India versus Pakistan: Navies 1

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 03:00 PM
link   
India versus Pakistan 1: Navies

If like me you are sick and tired of the petty nationalistic arguments that go back and forth on this and a thousand other internet forums on this topic, you will perhaps be thankful that I’ve tried to compare the capability in objective terms. As always my trusty helper Mr Google Earth is in attendance.

I’ve come to the conclusion that whatever Pakistan’s navy’s merits; it is nowhere near a match for the Indian Navy. How anyone could think otherwise I simply cannot fathom.

Total Firepower Rating (patent pending, 2006, Mad Planeman, lol)

I’ve also devised my own system for comparing the firepower of navies. It’s far from perfect but I think it’s a sensible basis for a comparison that gives a pretty strong indication of firepower. For the moment I’ve concentrated on anti-ship missile firepower but you could do this with torpedoes, guns, SAMs etc.

Imagine if both the navies, complete with every one of their naval strike aircraft, lined up and let rip with every single one of their anti-ship missiles at once; BOOOMMMM. But who would make the biggest and bestest bang?

The end result Total Firepower Rating :
India: 440,778
Pakistan: 127,997
No contest really. But just so as you know, here’s the summary of the missile count:

In a mammoth effort befitting a fool, I cataloged every armed ship type, every submarine and every maritime tasked aircraft, counting how many anti-ship missiles of what sorts. I’ve assumed every missile tube is loaded and have ignored the reloads.

As you can see India has several times more missiles “ready to fire” than Pakistan, and mounted on many more platforms.

Where the two countries are pretty even is in air launched anti-ship missiles; India has 10 Jaguar IM fighters which can carry the Sea Eagle anti-ship missile which compares to Pakistan’s 9 Mirage VPA3 fighters of No.8 Sqdn which are armed with Exocet missiles. In fact, here’s a summary of each country’s respective air-launched anti-ship missile capabilities:

India has a slight advantage in that its Sea Harrier fighters normally embarked upon the aircraft carrier Viraat can carry two Sea Eagle missiles but we must remember that the Sea Harriers are also used for air defense. At this time Pakistani Orion aircraft do not have Harpoons and similarly there is no news of Indian May or Bear maritime patrol aircraft operationally carrying either Sea Eagle or Klub missiles. Pakistan’s 3 Westland Lynx helicopters have had their Sea Skua capability removed. Some pretty pics:



One area where Pakistan does hold a firepower advantage is in submarine launched anti-ship missiles. Pakistan’s subs are generally agreed to be the most formidable and viable element of their navy. Pakistan has 9 conventional submarines all able to carry either Harpoon or Exocet anti-ship missiles. Whilst India has more subs (10 Kilo class to start with…), only one is fitted out to carry SS-N-27 anti-ship cruise missiles although two are in refit.

Scoring the missiles
Here’s how I did it. I scored them:
1 point for every km of range
½ point for every kg of warhead
1 point for every meter-per-second of final attacking speed
A judgmental score out of 1000 for sophistication/effectiveness

Here’s how they scored up:

I then multiplied the score by the number of missiles (see above) to arrive at the Total Firepower Ratings.

So why is India so far ahead?
It’s damn simple really: India has far more warships which carry far more anti-ship missiles. The most any Pakistani warship carries is 4 harpoons, whereas many Indian warships pack a whopping 16 anti-ship missiles ready to fire.

It should be noted that in the ambitious terminology of the Pakistani Navy the 6 ex-Amazon class frigates are called “destroyers”. These six vessels deserve further attention because of there particularly limited weapons fit. In terms of anti-ship missiles only three of the six actually have Harpoon missiles fitted – and at the expense of air defense missiles; the other three have a sextuple launcher for the Chinese made LY-60 SAM generally similar although probably less capable than Sea Sparrow/Aspide:


Future developments
Pakistan supporters are bound to remind us how Pakistan has just this month started to take delivery of 80 (older reports said 150) improved Harpoon missiles (Block II) which will be launched from the new Orion patrol aircraft, submarines and surface vessels. These are more advanced than the Indian equivalent, the SS-N-25 Switchblade. But India is also in the process of entering the awesome BrahMos supersonic anti-ship missile into service which will eclipse the Harpoon and will be carried by its Su-30 flanker aircraft as well as warships and shore batteries. And India is also introducing SS-N-27 Klub anti-ship cruise missile, comparable to the Tomahawk (but India only uses the anti-ship version) into more of its Kilo submarines.

