Talk:Blue-water navy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

U.K

The Royal Navy cannot be compared to the U.S Navy. The U.S Navy is the ultimate, the only truly blue water navy in the world. The U.K and French Navy's will be in the next category. Please correct it.

Chanakyathegreat 15:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but all three navies meet the basic blue-water criteria and a heck of a lot more. America is on a "different" blue-water level though, yes.UberCryxic 16:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

What I mentioned here is the following way the U.S and U.K is explained.

The US and UK navies, as the leading naval forces of the world, have a special position as blue water navies.[citation needed] The French Navy is also considered to have blue-water status.

Here, the U.S need to be seperated from U.K as the U.S is in a seperate club (a club of its own). U.K need to be clubbed with the French Navy like.

The US Navy, is the leading naval force of the world, have a special position as blue water navy. The U.K and French Navy are also considered to be blue-water navy's.

or something like this.

Chanakyathegreat 07:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You have NO sourced defintion. So how do you want to make a classification? Furthermore the Rusian and Chinese concept of blue water abilities is totally neglected in your approach with a strict focus on the ability for massive global intervention. Wandalstouring 07:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Definition

In the absence of a credible definition on this and the two related articles the majority of the content is unreliable conjecture. I'll take a look in Defence Doctrine this week when I get a chance, but if no credible definition can be found then I'd question the justifiability of the article. WP:NOT and WP:V apply. ALR 20:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There are reasonable definitions out there, which have been noted in this discussion page in various earlier discussions about what is and isn't a blue water navy. It is to our general discredit that we got embroiled in debates of which navy to list as such instead of actually writing up the definition itself. The article needs fixing, not deletion. Rhialto 22:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well sort the process. Agree a credible definition and cite it in the article. As it stands any discussion without a definition is pointless nationalistic posturing.ALR 06:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry ALR, but those are some ludicrous assertions. The concept of a blue-water navy is firmly established in geostrategy and global politics. Wikipedia definitely needs to have an article on it. Per Rhialto, the problems have mostly centered on which modern navies qualify for that status. I'd be fine if we just talked about blue-water navies conceptually, offering some historical examples, while completely leaving out the debate on which nations do and which nations don't have blue-water navies.UberCryxic 22:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm content that the blue-water and brown-water concepts are established concepts, although given that assertion it should be fairly straightforward of you to find credible definitions. The fact tag has been in place for 3 days and so far all that's been happening is pointless willy waving over Canada. So crack on and provide a credible definition.ALR 06:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It is clear what a blue water navy is. all navies operating with ships several days travel offshore - traditionally. Now the US Navy invented the green water navy and I found no defintion of these terms any more. Some nations still define their navies traditonally, some have taken up the new defintion from US Navy. It is a mess. http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/mullen/speeches/mullen051013.txt

"Question: I notice that you've added a color code to the Navy's mission area. You've added green to the traditional blue and brown. A definition of a couple of the terms you use in this thing -- expeditionary combat command; and globally networked force Maritime Component Commanders. These are terms that you have in your Guidance. Are they just different names for existing capabilities, or are they something new?

Admiral Mullen: We have the global network, the Joint Force Maritime Component Commanders is a concept that we have recently put in place to essentially link the component commanders from the United States Navy around the world. So they currently, in their old hats, their Navy hats, they're the fleet commanders. But really this takes them by designation, not that they weren't doing this, but this really designates them in the joint sense, and we will use them that way." Wandalstouring 23:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore the US Navy defines that it needs brown, green and blue water abilities. - This way it is a definition of how far away from the shore a fleet is able to fight an enemy, not whether they are able to fight on foreign shores.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/leadership/quotes.asp?q=11&c=6 "We are moving out in the green and brown water areas and because many operations are looking as an extension of what we talked about in the last few years in terms of the littoral, many operations are focused in the shallows. " (Remarks at the NDIA Expeditionary Warfare Conference, Panama City, Fla., 26 Oct. 2005)

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/mullen/speeches/mullen060519-kqv.txt “CNO: We are looking at, in addition to the blue water ships which I would characterize and describe as our aircraft carriers and other ships that support that kind of capability, we're also looking to develop capability in what I call the green water and the brown water, and the brown water is really the rivers. I've engaged with heads of navies from around the world, upwards of 72 different countries, in the concept that I call a 1,000 ship navy. It's a thousand ships of like-minded nations working together to get at the emerging challenges of weapons of mass destruction, terrorists, drugs, weapons, pirates, human trafficking and immigration. These are challenges we all have, and we need to work together to ensure that the sea lanes are secure.”

This article from the French wiki gives an overview about the ships of world's dominant navies etc. note: they decided to use a specific date. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_militaire#Bâtiments_de_combat_des_ principales_marines_au_1er_janvier_2002

This is part of the German wiki article de:Deutsche Marine It describes that the German navy was treaty bound not to develop naval abilities to project power beyond a certain level offshore. Die Neuorientierung

...

Entsprechend ihrer Aufgabenstellung hatte das Operationsgebiet der Bundesmarine zunächst nur Nord- und Ostsee umfasst, wobei die Linie Dover-Calais im Westen und der 60. Breitenparallel im Norden die Grenze für Einsatzplanungen, jedoch nicht für Ausbildungsreisen bildeten. Diese nationale Einsatzbeschränkung wurde im Juni 1980 aufgehoben.

