Role of a Blue Water Navy.

[A.Mookerjee]

A blue water navy, such as the one India has, and seeks to develop, should only be concerned with it's blue water role. India's coast guard must be fully equipped to deal with maritime visits of foreign vessels which are unwarranted. The Indian Navy should operate to far flung maritime destinations and to those commercial corridor's where she is welcome and has an interest. I do not believe, that the Indian Navy needs to project power overseas, she simply needs to show that she means business. No blue water navy worth it's salt, (pardon the pun), needs to project power overseas. It would be best, if the navy spends time in exercises and enhancing it's operational capabilities. There should be a separate division of the navy, which has to do with the nuclear capabilities of the nation, and is not encumbered with the maritime role. I seriously hope that the coast guard is made capable to handle any eventuality in respect to merchant ships. Perhaps, destroyers may be made available to the coast guard, just as they are to the Indian Navy.

[A.Mookerjee]

I do hope my that observations on the armed forces are of some use to the powers that be, if they read it, or if they care to read it. I would like the Indian armed forces to be very ready for any eventuality, in any manner possible, even if they not be similar to my suggestions.

[gf0012-aust]

I do hope my that observations on the armed forces are of some use to the powers that be, if they read it, or if they care to read it. I would like the Indian armed forces to be very ready for any eventuality, in any manner possible, even if they not be similar to my suggestions.

I think you probably need to understand the difference between green and blue water roles - and what a blue water navy is.

The original definition of a blue water navy was one that had a persistent fleet deep sea strike capability in each of the "seven seas"

unfort it now seems to refer to any navy that can deploy a combat asset beyond the EEZ.

the latter although convenient and inclusive, is not what the orginal term meant.

[dragonfire]

The Indian Navy should operate to far flung maritime destinations

The original definition of a blue water navy was one that had a persistent fleet deep sea strike capability in each of the "seven seas"


This capability is very much possible through nuc-powered subs, of which India hasnt even one operational, however with the launch of INS Arihant the IN is on its way there. The question is what is right number and in what role and configuration. Pl refer my thread on Nuc subs for India (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/navy-maritime/nuclear-subs-india-8604/) for the same. Also there is another thread on the Indian Aircraft Carriers (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/navy-maritime/indian-navy-3-carriers-more-8569/)

Perhaps it is time for India to have a nuc-powered surface vessel. All major powers except China have such capabilitites today

[Grim901]

Perhaps it is time for India to have a nuc-powered surface vessel. All major powers except China have such capabilitites today

Russia, USA and France? That is all I can think of.

[dragonfire]

Russia, USA and France? That is all I can think of.

My Bad :)

I actualy meant all nations with nuc-subs, however I just remembered the QE class is going to be driven by gas turbines and not nuc-powered. So in short, you are right currently only US, Russia and France have such a capability, but perhaps that is the next technology breakthrough India should aim for.

[Grim901]

My Bad :)

I actualy meant all nations with nuc-subs, however I just remembered the QE class is going to be driven by gas turbines and not nuc-powered. So in short, you are right currently only US, Russia and France have such a capability, but perhaps that is the next technology breakthrough India should aim for.

SSN's adds Britain and China. I have no doubt Britain and China could build nuclear powered surface vessels if they wanted to/given time. Britain definitely seems to have made a conscious not to build them, possibly out of fear of the costs incurred by the French when they did it.

I can see the usefulness of it, but it might be a little soon for India, they need to build up experience using the SSN's first, and building carriers before trying to combine the 2.

[swerve]

I actualy meant all nations with nuc-subs, however I just remembered the QE class is going to be driven by gas turbines and not nuc-powered. ...
Small quibble. The power plant is actually electric, driven by a combination of two gas turbines & four diesels.

[StevoJH]

I'd like to point that persistent deep strike capability does not necessarily mean that nuclear power is needed, rather that enough replenishment assets are in operation by the navy in question to support a task group sized force in anywhere in the ocean for a prolonged period of time.

Using that definition, only the US and UK qualify. France could probably qualify by modifying commercial tankers for at sea refueling.

[kato]

Eh, that depends on the size of task group, doesn't it?

Imho the JMSDF has the assets for that too, with its five AOEs (one on-duty per escort fleet?). They just don't flaunt them. And Germany is fast-tracking it back up to around 10 replenishment ships (5-6 AOR & AO, 2 JSS, 2-3 assigned MZES tenders) for 22 naval surface combat units within the next decade.