More analysis to come…


[edit on 26-6-2006 by planeman]




posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   
The Pakistani navy has a strategic weakness in that all its substantial facilities are in Karachi harbor. This makes them particularly vulnerable to sabotage, pre-emptive strike (unlikely in the nuclear age as it is), and more relevantly, to stockade and port-exit amush/mines etc. In an effort to rectify this deficiency Pakistan is developing port facilities at Omara:


There are also limited docking facilities at Pasni and more developed military infrastructure at Gwadar , with two airstrips (one with hardened shelters) near the Iranian border. With three active bases the Pakistani Navy will be a much stronger force, though still not enjoying the strategic advantage of the vast coastline of India - plenty of which is well out of the effective range of Pakistani aircraft and missile boats.


[edit on 27-6-2006 by planeman]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Can you do the same comparision between India and China or China and Japan. Thanks



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 10:00 PM
link   

You have voted planeman for the Way Above Top Secret award.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by supertran
Can you do the same comparision between India and China or China and Japan. Thanks

I'm 98% done with China. The result really surprises me.

Can people look at my Total Firepower Rating method and see if you think it's fair. I intend to use the same calc with numerous navies so that we can compare them on a reasonably fair basis. It would be better to actually count missiles quanties they actually have but that just isn't feasible.

I expect that the results will be:
1. USA
2. China or Russia
3. ~Other
4. Japan
5. India
6. Greece
7. France
8. UK
9. Israel
10. Turkey
11. Italy
12. Spain
13. Iran
14. Pakistan


[edit on 27-6-2006 by planeman]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Are u taking into consideration quality not just quantity?



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 12:20 AM
link   
This just in:

The Tu-142 and IL-38s are really widening their scope of surveillance. A shift in Indian strategic interests?

Planeman, instead of doing a pure missiles available analysis, maybe we could look into missiles and their counters in these navy analyses. Like the Barak anti-missile systems on the IN ships as opposed to the Exocets with the PN.
Or maybe the PAF VPA3 Mirage IIIs in firepower as opposed to the IAF DARIN Jaguar IM and the Harrier(A2A capabilities included).
Maybe we could look at pre-emptive strike/response scenarios and the ability of the 2 navies to deal with the same. Note that MiG21(Bis) based at Naliya, Bhuj and Jamnagar are early warning and response assets for any moves made by the PN along Pakistan's coastline. Though these are IAF assets they are positioned as a direct counter to any naval air assets Pakistan may use/scarmble from their coastline:

Case in Point:


Also an analysis on how the PN would aim to take out/maime the INS Viraat carrier using its Agosta-90B subs and/or other assets. Note no current assets available with the PN or IN have AIP technology though it is rumored as a possibility on the new IN Scorpene diesel subs.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 03:04 AM
link   
When I consider the incredible poverty that can be readily found in both India and Pakistan, it sickens me to consider that these two nations can spend so much on their military. When there is so much absolute squalor to be found in India and Pakistan, it is nearly dumbfounding to consider that these two nations not only find the money to purchase the components of their navies as well as their land forces but that they also possess nuclear weapons! Think of the waste! Think of the suffering that the military budgets of these two countries could have alleviated.

All I can say is that it is one thing for "rich countries" such as the U.S. or the U.K or France to possess modern weapons -- but just as deplorable -- however when poor, third world nations develop and possess weapons at the expense of their huge populations of poor it is absolutely disgusting.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
When I consider the incredible poverty that can be readily found in both India and Pakistan, it sickens me to consider that these two nations can spend so much on their military. When there is so much absolute squalor to be found in India and Pakistan, it is nearly dumbfounding to consider that these two nations not only find the money to purchase the components of their navies as well as their land forces but that they also possess nuclear weapons! Think of the waste! Think of the suffering that the military budgets of these two countries could have alleviated.

All I can say is that it is one thing for "rich countries" such as the U.S. or the U.K or France to possess modern weapons -- but just as deplorable -- however when poor, third world nations develop and possess weapons at the expense of their huge populations of poor it is absolutely disgusting.


I find comments such as yours very condescending in nature. Who are you to decide what the governments should or should not be spending on??