The area of operations vor the Bundesmarine contained at first only the North and Baltic Sea, while the line Dover-Calais in the West and the 60th latitude in the north were the borders of operational planning. -This way it was no blue water navy in accordance with the new defintion of blue, green and brown water navy.

Hauptwaffensysteme der Bundesmarine

Die Wiederbewaffnung Deutschlands erfolgte unter Auflagen, die in den Zusatzprotokollen zum Vertrag über die Westeuropäische Union (WEU) enthalten waren. Sie sahen als Beschränkungen für die deutsche Marine unter anderem eine Obergrenze der Standardverdrängung für Kriegsschiffe von 3.000 ts und für U-Boote von 350 ts vor. Die Auflagen wurden mehrfach zugunsten Deutschlands modifiziert und entfielen 1984 endgültig. Die letzten Schiffe, bei deren Entwurf die WEU-Beschränkungen noch zu beachten waren, waren die Fregatten der Bremen-Klasse, die zwischen 1982 und 1990 in Dienst gestellt wurden.

The restrictions for the German navy were established in the Western European Union additional protocolls. They have been changed several times and ended finally in 1984. The upper limit for warships it was 3,000 ts and for submarines 350 ts.

This way we have a navy that was treaty-bound not to be able to go beyond green water ability. The treaty can be taken as a guideline what is necessary for blue water ability. From this we can present the reader an overview about the blue water capabilities of different navies and their concepts (Russia would be ill advised with a large fleet of surface ships in the winter). Another point is the possibility of naval intervention support most editors use as blue water navy criteria right now. Wandalstouring 08:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

From British Maritime Doctrine, BR 1806, Third Edition, dated 2004:

• The operating areas of maritime forces range from the deep waters of the open oceans (known colloquially as blue water) to the more confined and often – although not invariably – shallower waters of littoral regions, estuaries and rivers (frequently, though misleadingly, referred to as brown water).

This is preceded by a fairly technical discussion related to:

• internal waters, territorial seas, contiguous zones, exclusive

economic zones and on the continental shelves claimed by coastal states

• the rights of innocent passage, straits transit passage and archipelagic sea lanes passage

which results in the Littoral being a 300nm area, extending 100nm inland from shore and 200nm offshore to the extend of the exclusive economic zone.

Whilst there is no corresponding discussion of something as simplistic as blue water and brown water navies there is extensive discussion on the ability to exercise sea control at range with a combination of surface, sub-surface, airborne and space bassed assets.

That's all food for thought, althoughI'm starting to think that all three articles should be merged into something which can more usefully consider the military dimension of maritime operations.ALR 08:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

A navy can be a blue water navy or it will not be. There cannot be different one's like Major, Middile and Minor blue water navies. It's wrong concept, because the concept is like saying a candidate passed becaused his failure is by a small margin and he can be said to be minorly passed. It has been said again and again in former discussions that operating in blue water oceans cannot be considered as blue water navy. it is just a single criteria for a blue water navy. If you say that all navies that operate in blue water need to be termed as blue water navies then we will have somalian pirates in the list.

The potential section is for those navies that will become blue water navies in a short period of time. The German and some other navies need to be discussed (whether they are blue water/potential blue water) before adding them into the list (by looking into their expansion programme is substantial or not).

Chanakyathegreat 13:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Circular argument. you need a definition of the capability before you can identify which forces meet the categories. And nobody has provided a credible definition yet.ALR 13:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Somewhere it is provided. The only thing is it need to be integrated into one. It's not just Aircraft carrier's the whole discussion is on blue water navy and its capabilities. We discuss about a navy after it is added into the list. After the argument, the Navy is either into the Blue/Potential list or out of it. That's all. There is a way to rank the navy and place them in the list using the global security ranking, but nobody seem to be interested. Even that is so much complicated. Present method:If you want to add a navy just make a list. There will be argument and then there will be a decision.

Chanakyathegreat 13:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Somewhere it is provided

That's rather the point I'm making. If there is one, then it can be referenced. If there isn't then the article hass no place in Wikipedia, because it can't be verified.

fwiw the globalsecurity website can't be accessed from behind the firewalls here because its a popup trojan ridden nightmare, I'm also not convinced that it constitutes a reliable source anyway.

See my discussion below for what I've managed to find from the British Maritime Doctrine document.

tbh I think the way ahea is to come up with an aarticle which discusses gradations of employability.ALR 14:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you are referring to this part from the British Maritime report. The operating areas of maritime forces range from the deep waters of the open oceans (known colloquially as blue water) to the more confined and often – although not invariably – shallower waters of littoral regions, estuaries and rivers (frequently, though misleadingly, referred to as brown water).

This is operating in blue water, better say the capability of the Navy to operate in blue water. This cannot be confused with the Blue water Navy. The blue water navy is not just capable of operating in blue water, but much more than that. Else as I said, we have to rate even Somalian pirates, who can venture out into deep ocean as Blue water Navies. Chanakyathegreat 14:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You've rather missed the point. British Maritime doctrine has no definition, it refers to the colloquialism. It then goes on to discuss what is involved in Blue Water operation, and Littoral operation. Which I haven't copied out in full. Once there is a credible, sourced definition of the requirement, then you can start fitting national assets into it. The key aspects are the ability to have organic force protection, and sustainable logistic reach. The snag is that be distilling the doctrine into an article I'm probably verging on Original Research.ALR 14:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If Somalian pirates operate in blue water, they are operating in blue water. What is the difference to an aircraft carrier operating in blue water besides its size? Stupid question, but I see no reason to object if pirates get blue navy status. Wandalstouring 15:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well that chapter of BMD is about 30 or so pages long, it goes into the principles of war in quite a lot of depth. It comes down to sustainable sea control at range; force protection, sustainable logistic reach, poise (as in the ability to present a credible threat for prolonged periods) etc all in someone elses Littoral area.

I suppose classically Blue Water would refer to the ability to conduct ASW in the North Atlantic for months at a time but given the expeditionary direction that current European policy is taking it's more related to crossing deep water to deliver effect somewhere else.

So in that sense we're talling about the ability to deliver massive force at reach, but also the ability to maintain a presence on station for extended periods, in terms of years. The UK have had at least two ships in the Persian Gulf for about 30 years.

Flat Tops are useful, when I was in Sierra Leone the value to Spearhead from having fast air available, even just to show that we had fast air, was significant. but doing drug busting in the Carribean needs rotary wing and multi-engine support. A flat top is of limited value for that.

ALR 17:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if Somalian or any pirates operating in blue water, they are operating in blue water. You must know the difference between a boat and an aircraft carrier. Also the pirates will get the Blue water status only after they have such aircraft carriers. I.E the capability to move in blue water is not the only criteria to have the Blue water Navy status.

Chanakyathegreat 16:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

So what is the criteria? Having huge ships with flying objects on them? Wandalstouring 16:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I wrote an email to the US Navy. They invented these conventions, so they can tell us what they mean. The discussion here is moving in circles. Next on my list is the Russian navy, the have a very submarine based theory, so perhaps they have a different definition of blue water. Wandalstouring 18:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Falklands war reference

That website I used as a cite is the homepage for a recognised writer of books on the topic of war. Would [1] be better as a cite? Can you explain why you removed the cite? Perhaps technically it is a personal site, but it appears to have reviews from several famous museums and other notables on the topic. Because if you can't, I'm washing my hands of this article. Rhialto 09:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well for starters it doesn't actually support the statement you're citing it for. Argentine forces in the vicinity their own littoral were able to execute an operation in the absence of a credible OPFOR. Whilst the UK force at extended range were unable to establish air superiority, the did establish sea control (after they'd arrived). The point is valid, a littoral capable force can present a credible challenge to an expeditionary force at range, but the example isn't very useful and not applied rigorously. Can you provide the citation from the reference which you believe supports your argument? ALR 09:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It does not support your statement, this does not mean it's content was not written by somebody knowing the topic. Besides, I moved it to external links, please keep some wikipedia standards. Wandalstouring 09:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like I was right to take a break from this article. I'll just sit back and fix it once the edit war has died down. No need to stress myself out in an edit war. Rhialto 02:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Rather than sitting in the corner with the stated intent to return once a consensus has been achieved, can you provide a credible reference for the term which makes it anything more than a colloquialism? Also can you address some of the issues of OR which I've discussed, presumably you have a view? Can you also comment on the suggestion that all three articles be merged into something which sensibly discusses the issue of power projection.ALR 06:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, both of us have responded to your question, but you've not bothered dealing with the issue we both raised, have you a position on whether the reference supports your argument?ALR 06:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Truth is, I feel like I pointed to the sun and said, "That is yellow." and then received, "No it isn't." in response. I read through that article, and it did appear to back up my point quite well. Perhaps that isn't as you perceive it. But I do know I don't have the heart to fight against what appears to me to be a flat contradiction. Rhialto 06:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I read through both the page that you pointed to, and a couple of the others surrounding it, and don't believe that it's as conclusive as you suggest, without some effort on behalf of the reader. It would be useful if you could provide the citation from within the article which you believe supports your position.

Notwithstanding that, I'd actually disagree with your conclusion. Your argument appears to be that the force in the vicinity of their own littoral achieved dominance over the force at extended range. I don't see that as the case. Argentine forces achieved a level of full spectrum dominance in the early stages of the conflict, in part by throwing a disproportionate level of force at the sub-unit garrisoned at Stanley. They established waterspace dominance in the absence of any credible defending assets. Following the approach of the UKTG that dominance was quickly eroded. Although the Santa Fe is a useful example of the impact of defending ORBAT SMs in the battlespace.ALR 07:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Way ahead

In the absence of a definition, the lists of navies which may or may not fulfil the, as yet undefined, criteria have no place.

/sandbox lists

They're at the subpage until a definition is agreed.ALR 13:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As I have it in one quotation above, aircraft carriers were defined as blue water navy by US admiral Mullen. So all forces with aircraft carriers can be credited with a blue water ability.

I think the concept of defining different navies as blue water navies is a misconception of its meaning. US CON stated (see above) the US needed blue, green and brown water (and with brown I mean the rivers) ability, so the different types are defined by the area of operation. Usually a blue water navy has the ability to operate in green water and many green water units are able to enter blue water (but not all!). And so on small units suitable for close coastal defence (brown water) are often not suited for green water or even blue water. Admiral Nimitz and Potter discuss this decline of sea power the furter away from a friendly shore fleets are in their book "Sea Power". Wandalstouring 15:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure it's as simple as that, as stated elsewhere in the discussion, Spain has a flat top but they're not really capable of deploying a self contained task group, anytime the PDA deploys it's part of a NATO task group. Similarly whilst India has the former Hermes any recent activities have been in company with other nations, there is no evidence of actually deploying a sustainable TG. Elsewhere in BMD it does identify India and Japan as having credible middle tier navies, and China as being emergemtn, but they're not capable of sustainable, independent operation at range.ALR 15:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Do China's 5 nuclear submarines travel the Pacific and pose a potetial threat to the US with their nukes? (relying more on the Soviet blue water navy doctrine now) The problem here are verifiable quotations. As long as I'm the only one and that is all I found, we have to accept that. I didn't say I like it.Wandalstouring 16:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This is where I'm concerned about bounding into OR territory, although it would almost certainly need to veer into the realms of classified material. For SSBNs to present a credible threat they need to have a considerable infrastructure to support them, and they need to be trained to an adequately high level. Force protection of SSBNs etc. I don't see China as having the capability to actually get their SSBNs close enough to the US without losing them, except in an undeclared pre-emptive strike. This is really where my concerns are about the definition, and I agree with you. What I've managed to dig up is the starting point for forming a theory of what is required, but I haven't found the outcome of the required work.

