Talk:Blue-water navy

Dispute:

The recently expanded list of navies includes more green water navies than blue water. Whilst there is always an element of subjectivity involved, I fail to see how, for example, the Brazilian navy can be classified as blue water when their naval infantry / marine capabilities are minimal. Credibility doesn't just mean having ships in dock. They have to work, the support has to work, the different areas of naval forces have to be balanced for the navys size, and there has to be a history of political will of the nation concerned to use those forces. That is what a credible ability to power project means to me.

Thoughts anyone ?--jrleighton 07:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The Brazilian navy has at least one functional aircraft carrier, the São Paulo. But you are welcome to improve the list. Rama 09:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that list is too long. Germany for instance hasn't got a blue water navy. David 10:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

agreed Australia's Navy is not a blue water one any more.User:bigkev

Maybe I am not all that clear in my head about what a blue water navy actually is. I would have though that the ability to have reasonable warship sailing offshore for months, for instance to patrol main sailing lines, would fit in this category, but apparently it is more subtle than this. Maybe my mistake can be used to make the article even clearer. Rama 08:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under people's republic of China, it says that they do not currently have a blue-water navy, but are working towards one. I am by no means knowledgeable in this subject, but thought perhaps someone here could look into this or at least explain the disparity between the two DaveyE

I think the Indian and chinese navies are not considered blue water navy yet.

Definition of Blue water navy

In my viewpoint, the blue water navy should be composed of at least 1. 1 aircraft carrier 2. sizeable amount of naval capability Also, the nations should be willing to maintain a offshore power projection capability. It would mean that if the navy requires to operate for months outside the country region, it should be able to do it.

So, I think we should classify the navies and "blue water" and "Potential blue water" navy.

I think, china, india, and some other can come into potential ones, wheras UK,US,Russia etc are true blue water navy. -Vinay Khaitan 08:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with vkhaitan; aircraft carriers are not necessary for a navy to be Blue-water. Rather it is about 'Force Projection'. The US for example has used carriers as their main means of force-projection. The Soviet Union always planned to project power using a submarine heavy navy although they also had other large surface units such as the Kirov class. Blue-water means an ability to sustain operations is deep waters away from home. To this end Australia, China, S. Korea, India etc do not have this capability. Nor in fact do most of them want it. The French, British, Americans and Russians do. One might add Italy into the list as they have large surface vessels capable of independent operations. The concept of green-water navy in effect describes the abilities of China, India and Brazil amongst others, to project regional power. A single ship operating in international waters does not prove blue water capabilities nor does the ownership of a carrier. A carrier is no use if it goes down with all hands to a submarine and a single destroyer or frigate is vulnerable to air, surface or submarine threats. A final comment; typically a navy is tailored towards it main mission. The Swedish Navy has no need for Blue Water capabilities. Similarly the Israeli navy operating in shallow waters would be crazy to deploy major surface units such as carriers as they would be vulnerable. Hence the debate is not about status but tasking.130.237.175.198 08:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about "Blue water navy" being equivalent to "ability to have power projection". But Without Aircraft carriers, you just can't exert force on land powers. Aircrafts are necessary to have operation on lands(With ability to transfer army personnel and keep ration supply open). Submarines and destroyers are necessary and only good, in general, for Sea operations(Some missile capabilities are not enough for land operations).
I hope, you do know that Aircraft carriers are never left alone, instead they are surrounded by many submarines and destroyers to protect them. So aircraft carriers are necessary for any country if it wants to maintain blue-water navy. As you said, it is all about power projection, hence you dont need to actually use aircraft-carriers for deep water operations, but for projection, it is must.

There seem to be two separate concepts at work here. The article header says "deep ocean power projection" ability. For ocean-centred operations, airpower is nice but in no way essential, as submarines and missiles can do teh job just as well of projecting force against naval targets (presumably the only targets in an area of deep ocean). For coastal operations agaisnt shore-based targets, airpower is today considered essential for a naval force, but even there, missiles can do the job, and even submarines with the proper missile loadout and supported by GPS (or equivalent) can do it credibly. It's certainly worth noting that while the Royal Navy has aircraft carriers, the nuclear submarines are today considered their primary capital ships, at least as much as their carriers.

I'd say a blue water navy requires a capital/command ship (this is almost weasel-wordy, but I want to allow for pre-modern navies in this definition), properly supported in a fleet formation by smaller ships, with roles and technology appropriate for the era, and sufficient logistics and political support to sustain extended (at least 6 months) active combat operations away from home waters.