I understand your logic that the money could have been spent elsewhere, but it is easier said than done. Here are 2 nations that have a very scarred history between them (think Partition). They have fought 3 wars, and even though steps are being taken to dissapate the tension, neither one can relax until they are sure that their own security is assured beyond a doubt.

Reserve your judgement on what is a waste and what is not for the future.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 05:30 AM
link   
The gap between India and Pakistan is too large to compare
but China stand behind Pakistan,
dare Indian do anything?
==========
List of countries by GDP (PPP)
by the International Monetary Fund
www.danceage.com...(PPP)
Rank Country GDP (PPP)
— World 61,078,260
— European Union 12,427,413
1 United States 12,277,583
2 China 9,412,361
3 Japan 3,910,728
4 *****************India 3,633,441
5 Germany 2,521,699
6 United Kingdom 1,832,792
7 France 1,830,110
8 Italy 1,668,151
9 Brazil 1,576,728
10 Russia 1,575,561
11 Canada 1,104,701
12 Spain 1,089,103
13 Mexico 1,072,563
14 South Korea 994,399
15 Indonesia 977,419
16 Republic of China (Taiwan) 631,220
17 Australia 630,139
18 South Africa 570,190
19 Turkey 569,248
20 Iran 554,775
21 Thailand 544,834
22 Argentina 533,722
23 Netherlands 503,394
24 Poland 495,885
25 Philippines 414,705
26 ******************Pakistan 404,592



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
When I consider the incredible poverty that can be readily found in both India and Pakistan, it sickens me to consider that these two nations can spend so much on their military. When there is so much absolute squalor to be found in India and Pakistan, it is nearly dumbfounding to consider that these two nations not only find the money to purchase the components of their navies as well as their land forces but that they also possess nuclear weapons! Think of the waste! Think of the suffering that the military budgets of these two countries could have alleviated.

All I can say is that it is one thing for "rich countries" such as the U.S. or the U.K or France to possess modern weapons -- but just as deplorable -- however when poor, third world nations develop and possess weapons at the expense of their huge populations of poor it is absolutely disgusting.


All I can say is that the weapons forum is not a place for people like you..
What is the point of that post? Its off-topic, extremely baiting.. totally uncalled for..
please cease from postings such emotionalities.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 08:56 AM
link   
benevolent tyrant, you may be surprised to hear that I agree with your sentiment although I can see why countries want to have a strong defensive force and am realistic enough to realize that that costs money. But this is the military forum and I am determined to provide data that is reasonably credible (for a public sources analysis at least) and also UNBIASED.


Daedalus3, we can talk about those things, and I can give my opinion which we could call "analysis" but I'd rather start out by doing something far more solid like this numbers game.

But in terms of ship defenses against anti-ship missiles, I can tell you roughly how each country (India and Pakistan) stands. I can then give my opinion of how good they are.

SAMs (other than MANPADs, which both navies use):

As you can see Pakistan's SAM air defenses are EXTREMELY poor - the Chinese made LY-6 SAM is based on the Italian Aspide but hasn't even been adopted by the Chinese navy. It is not thought to be effective against incoming anti-ship missiles. Some of India's SAMs are better than others; the Barak is short ranged but thought to be very good against incoming missiles (loosely equivalent to the British Seawolf) and the SA-N-7, the naval version of the SA-11, is also claimed to offer good defense.

But note how neither country possesses a truly Area Air Defense missile like the Standard or SA-10.

But destroying missiles is really the game of CIWS (Close-In Weapon Systems). If we include the Barak as a CIWS, which is how India treats it, then this is how the two navies compare in this department:

Now of course, not all CIWS are equal. We could do some sort of rating calculation similar to the anti-ship missile one but that’s a lot of hassle. The real factor is that with the exception of the 6 ex-Amazon class frigates, Pakistan’s CIWS defense is very poor. Most large Indian naval vessels have pretty respectable CIWS defense but the top position must go to the 3 Talwar class frigates which have 2 Kashtan Air Defence Gun/Missile Systems fitted, each with twin 30mm gatling guns and 16 SA-N-11 (SA-19) Grisom SAMs.