The other aspect is force protection, it depends on the threat. There is little point having a deck full of fast jets if the threat is FIAC loaded with HE, hence the Flat Top argument isn't particularly sound.ALR 17:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:As I have it in one quotation above, aircraft carriers were defined as blue water navy by US admiral Mullen. So all forces with aircraft carriers can be credited with a blue water ability. This is another criteria to be a blue water navy as discussed for a long period. Another debate can be opened on this subject. But AC's have got tremendous capabilities, which cannot be neglected.

Similarly whilst India has the former Hermes any recent activities have been in company with other nations

Can you tell me which are these operations and with with other nation.

"Kindly take time to look at what's been happening. I moved your comments down the page so that they're in the current discussion about the definition, rather than one that's three months old. I've now responded to your point as well."

I did not notice that and I am sorry for that revert.

Well it looks like Chanakya has logged out and reverted again as IP:59.92.167.17 the edit summary uses a similar style.

Don't worry it was me. I had closed my browser. When I opened the page again and found it reverted. Hence reverted back again but the sign did not come up. Chanakyathegreat 16:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

In terms of the Ops, I can't remember the names but the IN has worked with the French, the British, the Dutch, Germans and the US. Indeed the last/ current deployment had a permanently attached French frigate.ALR 17:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The IN has worked with many foreign navies. But your statement that recent activities have been in company with other nations

need to be provide with a source. Please provide the source. From what I know such activities have not happened except you are referring to exercises which is different from activities or operations that your statement mentions. Chanakyathegreat 03:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No I don't, because I'm not proposing putting it into the article. I happen to know because my firm was involved in the work required to make it happen, there were a number of issues involved which had to be resolved.ALR 06:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Chanakya

Kindly take time to look at what's been happening. I moved your comments down the page so that they're in the current discussion about the definition, rather than one that's three months old. I've now responded to your point as well.

Also can you refrain from using deceptive edit summaries to undo the edits that I've made to the opening of the article. If you have issues wth the referenced material that I've added then feel free to bring it to the talk page.ALR 14:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well it looks like Chanakya has logged out and reverted again as IP:59.92.167.17 the edit summary uses a similar style.ALR 14:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Alternative approach

Given the absence of any clear definitions for Blue, Brown or Green water how about an alternative way of dealing with the problem. The only authoritative stuff that I can find is British Maritime Doctrine, whcih talks about the subject but doesn't actually define it, emphasising more the characteristics, in very strategic terms, that one would expect to discern blue from brown. There is some commentary in there about India and Japan being emergent and China having an apparent intent to emerge as a blue water force. I'm not content that the citation I've given is adequate, to actually fit the article it needs some OR to build on it.

I'm also not convinced that three articles in isolation is all that useful, particularly given the nationalistic willy-waving.

As an alternative I'd propose merging all three into one article, titled Maritime Force Capabilities or something similar which would allow a more balanced discussion of the three, although I still haven't seen anything credible about Green being anything more than a recent invention. I think it would allow the whole subject to be covered more comprehensively and credibly, whilst being useful to the reader.

Thoughts?ALR 18:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope the US Navy or the Russian Navy respond me soon with a clear defintion of these terms. I would prefer to explain blue water ability, green water ability and brown water ability instead of making assessments on different fleets. After we explained what is needed for these abilities, we simply show a list what everybody has, so the reader himself can judge how much ability one nation has for the different kinds of operations. -> No POV issues as it is only quoting verifiable numbers. (Of course we can provide a note if a service is not fully fit for combat, like its numbers suggest.)Wandalstouring 18:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Why did you only ask the American and Russian navies? Seems like the British and the French would also be good candidates for this.UberCryxic 03:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well on the UK side I've already provided a perspective, the term is a colloquialism. Also from BMD the RN sees itself as expeditionary capable, given the ability to project two task Groups and having a global SM capability. btw have you a view on the suggestion at the head of this section?ALR 06:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The RN and the US Navy are the ones needing clarification. US Navy invented these terms we talk about and the status of Russian Navy is not clear. They didn't answer yet. Any suggestions towards the approach? I deleted the detailed reports on the different navies for we provide links to each of them and it is not yet clear what a blue water navy is and what it needs, so any discussion about who is and who isn't is pointless. Wandalstouring 09:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

British Maritime Doctrine is the RNs view of itself. hence why I've lifted chunks of it onto the talk page. The UK does not see the terminology as anything more than a colloquialism.ALR 09:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Useful content from British Maritime Doctrine Ed 3 Pub The Statonary Office, 2004

