Looking at what's on the drawing board, the RN of 2025 will be considerably more powerful the RN of 20 years ago . How did you come to this conclusion?
World Naval Balance in 2025?
- Thread starter Padfoot
- Start date
Looking at what's on the drawing board, the RN of 2025 will be considerably more powerful the RN of 20 years ago . How did you come to this conclusion?
They maybe more powerful, but other countries are probably improving faster. RN is better than RN of pre-WWII, but RN is definitely not the same naval power it was at that time.
Looking at what's on the drawing board, the RN of 2025 will be considerably more powerful the RN of 20 years ago . How did you come to this conclusion?
Incognito129
Banned Member
Dont discount the South Americans. They will be a force to reckon with.
contedicavour
New Member
People (even navy experts) have been comparing navies for ages. They even signed treaties based on tonnage before WW2 only to realize aircraft carriers were much more useful than the heavier battleships. Today what do we want to compare ? Sheer number of ships ?
One potential way of doing the comparison would be weighing each capacity (ASW, ASUW, AAW, land attack, amphibious landing, MCM, special ops) but even then how do you compare weapons systems that have never fired in anger ? Say, I could consider a Teseo Mk2A as superior to MM40 Exocet because range is 180 to 80 and to Harpoon as range is 110km. But I should also consider speed, stealthiness, manoeuvrability, success in hitting targets (only during tests as it was never fired during a real war). Should I weigh each factor ? Toooo complicated....
One last thing : don't forget to weigh in the proven capacity to deploy farway overseas for a long time. Large navies such as China and India still need to improve here (sending a couple of ships for a world tour doesn't qualify ), and to a certain extent even Japan with its huge and very modern navy (only AORs operate in the Indian Ocean, and it is Coast Guard vessels who travel the most overseas, not navy, because of constitutional constraints).
cheers
One potential way of doing the comparison would be weighing each capacity (ASW, ASUW, AAW, land attack, amphibious landing, MCM, special ops) but even then how do you compare weapons systems that have never fired in anger ? Say, I could consider a Teseo Mk2A as superior to MM40 Exocet because range is 180 to 80 and to Harpoon as range is 110km. But I should also consider speed, stealthiness, manoeuvrability, success in hitting targets (only during tests as it was never fired during a real war). Should I weigh each factor ? Toooo complicated....
One last thing : don't forget to weigh in the proven capacity to deploy farway overseas for a long time. Large navies such as China and India still need to improve here (sending a couple of ships for a world tour doesn't qualify
), and to a certain extent even Japan with its huge and very modern navy (only AORs operate in the Indian Ocean, and it is Coast Guard vessels who travel the most overseas, not navy, because of constitutional constraints).cheers
I don't think there won't be a lot of force balance change in the next twenty years, but I can assure you that all of the ships will have Windows as it's operating systems ( lots of iShips) and a lot of IT engineers on board making sure that the ships operating system does not crash during war time. ( I wouldn't be a happy sailor if I have to press CTRL+ALT+Delete to reboot my system while a missile is approaching )
Humor aside, most of the navies will depend on technology rather than human input and maybe we will see Unmanned ships replacing crewed ships for both purposes of cost-cutting and minimization of platforms.
Just an educated guess from now on,
Russia's Navy might rise again to it's former glory,
China's rumored aircraft carrier project will come into reality ( either re-engineered Varyag or a new platform),
for some reason I am optimistic about Royal Navy ( if the Russian Navy resurfaces CVFs and all other projects will gain priority)
India will have a stronger Navy with addition of a new carrier with new planes and other additional ships,
One other assumption will be Japan either increasing its Navy strength by building more submarines, frigates and destroyers, but with Russian and Chinese carriers lurking around they might rebuild their carrier force ( a very wild guess)
Australia - If they are serious about being a key player in Pacific Region, by 2025 their Navy should be a lot stronger than now
enough guessing for now,
)Humor aside, most of the navies will depend on technology rather than human input and maybe we will see Unmanned ships replacing crewed ships for both purposes of cost-cutting and minimization of platforms.
Just an educated guess from now on,
Russia's Navy might rise again to it's former glory,
China's rumored aircraft carrier project will come into reality ( either re-engineered Varyag or a new platform),
for some reason I am optimistic about Royal Navy ( if the Russian Navy resurfaces CVFs and all other projects will gain priority)
India will have a stronger Navy with addition of a new carrier with new planes and other additional ships,
One other assumption will be Japan either increasing its Navy strength by building more submarines, frigates and destroyers, but with Russian and Chinese carriers lurking around they might rebuild their carrier force ( a very wild guess)
Australia - If they are serious about being a key player in Pacific Region, by 2025 their Navy should be a lot stronger than now
enough guessing for now,
Last edited:
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Try 2~3 27,000 tonne LHD's that are STOVL capable, 3~4 AF100 class Aegis destroyers and 8+ collins replacesment SSG's. Not too shabby considereing the quality of these systems and the regional threat environment. What else do we need that is feasible?
