Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
Japan warships ordered to Somalia
Thursday, March 12, 2009 8:24 PM
JEWELSTAITEFAN
Friday, March 13, 2009 4:22 AM
AURAPTOR
America loves a winner!
Sunday, March 15, 2009 10:18 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: I was unaware that Japan HAD any warships, or none that they could spare to send anywhere that far from home.
Monday, March 16, 2009 1:20 AM
CITIZEN
Monday, March 16, 2009 4:51 AM
WULFENSTAR
http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg
Monday, March 16, 2009 7:51 AM
HERO
Quote:Originally posted by citizen: So Yeah, Japan has a fairly major navy.
Monday, March 16, 2009 8:32 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Hero: I know they've been building up lately in response to China and North Korea. But I'd hardly call it a major navy. Not when your biggest ships are destroyers. Assuming you disregard the US, Russia, and China, then major navies come from France, Britain, and India, maybe Spain and Argentina. Everybody else struggles to put a handful of ships and subs to sea and calls it a Navy. Most can barely put their patrol boats to sea.
Monday, March 16, 2009 11:21 AM
KWICKO
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
Monday, March 16, 2009 11:51 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Actually, the battleship is still around - the USS Missouri fired shots in both Gulf Wars, if memory serves. It was the battleship that Japan formally signed the unconditional surrender on, which ended WWII. It served in the Korean War, and Vietnam War, and at least Desert Storm. I know it was mothballed after that, but believe it was pulled out to fire opening volleys and cruise missiles in Gulf War II.
Quote:As to navies, have a look at India sometime. They've been quietly building quite a navy, mostly by NOT building it, but rather buying it. They struck a deal some while back to buy Russia's largest carrier AND a few of their newest submarines. Not sure if the deal ever went through or if they took delivery, though. Heard about 'em making the deal, but then it dropped off the wire.
Monday, March 16, 2009 12:34 PM
Quote: However, what I said is still essentially correct, the Iowa class Battleships were the last of the US navy, and were all hang overs from the second world war, and were all decommissioned by the early 90's. So all modern navies do not field a surface combat vessel larger than a Destroyer.
Monday, March 16, 2009 12:41 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Right you are, and agreed. I thought you were saying that no navy HAD used battleships since WWII.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009 3:16 AM
Quote:Originally posted by citizen: Actually the Japanese have been cutting back their naval strength recently. From a high of 60 surface warships in the late 70's they're looking to cut back to 47 or 48 I think.
Quote: The only vessels fielded by any navy larger than Destroyers are Aircraft carriers. Battleship docterine died out in World War 2.
Quote: As for who fields major Navies, you're pretty much dead wrong. China's Navy is pathetic, it's brown water only. They have zero power projection capability, and no Aircraft carriers.
Quote: In reality, with Russia's ageing soviet era fleet outclassed and mostly in mothballs, they're way below even Japan.
Quote: France and Britain probably vie for the Second spot behind the USA. I'd give it too Britain because France has fewer Destroyers, Frigates and attack Submarines, and only a single Aircraft Carrier.
Quote: That's why I made the comparison between Britain and Japan. Japan fields a pretty big surface fleet by any comparison, but like China without Aircraft carriers they have little power projection capability. It means their "Maritime Defence Force" fits in to their remit of being 'defensive only'. The Japanese couldn't launch a credible naval offensive.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009 3:25 AM
Tuesday, March 17, 2009 3:57 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Hero: Your forgetting Cruisers. The US fields some very nice cruisers, so does Russia.
Quote:China posses one Aircraft Carrier and may be in the process of building at least one more.
Quote:During the first stage, China proceeded to buy several scrapped carriers from overseas in order to study the parts. China had previously pursued similar policies both in defense and other industries. Between 1985 and 2002, Chinese firms purchased a number of vessels, for ostensibly for a variety of purposes. These included for amusement parks, hotels, scrap metal, as well as likely analysis of design and other developmental purposes. China has a long history of aquiring technology for reverse engineering purposes. Of the vessels, the Varyag, an ex-Soviet carrier, contruction of which was never completed, and sold by Ukraine to what appeared to be a Chinese front company in 1998, has been the source of the greatest speculation. After arriving in Dalian, the hull was placed in drydock for a few months and painted in PLAN colors. Subsequently the hull was moored at a cargo warf. Minor work was reported to have been conducted on the hull, delivered without engines or any other equipment, between 2005 and 2008. However, as of August 2008, there was no visible work being done to make the hull seaworthy. Several years of highly visible construction activity, to include the installation of a propulsion plant, would be required to make this hull seaworthy.
Quote:China's navy is not designed to project power...its primary mission is sea denial. In the shallow waters off their coastline (around Taiwan for example) diesel subs would be very effective while our own nuclear subs would be hampered.
Quote:Unsupported the Japanese fleet would be decimated by even a fraction of the Soviet fleet...since Russia can field a fraction of the Soviet fleet, that's pretty much a done deal. They would need a handfull of attack subs supported by a full surface action group built around one of those big cruisers they used to like or maybe an aircraft carrier.
Quote:Ship quality is a big issue. Britain has more and better. France has a real carrier, Britain went with those pansy carriers.
Quote:Few could launch a credible naval war. ... China could locally,
Quote:China has the resources and ambition to make a much more powerful fleet.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009 9:25 AM
Quote:Originally posted by citizen: China could defend itself, but there's little use for a navy in an offensive role that can't operate away from your coast.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009 10:23 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Hero: Unless your target is a breakaway island nation located right off your coast. China could invade Taiwan and the Chinese navy's role would be to interdict the local sea lanes to prevent US intervention before the Chinese could take the island.
Quote:Oh, and recent reports have the Chinese preparing their carrier as a training platform...possibly because they plan to buy a real carrier from the Brits or the Russians.
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL