View Full Version : Navy Fleet Fleet Strength by Country (2023)
Just a numbers list but pretty sad US is fourth behind China-Russia-North Korea. I mean I can see China and Russia but North Korea, what do they count every row boat as part of their Navy?
https://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-ships.php
SomeOtherGuy
03-08-23, 10:17
The more you look at the list, the sillier it gets. Must be counting rowboats for NK and ignoring major combatants for the USA.
The US and China are the major naval powers today; everyone else is a very distant third, including Russia.
Looking at the list, it puts Sweden and Indonesia in the top 10, while leaving Japan, France and the UK much lower down. Seriously? This doesn't pass the laugh test. (No offense to Sweden, they do great relative to their size and spending, but it's not in the same league.)
Oh, and Bolivia, a land-locked country far from any ocean, is at #17. I think the list is pure trolling.
I know they totally ignore quality and capability, really a silly way to rate things.
Should be rated by strength and not numbers of boats. That list is really missing the mark
I like this tweet.:D
Emma Salisbury
@salisbot
·
1h
This is a hilarious list for anyone who has ever actually seen a ship - and I would pay good money to be the one to tell the First Sea Lord that the Royal Navy is 43rd!
Our Navy is in its weakest state since the 70s. That said, we're worlds better than China and Russia. North Korea?? Please.
Just a numbers list but pretty sad US is fourth behind China-Russia-North Korea. I mean I can see China and Russia but North Korea, what do they count every row boat as part of their Navy?
https://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-ships.php
A perfect example of quality vs quantity. I'm not concerned in the least. I suspect a single US battle group would end the Chinese "navy" in an afternoon, and NK is not even worth talking about.
titsonritz
03-08-23, 13:29
Do three-masted wooden-hulled heavy frigates really count?
How about we start with aircraft carrier strike groups and go from there.
Do three-masted wooden-hulled heavy frigates really count?
How about we start with aircraft carrier strike groups and go from there.
We did that with the Soviets both intentionally and non. On the non side, they played us pretty well. For example, the demonstrated some pretty impressive heavy bombers (I forget the name) at one of their silly parades and we freaked out as we were connvinved they had a fleet of them. That actually l lead to the development of the B52 program. Problem was, per usual, that's all the planes the Soviets actually had an we built hundreds of B52's while they had all of like 20-30 of those planes. They are perfectly capable of developing good gear, they just can't make them in numbers nor maintain them.
On the intentional side: consistently over estimating them was was kept a whole lot of $ flowing to the DOD, and cush contracts for gear, $800 toilet seats, party junkets, etc, etc.
Seems like we are doing that with China now as the new "big bad" which is not to say we can ignore their obvious intentions to be the next peer military to the US and plans to expand/control the region.
What's the proper balance?
Do the North Korean boots even float? Are they just sailors in floaty arm bands?
Russian boomers are a real threat, or were they? Idk how the upkeep on them or their missiles has been. They could be junk? Ukraine was/is a joke.
Chinease boomers like all things chinease made are a joke and suck.
Do the North Korean boots even float? Are they just sailors in floaty arm bands?
Russian boomers are a real threat, or were they? Idk how the upkeep on them or their missiles has been. They could be junk? Ukraine was/is a joke.
Chinease boomers like all things chinease made are a joke and suck.
Only takes one to launch and ruin your whole day, but my understanding is most were rusting away in some dilapidated ship yard. We know where all there's are at all times, I don't believe the reverse is true, unless their tech has improved on that score.
The US Navy is definitely losing ground. By most educated analysis it is still the most capable naval force in the world, but China's PLAN is looking to unseat the USN. They are definitely putting in the money and putting hulls in the water. Even outnumbering our Navy doesn't put them at peer level just yet, but they are getting there no doubt about it.
The Russians might as well hang it up. Yes they have boomers. Their attack subs are a threat as well. Their surface fleet however is ageing out and new hulls are sparse. They do lead the world in icebreakers though. So there's that. Like everything else Russian, their navy's best days have long passed.
The Norks, yeah right. 90% of their "fleet" can't leave port in a storm. 50% probably shouldn't leave port at all. The ROKN could handle the KPN on their own. Sure the Norks can do some damage in a coastal environment but that's pretty much it.
We did that with the Soviets both intentionally and non. On the non side, they played us pretty well. For example, the demonstrated some pretty impressive heavy bombers (I forget the name) at one of their silly parades and we freaked out as we were connvinved they had a fleet of them. That actually l lead to the development of the B52 program. Problem was, per usual, that's all the planes the Soviets actually had an we built hundreds of B52's while they had all of like 20-30 of those planes. They are perfectly capable of developing good gear, they just can't make them in numbers nor maintain them.
On the intentional side: consistently over estimating them was was kept a whole lot of $ flowing to the DOD, and cush contracts for gear, $800 toilet seats, party junkets, etc, etc.
Seems like we are doing that with China now as the new "big bad" which is not to say we can ignore their obvious intentions to be the next peer military to the US and plans to expand/control the region.
What's the proper balance?
I don't know that we consistently overestimated Soviet numbers as the source for building a bigger military. Reading UNCLASS material from the cold war and the end of the cold war the Soviets did a pretty masterful job in the counterintel in making us think their military was so much bigger than it was. Not just size, they did a great job in hiding how utterly broken down their military was; something like one in three main battle tanks could fight; one in five fighters, etc.
I DO believe we used that narrative to get a blank check from Congress to build our military, especially in the 80s, when we started getting a clue. Why wouldn't we?
Baba Yaga was right there with a billion nuked pointed at us and 15,000 tanks ready to cross the Fulda Gap. Reagan, et al., believed--rightly, it turned out--that we could outspend them and collapse their economy as tried to catch up.
We absolutely need a bigger, more robust navy, but even what we have now is much better than what China has.
A perfect example of quality vs quantity. I'm not concerned in the least. I suspect a single US battle group would end the Chinese "navy" in an afternoon, and NK is not even worth talking about.
"Quantity has a quality of its own." - Joseph Stalin
Defaultmp3
03-09-23, 07:28
We did that with the Soviets both intentionally and non. On the non side, they played us pretty well. For example, the demonstrated some pretty impressive heavy bombers (I forget the name) at one of their silly parades and we freaked out as we were connvinved they had a fleet of them. That actually l lead to the development of the B52 program. Problem was, per usual, that's all the planes the Soviets actually had an we built hundreds of B52's while they had all of like 20-30 of those planes. They are perfectly capable of developing good gear, they just can't make them in numbers nor maintain them.Source on this? The contract that created the B-52 was awarded in 1946. Are you talking about the Myasishchev M-4 Bison and the perceived bomber gap? If so, that happened after the B-52 already entered service. The missile gap is an even more interesting example of misinformation, made worse by the fact that in fact it was known to be bunk in the highest level of government, but was unable to be disproven in public due to reluctance to reveal sources and methods.
Source on this? The contract that created the B-52 was awarded in 1946. Are you talking about the Myasishchev M-4 Bison and the perceived bomber gap? If so, that happened after the B-52 already entered service. The missile gap is an even more interesting example of misinformation, made worse by the fact that in fact it was known to be bunk in the highest level of government, but was unable to be disproven in public due to reluctance to reveal sources and methods.
I think this is the story I recalled. Perhaps it's more accurate to say the Bison lead to so many B-52's being built?
" The Bison was first shown off to the world in Red Square on May Day, 1954. And it surprised the United States, who had no idea that the Soviet Union had a jet bomber. But the USA soon found out that the Bison didn’t have the range to attack the USA, much like the Tu-4. So the Myasishchev company came up with the 3M, or the Bison-B in the West which was more powerful and hard more range, and this new model first flew in 1955.
However, the United States got worried again when they saw 28 Bisons fly at a Soviet Air Show. This set alarm bells off that the Bison was in mass production, with the United States not knowing that one group of 10 aircraft flew past the cameras twice to bolster the numbers of the jet. This led to the American’s fearing a “bomber gap”, and thus Boeing was suddenly tasked with mass-producing the B-47 Stratojet and the newer and more capable B-52 Stratofortress to fill the gap and gain the advantage back over the Soviet Union. The reality was though that the Soviet Union didn’t have that many aircraft, and the Bison wasn’t performing as expected."
https://www.hotcars.com/the-myasishchev-m-4-the-soviet-bomber-that-tricked-the-united-states/
"Quantity has a quality of its own." - Joseph Stalin
That is true. 100 warships will overwhelm 1 regardless of the one's technology and how advanced it might be. "Quantity" has been a strategic tactic of both USSR/Russia as well as China where they have quantity to spare, with people. The tech (ships, aircraft, etc.) not so much).
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.