Viability of modern navy

[EotheL]

I would like people to share their opinions as to how viable and useful a modern navy actually is, as contrasted to a navy's usefulness during the middle ages and early modern era, in which a navy was crucial for a nation's economic, and imperialistic, and wartime interests.

It is of my opinion that modern navies would be easily decimated by much smaller and less advanced modern air forces. For example, during the Falklands war, the much weaker Argentinian air force easily secured destroyer kills using their fighter mounted exocet missiles. In short, modern navies are extremely vulnerable to air power, thus the american navy being centered around the aircraft carrier, which is on the point of obsolescence, do to its vulnerability to air and submarine attack. Air forces have far superior firepower and mobility when compared to navies. The conclusion I draw is that modern navies serve two purposes : Bragging rights, and extremely long range power projection.

 

[Todjaeger]

I would like people to share their opinions as to how viable and useful a modern navy actually is, as contrasted to a navy's usefulness during the middle ages and early modern era, in which a navy was crucial for a nation's economic, and imperialistic, and wartime interests.

It is of my opinion that modern navies would be easily decimated by much smaller and less advanced modern air forces. For example, during the Falklands war, the much weaker Argentinian air force easily secured destroyer kills using their fighter mounted exocet missiles. In short, modern navies are extremely vulnerable to air power, thus the american navy being centered around the aircraft carrier, which is on the point of obsolescence, do to its vulnerability to air and submarine attack. Air forces have far superior firepower and mobility when compared to navies. The conclusion I draw is that modern navies serve two purposes : Bragging rights, and extremely long range power projection.

I hate to break it to you (okay, that is not true...) but the role of Navy has not changed, just the tools available for use.

In the example used of the Falklands War, yes, frigates were damaged and lost due to air attack. You need to ask though, why where the frigates there in the first place? They were there to escort the amphibs and ships carrying (and landing) troops and kit to retake the Falklands.

The role of a Navy is to influence or control the Sea Lines of Communication (SLOC), that was the case in the Punic Wars, and continues through until today.

Assuming that combat aircraft can replace a naval force really is over looking the strengths and limitations of aircraft, as well as the actual capabilities of naval forces and their respective mission sets.

-Cheers

 

[Belesari]

They thought the same thing before Korea. Navy was obsolete, Airforce would rule all.

So then they found out it sucks trying to do missions from hundreds of miles or even thousands of miles away. Means less fuel for loitering and providing support, more maitanence and fuel cost and pilot time. Also more time for the enemy to spot and track you.

To say a Nation like the US the Navy is more important than the Army is. The army is nessesary and needed. But the nation cant function without a Navy. So much is brought in by sea or shipped out by it.

For starters antiair assets are begining to catch up with antiships missiles. Add to this the Modern way of fighting is as a group of vessels with abilities that overlap and complement eachother as in the CBG the US deploys and subs and Airforces begin to seem less threatening.

You said falklands.......i say look at the first gulf war. Did saddam have exocets, Yes. Did ships get hit yes. But guess what our airsuperiority fighters annhilated his airforce and ripped him appart.

The Herrier is a asset best against ground targets its ment to support amphib ops not go toe to toe agaisnt interceptors.

Oh yea btw

"Air forces have far superior firepower and mobility when compared to navies"

...........seriously last time i checked airforce bases arent very fast.

Oh and as for firepower....SSBN.

I would like people to share their opinions as to how viable and useful a modern navy actually is, as contrasted to a navy's usefulness during the middle ages and early modern era, in which a navy was crucial for a nation's economic, and imperialistic, and wartime interests.

It is of my opinion that modern navies would be easily decimated by much smaller and less advanced modern air forces. For example, during the Falklands war, the much weaker Argentinian air force easily secured destroyer kills using their fighter mounted exocet missiles. In short, modern navies are extremely vulnerable to air power, thus the american navy being centered around the aircraft carrier, which is on the point of obsolescence, do to its vulnerability to air and submarine attack. Air forces have far superior firepower and mobility when compared to navies. The conclusion I draw is that modern navies serve two purposes : Bragging rights, and extremely long range power projection.

 

[StobieWan]

It is of my opinion that modern navies would be easily decimated by much smaller and less advanced modern air forces. For example, during the Falklands war, the much weaker Argentinian air force easily secured destroyer kills using their fighter mounted exocet missiles.

Much weaker Argentinian airforce? Which Falklands war was this then? Because the one I seem to recall had the RN facing 200 modern fast jets vs less than twenty Sea Harriers.

Ian

 

[mike1560]

Much weaker Argentinian airforce? Which Falklands war was this then? Because the one I seem to recall had the RN facing 200 modern fast jets vs less than twenty Sea Harriers.

Ian

The Argentinian air force had the Exocet missile and that's the only reason the RN had so many loses. The harrior with sidewinder missiles with much better trained pilots demolished the Argentinian AF.