[edit on 28-6-2006 by planeman]



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Planeman, I appreciate and admire the time that you put into these posts, and a few posts that you’ve done recently but I just want to say, and I’m sure you’re aware of this (as you hinted at it). That, while comparing the quantity, and quality, of individual Navy systems is achievable with some research, comparing and assessing the cohesiveness, operational command, intelligence, and the other multiple factors which are just as important as anti-ship missiles for example is rather difficult. So while your post has value in terms of measuring each Navy equally and by the same factors I just want people to keep in mind that, and I hope you don’t take this the wrong way, it might be misleading in some cases. For example if India or Greece is rated by this system higher than the UK I would tend to believe that that’s not accurate, in terms of real world capability. I know, I offer no alternative or solution per se, but that’s what I think of your rating system.


[edit on 28-6-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
So while your post has value in terms of measuring each Navy equally and by the same factors I just want people to keep in mind that, and I hope you don’t take this the wrong way, it might be misleading in some cases.


Total Firepower has never been a god guage of Naval capability by itself, which is why it really isn't a sole source measurement by experts. Planeman has gone with it as a primary factor, and there is nothing wrong with that, however in any Naval war between Pakistan and India, it would most certainly be decided by air forces, not by Naval forces.

Naval power is traditionally measured by the combination of 4 metrics.

The first metric is tonage. Historically there has been a rough correlation between the ambitions of a Navy and the overall size and individual fighting capability of its main units. Tonage of a Navy is usually measured by ships displacing 2000 tons or more, and a submerged submarine displacing 450 tons or more.

The second metric used for measuring Navies is the total numerical value of warships displacing greater than 2000 tons.

The third metric, and often the metric used most often, including under Planeman's method is based on firepower. The metric dates back to the British Age of Sail metric that measured number of guns, and later additionally added the measured size of guns during the early 20th century through WWII. The added measurement of size of guns was done to measure range and type of weapons, afterall, 8 16" guns was better than 200 5" guns in WWII.

The same metric applies today. The measurement applies the VLS cell standard, followed by battle force missile standard and only applies to ships greater than 2000 tons. All ships under 2000 tons fall into the last catagory using this metric. Using this standard warships get broken down into catagories based on total weapon payloads.

First-rate Battle Force ships (battleships): Ships armed more than 100 battle force VLS cells, and/or more than 100 battle force missiles

Second-rate battleships: Ships armed with 90-99 battle force VLS cells, and/or 90 - 99 battle force missiles

Third-rate battleships: Ships armed with 60-89 battle force VLS cells, and/or 61-89 battle force missiles

Fourth-rate battleships/frigates: Ships armed with 48-59 battle force VLS cells, and/or 48-60 battle force missiles

Fifth-rate battleships/frigates: Ships armed with 20-47 battle force VLS cells, and/or 20-47 battle force missiles

Sixth-rate frigates: Ships designed specifically for the protection of shipping role, armed with 8-19 VLS cells or legacy missile systems, and armed primarily with local air defense SAMs. These are augmented by a small number of battle force antisubmarine and anti-ship cruise missiles for convoy defense

Seventh-rate frigates: Warships optimized for a single role, usually either antisubmarine or anti-surface warfare, or for general purpose naval missions. The distinguishing feature of these ships is that they carry only terminal missile
defenses—either in the form of rapid fire guns or short-range terminal defense SAMs.

The fourth metric is based on Naval airpower at sea. It specifically catagories UAVS, helicopters, and other aircraft into catagories ranging from 1-10 (example, UAVs may be a 5, an Apache may rate a 5, a Sea King may rate a 3, a Harrier may rate a 7, while a Super Hornet may rate a 10) numerical value. Values are determined based on pilons for weapon systems, are often arbitrary by the researcher due to considerations including onboard electronics, role, range, and overall capability. Example, a Prowler or a Hawkeye has no weapons, but would rank over say a F/A-18C/D due to its overall capability to the battle force.

Obviously this includes ships like LHA, LHD, CV, CVN. It does not include LPD or '___' that have no hangers for ASW,ASuW, AAW, or MCM warfare, since those ships would be rated for lift capability as opposed to contrabution from a naval warfare perspective.

While I think it is clever to create a rating system for ranking Navies, the above metrics are considered the standard for modern Navies in most countries, ironically including India and Pakistan (but also the US, Europe, Asia, and even Russia and China). Believe it or not, when you break down the worlds Navies using all four metrics, the combination of the four makes it much easier to rank the capabilities of respective countries.