[gf0012-aust]

This capability is very much possible through nuc-powered subs, of which India hasnt even one operational, however with the launch of INS Arihant the IN is on its way there.

Having a nuclear sub does not a blue water navy or capability make.

Not even remotely close

[dragonfire]

Having a nuclear sub does not a blue water navy or capability make.

Not even remotely close

I doubt in the modern context without the nuc-subs, it is possible to have a blue water navy/capabilities. It is essential I hope you will agree. Apart from which for Power Projection the Aircraft carriers as well

[kato]

To me, the term Blue Water Navy pretty much means:

Capable of projecting a 3D-combat-capable force of moderate size across an ocean*
AND Capable of supporting this force in its deployment long-term
AND Capable of controlling or at least escorting over the high sea routes 3D between the home base and the deployed units

*- and i mean all the way from one end to the other

I know this is a more classical view that few navies can satisfy (though not as exclusive as the traditional view). A modern expeditionary outfit does not necessarily include the last point. Having a deep strike capability does not necessarily meet the last two points - after all, one can satisfy a (limited) deep strike capability with just a couple subs/ships with cruise missiles.

The above three conditions are satisfied by the USN, the RN, and to a limited extent the Russian and perhaps the French Navy (although that would be ... hairy). One could argue that NATO as a whole, as well as the WEU, satisfies it in an Allied context. Some other navies satisfy an expeditionary capability, or a deep strike capability - but not the whole package.

[gf0012-aust]

I doubt in the modern context without the nuc-subs, it is possible to have a blue water navy/capabilities. It is essential I hope you will agree. Apart from which for Power Projection the Aircraft carriers as well

?? It's a fleet capability issue - NOT a platform issue.

a nuke does not denote blue water naval capability.

focussing on the boat misses the point.

[dragonfire]

?? It's a fleet capability issue - NOT a platform issue.

a nuke does not denote blue water naval capability.

focussing on the boat misses the point.

Capability and the fleet elements are mutualy inclusive as the capability is derived from the pre-designated and designed platforms and the rest of the elements which enable a navy for the capability - I understand this

Also the capability is based on an intent for the capability to be there in the first place - I understand that too

Thanks

[gf0012-aust]

Capability and the fleet elements are mutualy inclusive as the capability is derived from the pre-designated and designed platforms and the rest of the elements which enable a navy for the capability - I understand this

I'm glad that you do because the concept of a blue water navy existed long before nuke submarines were developed.

again, and this apparently needs reinforcement - having a nuke submarine does not correlate to having ANY blue water force capability.

it is about fleet presence and a capacity to impose force and military will at any point on the globe within a reasonable reaction time. That means force presence in the seven seas or a capacity to deploy and protect the national interest with flexible military force at a place and point of your choosing.

Very few navies have it now. Having a nuke submarine in the fleet isn't part of the solution if the rest of the force required does not exist or is not in the AO within a reasonable reaction time - and at a global level.

You could a dozen nukes in your fleet - it DOES NOT make you a blue water naval power.

The concept is all about projection, persistence, political will and intent, presence. The platform (and in this case a nuke sub) is very low down on the pecking order to meet the requirements of a national naval capability.

similarly, one aircraft carrier with a task force in tow as hand maidens does not mean blue water global capability either.

people can think that it does, but the brutal reality is that it means diddly.

[Grim901]

I think what he meant was that these days, no country that even thinks about blue water capability would do so without having SSN's as part of their force. And from the countries listed as blue water capable, they all do have SSN's. Similar situation with Carriers.

Although I do see your point gf.

[gf0012-aust]

I think what he meant was that these days, no country that even thinks about blue water capability would do so without having SSN's as part of their force. And from the countries listed as blue water capable, they all do have SSN's. Similar situation with Carriers.

