| Which navy has the best fleet and style of fighting?
Hello all,
I was wondering of your opinions on which navy has the most effective style of fighting. As I mentioned in one of my previous posts, I served in the USN for 6 years and therefore know a little something about naval tactics and combat. Based on my own analysis, there are two prime styles of fighting.
The Soviet style of naval fighting is the 'aggressor' style of fighting, with emphasis on missile boats, guided missile cruisers and destroyers, and attack submaries. No carriers are involved in this style of fighting. The fleet is centered around the guided missile surface ships with their SS-N-9 Sunburn ASMs, and the attack subs with their 53 cm torpedoes, which will hopefully evade enemy sonar and cause maximum damage. In this style of fighting, the Aggressor fleet isn't equipped with an effective interceptor/countermeasure system to deal with incoming enemy missiles/aircraft/torpedoes. Also, there is limited to ASW capability in this 'aggressor' style of naval fighting. This 'aggressor' style of naval fighting is practiced by the 'underdog' navies of the world, like China, Russia, and India, which hope to use a greater emphasis on anti-ship/anti-carrier ability to hopefully even the scores fighting a more powerful navy like the United States' navy. The aggressor style of naval warfare also involves the element of surprise to catch the enemy navy by surprise when the massive (and hopefully pre-emptive) vollet of ASMs and torpedoes arrive.
Then, there is the 'Western' style of naval fighting. This is more balanced than the 'aggressor' style. The fleet is more well rounded overall and suited for more tasks rather than just destroying enemy ships. In the 'Western' stype of naval combat, there is less emphasis on guided missile cruisers and missile boats to destroy the enemy fleet. Still the ASM missile capability onboard the Western guided missile cruisers/destroyers are as good if not better than the Soviet ASMs (as the Harpoon and TASM cruise missiles outrange Soviet ASMs by at least three times). In the 'Western' style of naval combat, the fleet is not centered around the surface ships. The fleet is centered around the aircraft carrier and its escorts, which can be used for many tasks (like ASM, ASW, strike, air superiority mission, or shore bombardment). There are fewer attack subs (though these attack subs are admittedly more capable than the Soviet versions) and there is more anti-submarine capability among the surface ships. Overall, the Western style of fighting naval battles is as concerned with protecting their own assets as well as destroying the enemy fleet, (unlike the 'aggressor' style of naval combat I discussed earlier). There is a much greater anti-missile capability with SM-1/SM-2 interceptors onboard the surface ships and Phalanx CIWS. Not to mention superior intelligence (AEGIS) and ECM. This 'Western' style of fighting naval battles is found in the more dominant navies of the world today, like the US Navy, Japanese Navy, British Navy, and other European navies.
So of the 'Aggressor' and 'Western' style of fighting naval battles, which style of naval combat do you find superior and which will come out first in 21st century naval combat? Your guess is as good as mine.
| 