So far from the screens I've seen, usually in the background of pictures and TV clips released in public, I don't see anything that looks like Windows in the PLAN ships, and I know the PLA in general is hesitant to use something like Windows for their own system, preferring instead an in house modified Linux version.
Some thoughts.
Biggest boosts in naval capability will be in the Asian region. The European region will have less ships overall, but these ships will be very capable overall. I like seeing the latest European warships, the Daring class, Absalon class, the De Provincien class, the Horizon class, the Nansen class, the F100 class, the Saschen class, the Sigma and MEKO series, etc,. There is a lot of variety and yet creativity, and I feel that in IMO, it is the Europeans that are currently leading in the state of the art in surface warship design with their stealthy designs, integrated masts and so on.
Some thoughts.
Biggest boosts in naval capability will be in the Asian region. The European region will have less ships overall, but these ships will be very capable overall. I like seeing the latest European warships, the Daring class, Absalon class, the De Provincien class, the Horizon class, the Nansen class, the F100 class, the Saschen class, the Sigma and MEKO series, etc,. There is a lot of variety and yet creativity, and I feel that in IMO, it is the Europeans that are currently leading in the state of the art in surface warship design with their stealthy designs, integrated masts and so on.
2025 is going to be interesting from the capability perspective as quite a few emergent technologies are likely to be mainstream by then.
In the last 2 years all the naval and underwater conferences and sessions I've attended have focussed on a variety of things, those things vary amongst the existing sophistication in both development tech and future planning mindset of various countries. (ie different paths amongst some)
eg, multi stage hypersonics, high AI in USV/UUV's, active seeker changes on some UDT weapons, greater holographic interconnects, battlespace management, a significant change in ASW technologies, primarily detection and integration of that into a battlegroup rather than a specific ASW specialist asset, sub scaling of munitions, dismounted weapons, electro magnetic warfare solutions, generation development (esp HTS and OF-HTS engines), significant changes in fuel cell development.
and before it happens, this thread is not about who will have the biggest navy or the baddest navy in ranking. those posts will get deleted pretty quickly.
Lets try and keep the discussion frontal lobe generated....
In the last 2 years all the naval and underwater conferences and sessions I've attended have focussed on a variety of things, those things vary amongst the existing sophistication in both development tech and future planning mindset of various countries. (ie different paths amongst some)
eg, multi stage hypersonics, high AI in USV/UUV's, active seeker changes on some UDT weapons, greater holographic interconnects, battlespace management, a significant change in ASW technologies, primarily detection and integration of that into a battlegroup rather than a specific ASW specialist asset, sub scaling of munitions, dismounted weapons, electro magnetic warfare solutions, generation development (esp HTS and OF-HTS engines), significant changes in fuel cell development.
and before it happens, this thread is not about who will have the biggest navy or the baddest navy in ranking. those posts will get deleted pretty quickly.
Lets try and keep the discussion frontal lobe generated....
Last edited:
Investigator
New Member
Comments deleted.
Last edited:
There are no plans to do so at this stage. There has been a lot of discussion re this in the RAN thread. Whilst the purchase of F-35Bs has been proposed by interest groups such as the Navy League there has been no proposal from within the Australian Defence Force or from Government (certainly nothing that is in the public domain at any rate).
Tas
Thanks Tas,
F35 are of course expensive even to get a small squadron on a LHD will cost at least a billion USD but then again you get to have an optional aircraft carrier in your navy. ( By the way I am not familiar with the political and military strategies of Australia so I am not sure if you guys require such capability)
F35 are of course expensive even to get a small squadron on a LHD will cost at least a billion USD but then again you get to have an optional aircraft carrier in your navy. ( By the way I am not familiar with the political and military strategies of Australia so I am not sure if you guys require such capability)
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Well, the fact that we are aquireing such large and capable LHD's means we do intend to conduct expeditionary operations, therefore fixed wing air cover would be quite handy, again if its feasible or affordable.
They are similar to the spanish Buque de Proyección Estratégica and those are apparently able to operate 30 harriers.
So start meassuring how many F35's that is.
(The F35 is about 1.2 meters longer and 1.4 meters wider than the harrier II the spanish have. Max takeoff weight of the CTOL F35 is almost twice that of the Harrier (in rolling takeoff), so the flight deck must be strong enough to replace them.)
So start meassuring how many F35's that is.
(The F35 is about 1.2 meters longer and 1.4 meters wider than the harrier II the spanish have. Max takeoff weight of the CTOL F35 is almost twice that of the Harrier (in rolling takeoff), so the flight deck must be strong enough to replace them.)
The Australian ships are being built with ski jumps. They will be used for the possible future operation of UAVs and for cross decking with allies but they also provide potential for future Australian VSTOL operations. I also suspect that one of the main reasons the ski jump is being retained is that it is cheaper and less risky than altering the design.
Tas