The Military Dimension The seas have had a military dimension to them for well over 2500 years. This is not changing and shows no sign of doing so, despite marginal attempts to demilitarise the oceans. There are over 150 navies world-wide, ranging from the one remaining superpower navy at one end of the spectrum, to tiny, heavily resource constrained coastal policing forces from the developing world and former Soviet states at the other. Between those two extremes there is a considerable variety of expertise and ability. Navies of medium capability continue to develop and increase in number, those of India and Japan being good examples of maritime forces being consolidated, while that of China, impressive though it is in numbers, has some way to go before it emerges as a powerful and competent force. It is important to realise that relatively minor maritime powers can pose threats of significance, especially in the context of lower intensity maritime operations. With the bulk of maritime military operations likely to be concentrated in the littorals, small, fast vessels armed with relatively unsophisticated surface to surface missiles can complicate sea control calculations. Once open hostilities break out, this type of threat can be dealt with reasonably effectively by a competent and well packaged maritime force; it is in those periods of rising tension, when states are flexing their muscles and the atmosphere is one of ambiguity and caution mixed with firm assertion of rights, that the presence of such vessels generates most concern. Add to them a conventional submarine threat and the maintenance of adequate sea control becomes considerably more complex.

Attributes of Maritime Forces Success in a major operation will usually require the joint integration of maritime, land, air and special forces. Individual military units need to cooperate and complement each other to achieve the common aim. Commanders of joint forces must recognise the distinctive attributes of each of the components, in order to play each to its strengths, especially important in the conduct of a manoeuvrist campaign. Maritime forces have distinctive operational attributes.

Access Over two-thirds of the world is covered by the sea and this allows maritime forces to exploit the oceans as a strategic medium for their relatively unhindered deployment to the most significant areas of interest and threat. Not only does this access allow intervention at a time and place of political choosing, but maritime forces may often be close to crises as they are developing. 85% of all states have a coastline and even many of those that are landlocked will be accessible from the sea with the co-operation of neighbouring coastal states.

Mobility Maritime forces can move hundreds of miles per day. Mobility enables maritime forces to respond from over the horizon, becoming selectively visible and threatening to potential adversaries. It also adds a critical dimension to all joint operations.

Versatility Warships can easily change their military posture, undertake several tasks concurrently and be available for rapid re-tasking. They can present a range of flexible and well-calibrated political signals. Furthermore, maritime command, control and information systems at the strategic, operational and tactical levels offer uniquely sensitive, flexible opportunities to co-ordinate maritime activity with diplomacy. The UK’s maritime forces routinely operate with other nations’ maritime forces, providing a flexibility of force packaging that transcends the limits of our own capabilities. There is, of course, a corollary to versatility in support of diplomacy.

Those states being signalled may misunderstand the level of threat being posed, and concurrent diplomatic activity may be required to resolve unintended ambiguity. The elements of versatility can be summarised as:

Flexibility in Response - Ships at high readiness are always manned and provisioned for hostilities and their systems and crews can respond rapidly to contingencies by progressing quickly from peacetime cruising, through enhanced readiness, to a more combative posture. This is important as periods of high intensity can occur in scenarios considered to be low intensity.

Adaptability in Roles - An individual warship of frigate size and above will have defensive and offensive capabilities in all dimensions (air, surface, subsurface and the electromagnetic spectrum). It can, therefore, operate in a variety of operational settings. Warships can be formed into task forces and task groups in which their individual characteristics combine to provide a mutually supportive, powerful and versatile combination of offensive and defensive capabilities. This, in turn, allows the group to operate at higher threat levels where conditions might be beyond the capability of a single ship.

Joint and Multinational Attributes - Maritime forces have traditionally taken part in operations involving other services and the crossing of environmental boundaries. By providing an amphibious capability for a multi-threat environment, the UK’s maritime forces regularly practise joint operations. Maritime forces are joint by definition, typified by balanced naval forces comprising air, land (in the form of amphibious elements) and integrated naval power under a composite command structure.

Joint Sea Basing can provide afloat headquarters, logistics, area surveillance and denial platforms and facilities for joint forces offering advantages in flexibility, sustainability and access. Indeed, forces delivered into theatre by sea as part of an amphibious task force are configured tactically and deployed ready for use; they are not merely transported. They are available for a joint task force commander to be afloat or ashore - depending on the nature of an operation. Their integral combat power can be decisive in the shaping and sustaining of most modern operations. British maritime forces comprise discrete units well practised in operating in multinational groups, either within NATO or in ad hoc coalitions. Inherent mobility allows maritime forces to assemble easily and the use of NATO and multinational doctrine and procedures allows multinational groups to co-operate and combine with the minimum of planning and preparation. Multinational maritime forces benefit from frequent periods in company to exercise and develop their full operational effectiveness.

Sustained Reach - Maritime forces have integral logistic support, including repair and medical facilities. The range and endurance that these provide give individual maritime units and task forces autonomy and sustained reach, which is the ability to operate for extended periods at considerable distance from shore support. Reach is enhanced by the provision of organic and consolidation tankers, supply and repair vessels. Only a maritime force so equipped can exploit the full potential of maritime power. If reach is to be sustained for an extended period, a roulement of replacement forces may be required. Seaborne logistic support provided by sea basing is an important element in sustaining forces employed in joint operations, particularly those engaged in manoeuvre warfare.

Resilience - Warships are designed to absorb substantial damage before they become non-operational. While a loss of capability through damage will degrade operational performance, a ship’s company is trained to restore systems to use as quickly as possible. Warships are also designed to operate within areas contaminated through the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) with minimum degradation to their operational capability.

