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
Ships armed with 90-99 battle force VLS cells, and/or 90 - 99 battle force missiles
Ships armed with 60-89 battle force VLS cells, and/or 61-89 battle force missiles
Ships armed with 48-59 battle force VLS cells, and/or 48-60 battle force missiles
Ships armed with 20-47 battle force VLS cells, and/or 20-47 battle force missiles
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
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.