Although I do see your point gf.

granted :)

my point is that I get a tad frustrated when the view seems to be that "now that we have a nuke sub we are a prominent naval power" or "qualify" as a blue water force.

the reality is that blue water capability can and does exist without subs (let alone nukes)

a country still needs to have presence in all the major oceans and seas to demonstrate the capacity to respond and impose their military will within a battle/events reaction time. having regional presence is not the same. hence china and india may be players in their own back yards, but both are regional powers in the maritime sense. they don't have presence and persistence elsewhere and "on call"

Both do not have the same ability to project and respond like the french or british for example....

people get hung up on platforms as the vehicles of a nations power - and its much more than that. its fundamentally about a fleet imposing its will with authority and capability independant of needing other national military assistance outside of a response time during an event.(and in absolute terms, in a place not of their choosing)

[harryriedl]

curious would Italy or spain count as stradling between blue and green water force. MM has two carriers and 3 LPDs and a resionable force of escorts but lacking SSN and any long range strike apart from an their air wing (I don't know whether Spains tomhawks have arrrived).

[gf0012-aust]

curious would Italy or spain count as stradling between blue and green water force. MM has two carriers and 3 LPDs and a resionable force of escorts but lacking SSN and any long range strike apart from an their air wing (I don't know whether Spains tomhawks have arrrived).

well, under the politically sensitive definition, technically anyone who can deploy and have a combat ship prosecute an action outside of the EEZ makes them blue water capable :)

the definition of a "blue water navy" is a bit like the definition of "stealth" etc.... its abused beyond recognition out of national convenience and has little relationship to what it should actually be.

add in the issue of "fat ships" and everyone becomes a latent supernavy... :)

I'd argue that spain and italy are regional blue water powers.

[kato]

I'd argue against it on the basis that Italy's fleet is still tailor-made for that lake they're surrounded by on three sides. Perhaps in a couple years (decade or so), when Cavour is fully in service (with F-35B!), the supply ships are up to modern standards with the new Etna rebuilds, and the escort fleet and LPDs are a bit more heavy-weather-capable.
As for Spain, in my opinion they lack support assets. I mean, 2 replenishment ships for the two carrier/LHD groups and any remaining frigates, with at least a 7-to-1 ratio? Can't really go far on that. Sure, they could pull off a deep strike, but persisting presence overseas?

[gf0012-aust]

I Can't really go far on that. Sure, they could pull off a deep strike, but persisting presence overseas?


hence my view that they're regional blue water.....

[Duffy]

Below is what I think is a great way to classify ones Navy. Rank is not power but capability . I think Rank 1 thru 3 could be classified as a “ Blue water Navy”:unknown

Rank 1: Major Global Force Projection Navy (Complete) – This is a navy capable of carrying out all the military roles of naval forces on a global scale. It possesses the full range of carrier and amphibious capabilities, sea control forces, and nuclear attack and ballistic missile submarines, and all in sufficient numbers to undertake major operations independently. E.g., United States.

Rank 2: Major Global Force Projection Navy (Partial) – These are navies that possess most if not all of the force projection capabilities of a "complete" global navy, but only in sufficient numbers to undertake one major "out of area" operation. E.g., Britain, France.

Rank 3: Medium Global Force Projection Navy – These are navies that may not possess the full range of capabilities, but have a credible capacity in certain of them and consistently demonstrate a determination to exercise them at some distance from home waters, in cooperation with other Force Projection Navies. E.g., Canada, Netherlands, Australia.

Rank 4: Medium Regional Force Projection Navy – These are navies possessing the ability to project force into the adjoining ocean basin. While they may have the capacity to exercise these further afield, for whatever reason, they do not do so on a regular basis.

Rank 5: Adjacent Force Projection Navies – These are navies that have some ability to project force well offshore, but are not capable of carrying out high-level naval operations over oceanic distances. E.g. China.

Rank 6: Offshore Territorial Defence Navies – These are navies that have relatively high levels of capability in defensive (and constabulary) operations up to about 200 miles from their shores, having the sustainability offered by frigate or large corvette vessels and (or) a capable submarine force.

Rank 7: Inshore Territorial Defence Navies – These are navies that have primarily inshore territorial defence capabilities, making them capable of coastal combat rather than constabulary duties alone. This implies a force comprising missile-armed fast-attack craft, short-range aviation and a limited submarine force.

Rank 8: Constabulary Navies – These are significant fleets that are not intended to fight, but to act purely in a constabulary role.

Rank 9: Token Navies – These are navies that have some minimal capability, but this often consists of little more than a formal organisational structure and a few coastal craft. These states, the world's smallest and weakest, cannot aspire to anything but the most limited constabulary functions.
:unknown