Lift Capacity - An important duty for maritime forces is protecting the unhindered passage of sealift. Sealift permits land and amphibious forces to transit and poise in theatre, and then enables joint power to be brought to bear ashore. Furthermore, it may often be the only practicable means of deploying mass (significant land and air forces, their battle winning equipment and logistic support) into a theatre of operations quickly and cheaply. For the UK, all major operations necessitate some maritime support to deploy, re-supply, withdraw, or re-deploy forces that have mass or have to deploy for extended periods (85% - 95% of lift in recent operations has been by sea). Although the Royal Fleet Auxiliary provides some sealift, a major operation relies for lift on chartered shipping, which may not necessarily be British registered or indeed readily available, and Joint Rapid Reaction Force (JRRF) Ro-Ros.

Poise - Once in theatre, maritime forces can remain on station for prolonged periods, either covertly or overtly. They can retain or seize the initiative or signal political resolve, and act as a force for deterrence or active coercion. The ability of maritime forces to poise in international waters allows the ‘footprint’ ashore to be optimised; that is to say the political complications and military risks of deploying forces and their logistic support for extended periods on land can be reduced. This unique capability to match the pace and reflect the tone of diplomatic activity is particularly useful in the dynamic and uncertain situations of the modern world. Poise exploits mobility, versatility, sustained reach, and lift capacity.

Leverage - Through suitable positioning and force packaging, maritime forces can provide leverage to exploit access and to influence events ashore disproportionately greater than the scale of force applied. Leverage is both a strategic and an operational concept, whose effects can be directly political or primarily military. Political leverage involves the coercion of governments which, in advance of hostilities, is an aspect of naval diplomacy. At the strategic level, a maritime nation or coalition can use maritime and other expeditionary forces to shape and exploit the battlespace and expose an enemy’s flank and rear. At the operational level, joint forces on a seaward front or flank can provide manoeuvre from the sea to attack, distract and fix much larger forces ashore, envelop or otherwise achieve the disruption of an enemy.

ALR 09:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources about blue, green and brown water

http://community.middlebury.edu/~scs/docs/ScienceDirect%20-%20Marine%20Policy%20%20Naval%20activity%20in%20the%20foreign.htm

Naval activity in the foreign EEZ—the role of terminology in law regime

Alexander S. SkaridovCorresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author

St. Petersburg Association of the Law of the Sea, 7 Kazanskaya St., St. Petersburg 191186, Russia

Available online 11 November 2004.

... However, the regime of the EEZ is not static. Many States are converting green water navies to blue water navies and this will increase military use of foreign EEZs, with possible repercussions for the EEZ regime. ...

http://www.usni.org/seminars/appliednh/06/appliednh06Mills.html "An Integrated Battle Space"

Brown-Water Challenges in Vietnam

Of course, when most people think “riverine warfare,” the first thing to come to mind is the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam experience thus got an entire panel session of its own, “Vietnam: How We Waged the Fight for Rivers and Canals.”

-defines brown water navy as fighting in rivers and channels

Wandalstouring 10:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The snag is, in the first entry, there is only one mention of the term, and for all that its a paper about precise definitions in law, it doesn't define these :( Although I would infer from the wording that the use of Green is for Littoral operations within the EEZ, ie circa 200nm from shore. That which traditionally, and when I was at Staff College, has been described as Brown.ALR 10:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

read on it has several entires about brown water navy, I did not copy paste them here.

http://www.nwc.navy.mil/PRESS/REVIEW/1999/winter/imv-w99.htm ... The main premise of Commander Tim Sloth Joergensen, Royal Danish Navy, in his Spring 1998 article "U.S. Navy Operations in Littoral Waters: 2000 and Beyond" is that if one is going to take on a brown-water navy, then one is best served also to operate a brown-water navy. Commander Joergensen stated that "to be able to understand and counter a threat one should be able to pose the threat oneself."

...Wandalstouring 10:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I've had another look at the first entry and not been able to find it, the second has many references to Brown as what I would describe as Riverine, the sort of thing that our RM Assault Groups engage in.

Reading the third mention it talks about Brown being more Littoral, which fits with my experience in use of the terminology. That also rather supports the point in the opening section about Expeditionary forces being threatened by Littoral Forces on their home turf, which is quite useful.ALR 10:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

the above article is about riverines, in this article only blue and brown appear, so it possibly uses the traditional definition without green. Wandalstouring 10:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you on about the St Petersburg paper, or the USNI proceedings? USNI is fine, the St Petersburg paper doesn't define.ALR 10:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

St Petersburg mentions the ability to project power into foreign waters, therefore I added it.Wandalstouring 10:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JIW/is_1_57/ai_113755343 China's aircraft carrier ambitions: seeking truth from rumors Naval War College Review, Wntr, 2004 by Ian Storey, You Ji

Fits ambition to achieve "blue-water" (high seas) naval capability.

...

The first should be a "green-water active defense" that would enable the PLAN to protect China's territorial waters and enforce its sovereignty claims in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea. The second phase would be to develop a blue-water navy capable of projecting power into the western Pacific. Liu was able to put these ideas into practice during his tenure as commander in chief of the PLAN (1982-88) and then as vice chairman of the powerful Central Military Commission (1989-97).

Liu believed that in order to fulfill a blue-water capability, the PLAN had to obtain aircraft carriers.

...