I'm also curious as to why there isn't an article about white water navies. I'm sure I've seen the term somewhere before.

Rhialto 06:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pulling the PLAN because I certainly know they are not a blue-water navy. All reports about them discuss them moving towards having that capability, so they can't be at the moment. The Russian Navy should also be pulled because it doesn't have the operational capacity to operate anywhere - it can barely get its surface ships to sea. On paper, sure, but we're not talking about theory. John Smith's 16:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The PLAN is considered a blue-water navy. It is comparable to the other navies on the list such as the Indian Navy.

The PLAN does not have an aircraft carrier, for one thing. But more importantly if you check the wiki PLAN page itself you will find the following:

"As part of its overall program of naval modernization, the PLAN has a long term plan of developing a blue water navy."

If other navies don't deserve to be on there, that doesn't mean the PLAN should stay there. Please do not comment on issues you clearly aren't knowledgable about. Only nationalist geeks would think the PLAN is blue-water - seriously-minded people know it is still trying to achieve such a status. John Smith's 21:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An aircraft carrier is not a criteria for blue water navy. The fact is the PLAN is at least comparable to most of the Navies on the list such as the Indian Navy. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. RevolverOcelotX

Sorry, did you just ignore what I said about the PLAN article on wiki? Because I think you're trying to dodge the issue. I don't care if the Indian Navy is on the list. The PLAN is not blue-water. Blue water is not defined by whether a navy is "comparable" to another. The PLAN lacks sufficient power projection capabilities. I'll even give you another source for this:

"But the PLAN remains little more than a "brown water" coastal defense with limited "green water" capabilities." [1]

Now are you going to address this, or do I have to ask for arbitration on this point? John Smith's 21:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also I have found numerous references to the Indian Navy being blue water. For example:

"India entered the 21st Century with a small but formidable regional naval posture. Long considered a "blue water" navy, the Indian Navy faces major challenges as many of its major vessels near the end of their service lives. Indigenous shipbuilding efforts are struggling to achieve acceptable levels of productivity and efficiency."

Now, Revolver, are you going to ignore this point as well? How many military resources can you access that say the PLAN is blue-water and the Indian Navy is not? John Smith's 21:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that most of the other navies on the list are NOT truly blue-water navies either. That is explained by this intro, "Other navies may or may not be, depending on the precise criteria used." Note that none of the navies listed are cited on the actual article, so removing only the PLAN is POV-pushing on your part. Stop selectively removing only the PLAN, when other navies on the list such as the Australian, Indian, Italy, ect. is at least comparable to the PLAN. RevolverOcelotX

Jesus wept, the page I quoted said the Indian Navy WAS blue-water and that the PLAN was NOT blue-water. It is not POV pushing, it is using the knowledge I have available. The entire problem people like you have is that you don't have any in-depth knowledge of these affairs. The PLAN is big, but a lot of it is old or not very sophisticated. It has little power-projection. However what I will do is check up on the rest of those navies and pull them unless I can find a reference that says they are blue-water. But the Indian Navy will stay up there until you can find something credible that says it is not blue-water. And if you think the PLAN is blue-water I want to see military resources refering to it in that way.

The introduction should be removed. It's silly to have a list of "blue-water navies" if the navies in them are not blue-water. John Smith's 21:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Navy

I added Italy to the list, since Italy does have a functioning aircraft carrier. If Canada is on the list, Italy should be too. V. Joe 05:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that say other navies are blue-water

Australia

"The navy's blue-water fleet lacks air cover and logistical support due to the lack of a carrier." [2]

Canada

"Like the Royal Navy, MARCOM has blue-water capability" [3]

So, alongside the US and UK navies, it is clear these two and the Indian Navy can stay (see previous sources for Indian navy). Also the French Navy - no one would dispute they're blue-water either. Others should be removed until people can prove they are blue-water. John Smith's 21:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First you can't use other Wikipedia articles as sources for the Canadian Navy. Depending on the exact criteria as stated in the intro, the PLAN can be considered a blue-water navy. These other navies on the list need sources as well or they should be removed, Italy, Netherlands, Spain. RevolverOcelotX

Fine, Canada can go to. But wikipedia can't re-define a word. As I have repeatedly said, no military authorities say that the PLAN is current blue-water. I am happy for the list to be revised (I actually said that Italy et al should go) so that it would only include Australia, France, India, US and UK. Please stop going on about how the PLAN is "comparable" to the Indian Navy. That does not mean the PLAN is blue-water. I have provided a source to say the Indian Navy is blue-water, so please tell me why that site also says the PLAN is no better than green-water. John Smith's 21:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your actual source that says the Indian Navy is truly a blue-water navy? The Indian Navy is indeed comparable to the PLAN, they could both be considered potential blue-water navy. Having one aircraft carrier is not a criteria for a blue-water navy. At best, India is comparable to the PLAN. Australia, Italy, India, and the others on the list do not have blue-water capability. Nor in fact do most of them want it. RevolverOcelotX