Good stuff Planeman as always, I always enjoy reading your research.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Very valid points both of you. Thanks for looking at my rating system.

Obviously my rating system ONLY rates the firepower in the form of anti-ship missiles. it has several weaknesses but as long as you take the result as a ball-park indicator rather than an exact science, I think it's useful.

The tonnage measure is a bit difficult because it would include auxilleries (?) which although a vital factor (and one reason the RN is so good etc), they are BORING.

As long as FIREPOWER of ANTI-SHIP MISSILES is the factor we are concerntrating on, is this scoring system good or could it be tweaked without introducing to many complexities?

Max Range = 1 point per km
Warhead = 1/2 point per kg*
Approach speed = 1 point per m/s
Sophistication = 1~1000 with Harpoon Block II being 900 as a rough guide.

*less important than other factors?

Using this scoring I have calculated the Royal Navy's Total Firepower Rating (anti-ship missiles) as 413,273. The recent removal of the Sea Eagle from RN (Sea harrier) and RAF (2 sqd of Tornados) is a major factor. I've also been generous by assuming that each SSN has four Harpoons when I suspect that with the Tomahawks onboard they probably carry fewer AShMs:



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 01:17 PM
link   
The Oliver Hazard Perry no longer carries Harpoons, the MK 13s have been removed.

The Flight IIAs do not have Harpoon launchers. Only the early flight DDG-51s have Harpoon lauchers, and in several cases, they have been removed for advanced electronics in littoral or for ballistic missile defense, or for unmanned systems control systems.

The US Navy doesn't even have Harpoon IIs, sure they are made in the US, but the US Navy doesn't actually own any, or have any in inventory. All submarine launched Harpoons have been retired.

The anti-ship tomahawk doesn't exist anymore.

All that is left for the most part in terms of anti-ship capabilty for the US Navy is the SM-2.

So when using your criteria, somehow you overrated the US Navy by alot.

Using the other criteria, just looking at the US Navy it can be used like this.

For tonage, not counting auxilleries (shouldn't be counted), the US Navy was 2.85 million tons in 2004. 7 nations operated fleets with greater than 100,000 tons, and 10 more nations operated fleets greater than 50,000 tons. The next 17 Navies were 2.66 million tons, and the rest of the world was 3.03 million tons.

For the numeric metric, in 2004 the US Navy operated 101 of 574 surface combatants that qualify under the metric. Using the next 17 as established by the first metric, they operated 366 ships that qualify. The second largest Navy in 2004 was the JMSDF, with 51 ships. Using the numeric metric, measuring the largest Navy (US Navy) against the next largest Navy (JMSDF), the US Navy had a "two Navy Standard" in regards to the numberic metric. As a history lesson, the "Two Navy Standard" was the British Royal Navy standard for most of the 1700s - early 1900s.

For the VLS metric, The US Navy had 7,566 VLS or battle force missiles on 71 ships (none on the 30 FFGs which had their MK 13s removed). Again, borrowing from the tonage standard, the next 17 competitors had 5,262 missiles combined among their 366 ships in 2004.

I used 2004 since that is the most recent year we actually know what everyone had. Until open source data catches up, we are still guessing what people like China have commissioned in 2005-2006.

That is before measuring aircraft, submarines, and electronic equipment. However, if you measure a Navy by the anti-ship missile standard you have proposed, Russia clearly should be #1, considering the US Navy has fewer than 400 Harpoons (old version btw) left in their entire inventory, while Russia can still put only a few dozen short of 400 modern anti-ship missiles on their remaining submarine fleet alone.

Not trying to criticize you personally, just trying to offer constructive criticism you can guage yourself to your metric before you apply for that patent.

The reason I point this out, is because if you measure India using the above recognized metrics, you'll find that in 2004 India had the 6th largest Navy in terms of tonage, the eighth largest Navy by numerics, but all of the Indian and Pakistani Naval ships fell into the 6th rate class of ships based on the VLS metric.

But, the difference is, since 2004 India is now the 4th largest Navy, the fastest growing Navy in the world with 4 different types of surface ships being built or being brought online, has 1 new carrier being brought online, has 2 different types of sub classes under evaluation, and is about to becomes the 5th country to operate fixed wing carrier aircraft (US, France, Russia, and Brazil are the others).

While Pakistan has retired 3 submarines and ordered 3 7th rates over the same time period.