CHINA'S MARITIME DOCTRINE AND THE ROLE OF AIRCRAFT CARRIERS

Since the early 1980s, and especially during the 1990s, there was much talk of China's blue-water ambitions. Military analysts generally believed that by the year 2000 or shortly thereafter, the PLAN would have achieved green-water (i.e., coastal zone) status and would be capable of limited power projection into the western Pacific. By 2010 the transition to a blue-water navy would be complete. As of 2003, however, although the Chinese navy has increased its basic war readiness over the past decade, its overall progress is stagnant. It cannot even exercise sea control in its own coastal waters.

China's blue-water ambitions have remained unfulfilled for three reasons. First, despite impressive economic growth and industrialization since 1978, the PRC still lacks the financial resources and technological know-how to effect rapid and effective naval modernization. Second, as will be examined later, the Taiwan issue has forced the Chinese leadership to focus on home waters. Third, Soviet influence in terms of operational doctrine, campaign theory, and combat tactics persists, hindering the PLAN's transition to blue-water capability. (31)

In combat terms, the PLAN is restricted to offshore-water defense, mostly at the campaign level. In other words, although the Chinese naval strategy envisages, on paper, a global reach in the future, for the present it emphasizes the strategic or tactical deployment of naval power. This emphasis limits strategic objectives, weapons acquisition, and battle planning. More importantly, the PLAN's maritime strategy is reflected in the combat models that actually guide the navy's modernization.

According to China's maritime doctrine, there are two combat models: the first is the independent employment of naval power, and the second is that of joint operations with other services, particularly the army. (32) According to the first model, the navy's role is to project power into areas far from home waters, most likely in the form of strategic independent campaigns against the enemy's fleets or land targets. Under the second model, the PLAN's primary mission is defensive--to engage enemy ships in coastal waters--but the navy also has an offensive role, to assist the army and air force in amphibious operations. At present, the PLAN is limited in scope to missions of the second model, and has accordingly developed a light fleet. Ultimately, though, the goal is to fulfill the first model.

The projection of naval power far from coastal waters (i.e., the first model) is in fact a mission the PLAN already faces, though without the resources to accomplish it. (33) The most likely scenario would be armed conflict in the South China Sea, where the Chinese navy's mission would be to occupy disputed islands, ejecting the forces of other disputants. Conflict in the Taiwan Strait is a unique case that cuts across the two models. Any action in the strait would be geographically close to home. However, the conflict zone could expand into deep oceans if the United States were to become involved militarily (as the majority of Chinese security analysts fully expect that it would). (34) In this case, the PLAN would have to engage enemy fleets relatively independently and in distant waters while it was assisting the army in amphibious landings on the island.

Sea control and sea denial are two important concepts that sustain the PLAN's combat models. Admiral Liu set attaining sea control as the service's most important priority soon after he became commander in chief. The PLAN proposes to exercise sea control within an inner line of defense that comprises China's three offshore narrows: the Bohai Sea Strait, the Taiwan Strait, and the Qiongzhou Strait. Of these the Bohai is the most important, as it protects Beijing and northern China. The Taiwan Strait is also vital, because it allows the PLAN access to the western Pacific. Aside from these three straits, the South China Sea is an area of major concern for the navy.

In exercising sea control, the PLAN would launch defensive campaigns against enemy fleets in waters adjacent to major coastal cities, such as Shanghai, Hong Kong, and Fuzhou. The Chinese navy would also try to obtain, by means of an offensive campaign--such as an amphibious landing on islands occupied by Taiwan, such as Jinmen--control of the sea around the invasion area and to protect the People's Liberation Army from the air and sea. As far as the PLAN is concerned, sea control is to be achieved not across a large horizontal geographic area but in a few vertically distributed lanes. It need not be comprehensive; partial control for a limited time would be sufficient.

... Wandalstouring 10:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Expansion of the navies with considerable blue water capabilities

The section considerable blue water capabilities need to be expanded. Else it need to be reverted to the old one.

Chanakyathegreat 06:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you please tell in detail what you mean? I have found nowhere a classification of navies based on their planned abilities. Wandalstouring 06:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I meant explanation of each navy and their capabilities. Chanakyathegreat 07:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I delet all navies without explanation. No problem. There existed no explanation and what each navy wants to buy sometime isn't relevant. Wandalstouring 07:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Archive

I've moved the majority of legacy discussion to the archive. That'll healp with both readability and applying some discipline to the discussion. I appreciate there had been recent additions to a number of sections but given the volume of change introduced in the last couple of days it would serve our purposes better to start as afresh as possible.ALR 09:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'm done (and have little interest in the topic). I think the article defines now what a blue water navy is and avoids all the points where previous discussion started, turining it into an unreadable mess. While the outline is somehow given it surely can be refined. Wandalstouring 14:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I like where the article currently stands. Good job to you guys.UberCryxic 16:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

List of blue water navies or examples of blue water navies?

I've noticed an ip based editor added Spain to the page. While it is arguably example of a navy with considerable blue water capability, it isnt a very good example of an actual blue water navy.

A while back, this page got bogged down in edit wars because it was turning into a list of blue water navies (along with argumenst about what is and isnt blue water). Explicitly calling them examples instead of a list implies there are others not written, and sidesteps that edit war. I don't want more navies listed, not just to avoid that edit war again, but because adding navies to the page will inevitably change the focus of the article again. rfc? Rhialto 23:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I have promptly removed the Spanish Navy. We had a long discussion about this before (in the archives now), and there was virtually only one person who thought the Spanish belonged there. If you're going to include the Spanish, you might as well include the Italians (who have a better navy) and the Indians and the Russians. Spain does not have the capabilities of a blue-water navy. Spanish operations in the new millennium reveal close cooperation with other multi-national task forces, but Spain has done nothing major on her own.UberCryxic 01:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

India - yet again

Just to clarify the apparent lack of understanding of the topic which prompts the persistent attempts to wordsmith Indias position on the page:

Nuc tipped cruise missiles are not a strategic deterrent, so do not constitute CASD. They're a tactical weapon of limited utility.

