WhitestElephant wrote:I am going to be direct, and people won't like what I am going to say.
Apart from the USN, only France can be considered a true expeditionary navy with global reach. The Royal Navy hasn't really belonged to that group since the withdrawal of the Sea Harrier in 2006, and the withdrawal of the GR9s and Ark Royal in 2010. Since then, the
only reason the Royal Navy finds itself somewhat included in that group (in good faith), is because we've had a concrete commitment to regenerate a credible carrier strike capability since 2009 (thank you Gordon Brown!).
While the MN has their one nuclear powered aircraft carrier what is there to back up their the claim that they can do power projection effectively?
Serious deficiencies in logistics, high-end AAW destroyers, long range SSNs (the Rubis class are 1/3rd the size of an Astute, that's going to have an impact on the quantity of stores and ammunition they can carry) and carrier strike (yes CdeG is a good bit of kit, but when it's in refit France has no carrier). All these things make me doubt France's consistent ability to break into an A2AD zone.
The JMSDF is not a global expeditionary navy. Apart from a sizeable DDG fleet, it displays very little visible evidence of any long range expeditionary capability, to say nothing of the ability to fight at high intensity at long range. The JMSDF is very much a regional self defence force, dependant on land based air power.
I agree, I should've been more specific about my view on the JMSDF. I think they're hands down one of the most capable navies in the Far East. In terms of equipment and, training I'd place them head and shoulders over many of their regional counterparts. When I placed them in the same category as the RN and USN I was specifically talking about their ability to operate and conduct offensive operations within an A2AD zone, rather than the ability to project power at range.
The Russian Navy is an odd one, a highly capable submarine fleet contrasted with a very poor surface fleet. I would probably put them in the same category as the Royal Navy. Like the United Kingdom, Russia has many or most of the capabilities associated with power projection at range and is seeking to regenerate those it has lost a hold of.
The Russians are indeed a strange one, I only tentatively included them because their very capable submarine arm would afford them substantial break-in capability if they had to operate offensively. Kuznetsov is only really good for area air defence (when she's not broken down) imo.
Now I suppose I'd better justify why I hold the RN in such high regard as a power projection navy.
1. Extremely robust amphibious forces. Like it or not the 1(+1) LPDs, 3 LSDs, Argus and the 4 Point Class ROROs constitute a formidable sealift force able to lift, land and support 3 Cdo bde plus supporting elements.
2. Robust AAW surface escort force: The RN has 3x as many modern AAW destroyers as the MN. SAMPSON is a better system than the EMPAR radar on the Horizons. The Type 45s are also in the process of being adapted for the ballistic missile defence role as well. Potentially vital if the anti-carrier ballistic missile catches on and proliferates.
3. Area ASW: In spite of its age the Type 23, with the 2087 towed array and Merlin, is still amongst the best specialist ASW frigates out there. Type 26 looks set to continue this trend. An integral part of A2AD is fast becoming ultra-quiet conventional submarines. Without excellent ASW your shiny carrier's liable to get sunk by one.
4. Logistics: While its manpower is stretched thin at the moment the RFA still constitutes a very sizeable chunk of European naval auxiliary shipping. They have (and will continue to have) the fleet tankers, stores and support ships to sustain a UK task force in combat at significant range from their bases.
5. Large modern SSNs: While the Astute class only comprises 7 boats they are all large enough to range far from their bases (SSN endurance only being limited by supplies for the crew and ammunition) and as good as, or slightly better than (depending on who you talk to) the latest USN attack boats. All are also capable of firing cruise missiles, unlike the French Rubis class.
6. MCM: Although it's often neglected and forgotten the RN remains at the cutting edge of the mine countermeasures game. Mining looks set to play a significant part in the A2AD strategies of more than a few prospective opponents.
7. Carriers
on the way: People are right to highlight the UK's current lack of carrier air power as a means of supporting amphibious forces and projecting power. However, in less than a decade the UK will move back to having a large strike carrier, with extremely modern aircraft, available at all times. In my view this will complete the UK's power projection capabilities, for which almost all of the core and supporting elements exist in sufficient strength to be formidable.
The reason I omitted France and included the RN is because, in my opinion, the RN have everything but the carrier while the MN have really only got the carrier and amphibious forces. Without the supporting elements the capital ships aren't nearly as credible.