By any metric, Pakistan isn't even in the same league as India, in fact, India is approaching the same league as China, and at a faster pace, but outside of Naval circles few point fact that out.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Do you have any sources that support your info on US Harpoon deployment levels?

The problem with the tonnage measure is that naval trends are towards ever better smaller ships.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Umm… just a few things here concerning USN anti-ship missile capability, the USN has considerable number of aircraft capable of carrying and firing the AGM-84, and the AGM-119, as such you should take that into consideration before claiming that the SM-2 is all that’s basically left. And by the way the US has fielded the AGM-84K (standard current and future version), and I think it’s a bit more than "old", the Tico’s and Burkes are still Harpoon equipped. Originally the Flight IIA had their Harpoon launchers removed but following recent upgrades they have been refitted once again.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   
I'm steering clear of US for the moment as it's the biggest task. Far easier to quantify smaller navies. Here's France:


Resulting Total Firepower Rating: 375,728. I thought it would be more than that but there you have it. The relatively short range of the Exocet missiles is a factor (the longer ranged Turbojet model isn't deployed yet?), as is the fact that the many Lynx helicopters aren't equipped with any anti-ship missile and the Rafale-M is still strictly A-A.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by planeman
Do you have any sources that support your info on US Harpoon deployment levels?

The problem with the tonnage measure is that naval trends are towards ever better smaller ships.


2 excellent discussion points.

First, for Harpoon levels.


Program Executive Office answers the Harpoon question regarding FFGs in the FAQ section. The Harpoons on the FFGs were launched via the MK 13, when the MK 13 was removed, so was the Harpoon.

Globalsecurity's Flight II website goes into detail regarding design changes in Flight II, which ultimately removed the Harpoon launchers from the destroyer to make room for a Hanger Bay.

The US Naval Institute covered US submarine developments several years ago, reminding us the "UGM-84-series Sub-Harpoon missiles were removed during 1996–97." The missiles are preserved, but not deployed.

The US Navy partisipates in the development of the Harpoon Block II, in fact they test the weapon for Boeing on US Navy warships, they just don't buy any. The only Harpoon versions the Navy buys are air launched versions like the SLAM-ER, and SLAM-ER-ATA. In fact, because of the success of the SLAM program, the Navy no longer uses the JASSM

Now to your second point.

The trend worldwide is not towards smaller ships. Lets review the list.

The US is currently pursuing a 10,000 ton Destroyer, and a 14,000 ton cruiser. These would represent the largest destroyers in history, and the largest cruisers built since the early 1940s.

The Royal Navy Darling Class is the largest surface combatant warship built by Britain since WWII.

France and Italy are both building the largest surface combatant warships either country has built since WWII in the Horizon class.

The Republic of South Korea KDX-III class will displace over 10,000 tons fully loaded.

The JMSDF Kongo class destroyers displace nearly 9,450 tons fully loaded, and the Atago class will displace over 10,000 tons fully loaded.

The smallest destroyer/frigate class ship China has built in the last 6 years was 7,500 tons fully loaded. Prior to 2000, China has not produced a surface combatant warship larger than 4,500 tons.

The Dutch, Germany, and Spain recently built Frigates over 6,000 tons in the De Zeven Provincien Class, the Sachsen Class, and Alvaro de Bazan class respectfully. All 3 ships replaced smaller ships.

Australia is looking to build a 5,000 - 7,000 ton air defense destroyer in the future, which is a considerable size increase over current naval ships.

Trends continue to be larger multi-role ships, in fact, multi-role has now expanded into humanitarian capability, hospital capability, troop lift capability, and other non traditional roles for armed warships on top of ASW, AAW, ASuW, and MCM.

I'd also like to point out, that smaller ships today do not represent a major increase in weapons payload relative to larger ships in comparison to smaller ships in the past, after all, PC Boats in WWII were extreamly lethal with their torpedos.

What has changed is the offensive range capability of small boats, but even then, without offboard sensor network systems, targetting can be a problem.

The "Streetfighter Concept" of small surface ship warfare was a theory that never had its day in reality as current trends point to larger ships, not smaller ships.

Westpoint, show me a picture, what you said is not true. The Flight IIs have the weight requirements to support Harpoons, but were never fitted with the launchers. The comment about air launched versions is right on.






top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join