 

[StobieWan]

The Argentinian air force had the Exocet missile and that's the only reason the RN had so many loses. The harrior with sidewinder missiles with much better trained pilots demolished the Argentinian AF.

Not true - we lost Sheffield and Atlantic Conveyor to Exocet and Glamorgan was damaged by one. The remainder of the damage and losses were caused by iron bombs and cannon fire.Antelope, Ardent, Coventry and Sir Galahad were all sunk by iron bombs and if the rest of the bombs had been either released in constraints or fused for the release profile, then we'd have lost as many ships again.

The Argentinian air force were fighting at the end of a long leash, at the outside of their range with little fuel to become engaged in ACM. We did have better air to air missiles as the US had expeditiously and rather generously provided us with 9L's which had a limited head on engagement capability,

My point was in any event that the Falklands actually disproves the OP's statement that Navy's are no longer relevant - that war proved that a global power can go into the back yard of a regional power and act as they wish, and in the act, inflict enormous damage on a regional power. You couldn't do that with an air force in the absence of a local friendly air base.

Ian

 

[StevoJH]

From memory the Argentines only had 5 Air-Launched Exocets are the start of the war.

2 ships sunk plus 1 damages is quite good.

But as above, most of the damage was from 'dumb bombs' delivered at low level. They would have done greater damage if they had used different fuse settings on the bombs as well.

 

[1805]

The Falklands War is a bad example, it was at a time when RN surface ship air defences were in transition and particularly weak. Sea Dart & Sea Wolf were both new and under developed and most of the escort fleet had virtually useless Sea Cat with the odd Sea Slug.

A modern comparision with the greater availability of Aegis/PAAMS systems, much more capable point defence and CIWS systems would make it much more difficult.

Its a fair argument the Argentinians didn't have many Exocets but then how many smaller or medium sized armed forces have air launched SSM now, or even shore bases batteries?

A more interesting question would be with the rise of cruise missiles, UCAV and long range SAMs, will manned air forces be viable in the combat zone?

I suspect modern navies fear the spread of capabile AIP SSK more than air forces.

 

[StobieWan]

From memory the Argentines only had 5 Air-Launched Exocets are the start of the war.

2 ships sunk plus 1 damages is quite good.

But as above, most of the damage was from 'dumb bombs' delivered at low level. They would have done greater damage if they had used different fuse settings on the bombs as well.

Wasn't a great time to be had if you were out there in the South Atlantic for sure - the missile that damaged the Glamorgan was land launched, which was pretty ingenious work I think as I think the launcher was jury rigged to a truck - can't swear to the details however. Ten years later with updated radar and missiles, Gloucester became the first and to date, only ship to shoot down a ASM, a Silkworm missile so the capabilities to defend against anti shipping missiles weren't science fiction by any means.

 

[StobieWan]

The Falklands War is a bad example, it was at a time when RN surface ship air defences were in transition and particularly weak. Sea Dart & Sea Wolf were both new and under developed and most of the escort fleet had virtually useless Sea Cat with the odd Sea Slug.

It's an excellent counter example to the OP's original point however- the OP was arguing that this and other examples demonstrated that Navies were irrelevant - I submit it showed the opposite.

Sea Dart was in service 1973 by the way, and was by any standard, a mature system - and effectively denied upper altitudes to the incoming Argentine aircraft, meaning they were forced to bomb from ultra low altitudes. That meant that many of their bombs failed to fuse, and additionally that their target selection was often very time pressured. Basically, it did the job it was built for and often out performed specification, including two kills below it's theoretical minimum altitude. I'm not sure why you'd say it was new in service at the time.

Ian

 

[1805]

It's an excellent counter example to the OP's original point however- the OP was arguing that this and other examples demonstrated that Navies were irrelevant - I submit it showed the opposite.

Sea Dart was in service 1973 by the way, and was by any standard, a mature system - and effectively denied upper altitudes to the incoming Argentine aircraft, meaning they were forced to bomb from ultra low altitudes. That meant that many of their bombs failed to fuse, and additionally that their target selection was often very time pressured. Basically, it did the job it was built for and often out performed specification, including two kills below it's theoretical minimum altitude. I'm not sure why you'd say it was new in service at the time.

Ian

I don't disagree with your points about Sea Dart denying airspace, but it could have been much more capable. 9 years is quite a long time to be in service, but actually less than a quarter of their service life and it didn't really reach maturity until matched with better radar/electronics at which point it became a very capable system in all respects (range/low level coverage).

Had it been matched with the original planned radar it would have had much better low level coverage. The desicion to split with the Dutch on Sea Dart/Broomstick was one of the great missed opportunities for the post 1945 RN.

The system that shot down the Silkworm in 1991 was greatly improved on the Batch 1s that did the bulk of the fighting in the Falklands. Both Sheffield and Coventry were Batch 1s.