight. my point is twofold though. well really i think its three points. first the Royal Navy has a role to play in the Pacific. its been there historically as have the French and Netherlands so the commitment is enduring..especially if the Chinese become belligerent. it would revert to a battle between free states and a communist state. second was pointing to my surprise at the size and didn't say it but should have that the Royal Navy is the enabler for the other services. the QE carriers will be the final piece but all military operations will be expeditionary in nature. you have the logistics to support a naval task force and landing team but the emphasis is misplaced on an air force and army that will ultimately depend on the navy for support, transportation and ultimately protection. the last point is that i'd like to see better integration of european forces to properly develop naval capability. for a nation the size of the UK to provide 33 percent of Marine forces is a crime! i won't even delve into the other numbers!
DeleteSol,
DeleteI see where you’re going now. As to your point about more European integration of naval forces, in theory good in practice bad, because there’s lots of talk and not much action. To my knowledge the most successful European organised and run operation is Operation Atalanta (which incidentally is commanded by a Brit and his deputy commander is Italian traditionally 2 countries which have the let’s do, rather than let’s talk and talk attitude). The second problem is that even if we did get Europe organised there still the problem of requiring the right vessels and this requires defence spending, again something the Europeans don’t really do or do well (lots of fighting over workshare agreements, delays project, costs rise, numbers cut etc).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union
See the link above but the average spending based on GDP for the whole 27 European Union members is 1.61%. That’s about 3x less than the current US defence budget despite having a combined population that is 1/3 bigger than the US! And to make matters even better Britain and France’s GDP on defence spending contributes to about 45% of the total European Defence GDP. Its absolute f*** madness where 1/5 of the European Union (population of Britain and France) pay for almost half its defence needs and when it comes to defence R&D I think we pay for about 70% or something similar!
As for your point on Britain needing to move its focus east you should read the full transcript of the Chief of the Defence Staff’s 2012 speech:
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/12/chief-of-the-defence-staff-general-sir-david-richards-speech-to-the-royal-united-services-institute-rusi-17-december-2012/
However here is the brief summary:
RAF – basically more of an enabling role
+ Needs to look to using drones for more areas of work (drives down costs)
+ Needs to focus more on ISTAR systems
+ Possibly forward base “for training” some typhoon aircraft with allies in the Middle East
(Also the rumour mill in the past couple of days has been going mad about us possibly getting a 9th C-17 to increase our strategic lift)
Army – future looking likely to be more training and garrison roles
+ Maintain 3 armoured “heavy” Brigades as a core force and the rest of the army split into “adaptable” Brigades
+ 1 or 2 Adaptable Brigades will form “close tactical level relationships with particular countries in the Gulf” (Possibly a permanent battlegroup deployment for “training”, swap every 4 months?).
+ “Africa, brigades would be tasked to support key allies in the east, west and south” (Reads as 1 or 2 brigades forging links with a battlegroup being rotated through the area. The British Army Training Unit in Kenya is expanding to take battlegroup formations for training).
+ And the best bit for our SE Asia friends:
“whilst another might be given an Indian Ocean and SE Asian focus, allowing for much greater involvement in the FPDA, for example”. (Probably strengthening the permanent Ghurkha Battalion in Brunei to a Battlegroup formation + more jungle training for troops)
Royal Navy – looking like the future big player (strange since CDS is an Army man but I’m not complaining)
+ Navy needs to change how it acquires ships to increase fleet numbers*
+ RM will form the core of our new Joint Expeditionary Force (sharp Tip of the spear with the Para’s)
+ QE class will provide core of new taskforce (2x semi-permanent TF’s each with a carrier attached)
*It sounds like we are going back to the old C1 and C2 concept. So one possible interpretation means only 10x Type 26 ASW frigates will be purchased (increase of 2 in ASW) and 8x Type 27 GP light frigate. However if we box clever we might get 12x Type 26 and 6-8x Type 27). The type 27 would free up the high end escorts for East of Suez and taskforce protection by patrolling Atlantic and the Med.
I was leafing through my old Combat Fleets of the World 1884/85 recently just to rattle the grey matter for a Far East comparo, today and yesterday. Well the reading was not pleasant. Increased Japanese and esp. S Korean and ChiComm capabilities and numbers (whilst silently compromising the Taiwanese) suggest there is a big square off on the horizon soon. The Japanese have two DDHs planned/under construction. That is two 815ft flat tops to you and me and they are quaintly referred to as "frigates" in the Japanese press!!!!
ReplyDeleteThen yesterday the Indian press reported a decrease in planned Indian defence expenditure FFS!!!!!!! And the very same day I read this
http://www.china-defense-mashup.com/chinese-paper-advises-pla-navy-to-build-overseas-military-bases.html
The base names that raised my eye brows were Walvis Bay, Djibouti and the really interesting Port Moresby and Chonjin Port. Those last two sound like the second part of an attempt to outflank the second island defence chain. For if there is one thing that can be guaranteed by having Common Purpose/Maoist/Bankster/Diversity compliant puppets in charge it is that there will be no way that Taiwan will be free from ChiComm take down and no way that the nuclear deterence is guaranteed now that all the nukes are directly under politico launch authority.
Sol just caught my typo, should be 1984/85. Mind you going back a century and the same scenario applies only the names are Imp Germany, Imp Japan and USofA. Still a big fight in the offing.
Delete