The original source was the same one for the PLAN - globalsecurity. But because INS Vikrant was recently decommissioned I think it may have lost that status. How about a revised list of Australia, France, UK and US? Or do you want the Australian Navy pulled as well leaving just France, US and UK? John Smith's 22:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australia's Navy should be pulled out as well since its not really considered a blue-water navy, nor is it actively seeking it. China, India, Russia, and some others can be put into a list of list of Potential blue-water navies. RevolverOcelotX

If there are two lists, they should be "Current Blue-water Navies" (France, US and UK) and "Potential Future Blue-water Navies". "Potential" by itself is too vague. The PLAN and Indian Navy could be included under the second list, as should the JMSDF (as they have a significant building programme on at the moment). However the Russian Navy should remain off any list, as they don't have the money to operate the ships they have at the moment. John Smith's 22:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats seems good, we should also add citations for each of the navies on the list. RevolverOcelotX

Can I possibly rely on you to dig some up? I have some, but am too tired to do it now. Just find an article that mentions their plans/current status and put them in. I'll do something tomorrow if I have the time. John Smith's 22:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JMSDF

For those that do not think it will be a blue-water navy in the future, please read this. Also this page has an interesting comment - "The JMSDF may be called a self-defense force but in capabilities, warships and power projection assets, it is a true blue water navy." John Smith's 14:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of current capability, the Japanese Navy has no aircraft carriers, which are generally considered essential for naval superiority today. They also have no plans to build such a ship. That first link you provided appears to lead to a model making website, and its relvance seems somewhat distant. There is a programme for a new destroyer class, the Atago, to be built. And while they are certainly superb examples of the destroyer concept, they are still only destroyers, and notably lack the Tomahawk missile system. I'd want to see a much more ambitious construction programme before I could consider Japan to have ambitions to a true blue water navy. Aircraft carriers (or capital class submarines) are an essential component of a blue water navy in my opinion.

Now, Japan is demonstrably capable of supporting a fleet in extended operations in distant waters. However, it is worth bearing in mind that it is operating exclusively in either a non-combat role, or at most, a police role. It is certainly not engaging in active combat operations against anything that could plausibly be described even as a 4th rate navy. The ships it is facing up against are, at most, armed smugglers, not military ships. This action does not fit the standard for active sustained *combat* operation. If we allow police actions as sufficient to count a navy as blue water, then even Chile and Denmark

should be counted.Executive summary: It has not yet demonstrably performed as a true blue water navy should be expected to. The construction programme, while impressive, lacks the capital ships and certain key armaments that would be needed for it to be considered a blue water navy given the modern fleets around today.

Rhialto 02:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Navy

Added the spanish navy, wich has

6 in-combat Replenishment ships
- Replenishment ships.
  - A-15 Cantabria (ordered, commission 2008)
  - A-14 Patiño
- Fleet oiler.
  - A-11 Marques de la Ensenada
- Logistic ship.
  - A-01 Contramaestre Casado
- Cargo ships.
  - A-05 El camino español
  - A-04 Martín Posadillo
2 aircraft carriers
- R-11 Principe de Asturias
- L-60 Aragón class (ordered, commission 2008)
4 heli carriers
- LPD L-50 Galicia-class
  - L-52 Castilla
  - L-51 Galicia
- LST L-40 Pizarro class
  - L-42 Pizarro
  - L-41 Hernán Cortes
5 aegis ships with cruise missiles launchers
- F-105 (ordered, commission 2009)
- F-104 Méndez Núñez
- F-103 Blas de Lezo
- F-102 Juan de Borbón
- F-101 Alvaro de Bazán
14 ocean able escort ships
- the 5 mentioned F-100 destroyers plus
- F-80 Santa María class
  - F-86 Canarias
  - F-85 Navarra
  - F-84 Reina Sofía
  - F-83 Numancia
  - F-82 Victoria
  - F-81 Santa María
- F-70 Baleares class
  - F-75 Extremadura (decommission 2006)
  - F-74 Asturias (decommission 2007)
finally, by 2011, 4 S-80 submarines with anaerobic drive and cruise missiles (the S-70 submarines are coastal submarines)