Merely having flat tops isn't enough, they need to be supported by adequate logistic capability and escorts and should be effectively deployable.

ALR 15:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Examples

I see that the examples of others navy (Franch, Italian, Russian, etc.) were many time removed and readded... the examples have to be only the UK and Usa navies...why??? I think it is the usual not neutral anglo-saxon POV ...please!!! --79.6.115.228 (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there were many times removed and added, and the flame wars from them were quite fiery. It was finally agreed that the intention was that it should show examples to illustrate the concept, not be an exhaustive list. Since these examples (indeed, this entire English-language wikipedia) are aimed at anglophone people, using examples of non-anglophone navies is not useful, since fewer of the expected readers would be familiar enough with those navies to gain an understanding of the concept through them. Detailed information of the specific status of other navies is of course available on the specific article on each navy. Rhialto (talk) 08:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding more navies would also lead to nationalistic cries of, "If country X is in, why not also country Y?" This would ultimately lead to the focus of the article changing from describing what a blue-water navy is and into a mere listing of navies. Rhialto (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

or you remove all the examples, or you have to let another one to put his examples (obviously with the proper sources), because when you chose one and not another, you are the first not neutral as required...--87.2.115.97 (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You appear to have missed the whole point of what "examples" means - the fact that they are called "examples" acknowledges that it is not an exhaustive list. To accept your logic would destroy the article. Rhialto (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

no, perhaps it only destroys the section with your list (because you choose to have a list, where you put some countries and not others, and this can be considered a personal POV, not very neutral…when you start a list, even an example list, you have to accept the POV of others, when it is with sources, otherwise you have to remove the list…) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.10.115.157 (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a reason it is called "examples of" and not "list of". It isn't meant to be a list. And it is not "my" examples either. I am just preserving the status quo that was agreed on after a very long and heated discussion. Rhialto (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Spain

Whats about the spanish navy? I think its not so different than the italian navy.-- noo what d'you say?are only 300 ships for italy vs 130 of spain 24 destroier and frigtes for italy vs 10 of spain 7 submarine 4 class u212 for italy vs old old old old 3 galerna class 1 in the museum 3 lpd vs 2 90 patrol for italy vs 18 60 elicopters vs 10...d'you needed more info? jako1978

84.161.88.122 (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The page shows examples. It is purposely not intended to be an exhaustive list. Otherwise, we risk exposing the page to the flamewars of a couple of years ago. Rhialto (talk) 06:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Russian Navy

Try reading and understanding first.

The British Navy has 3 carriers and 16 nuclear submarines

The French Navy has 1 carrier and 10 nuclear submarines

as the discussion pointed out, these are the ships needed for blue water ability of a navy.

The Russian Navy has 1 carrier and 49 nuclear submarines on 1st January 2002

so even if only 20% of the Russian Navy are fit, it still equals the blue water ability of the French Navy. With 30% fit it equals roughly the UK. Very early in this discussion it was pointed out that Russia has a different blue water doctrine than the USA or the UK.

Further questions? Wandalstouring 13:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Does the Russian navy still deploy in a blue-water fashion? I know they tried a Med cruise a few years back and it didn't do so well. Still, I'd put them in as Blue Water, if only becuase from time to time a Kirov-class can bring up steam. I think their subs give them a more theoretical Blue Water capability, since IIRC they hold them back in Arctic waters, both as SSBNs and to guard the SSBNs. No need to send them out further afield.

The Royal Navy has only two operational carriers (three total, but they only use two). I think 100% of the Russian fleet could be "operational" and it still would not count as blue-water because Russia does not have the money to deploy them to any significant degree. Russia spends $18 billion (Duma budget for 2005) for a military of 800,000. Naturally, there's a lot of wastage, and this is most often seen in the navy. Yeah the Russians have all these great assets, but they are used nowhere near as often as the Americans, the British, and the French use whatever they have.UberCryxic 22:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Only two Carriers, INVINCIBLE has been decommissioned. ILLUSTRIOUS is active at the moment and ARK ROYAL is just undergoing activation training following her recent refit.ALR 09:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Your comments about Russia not having the money to deploy the Navy in blue water capacity are unsourced and are POV. The Russian Navy has 1 aircraft carrier, 5 cruisers, 15 destroyers and 40 nuclear submarines while the Royal Navy has 2 aircraft carriers (which are quite obsolete and will be replaced) 0 cruisers, 8 destroyers and 13 nuclear submarines. How can the Royal Navy have greater power projection if the Russian fleet is almost triple the size, and the British fleet and has only 36,000 sailors compared to Russia's 142,000? Let's be serious.User:Ilya1166 2 June 2007

I have not seen any documented evidence that the Russian navy has made many significant blue water cruises in recent years. By all means show a cite, but extraordnary claims require extraordinary evidence. Rhialto 14:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The USSR navy was the second largest in the world and most of its fleet was transferred to the Russian Navy. It ALREADY HAS blue water cruisers and the second largest fleet of nuclear subs in the world, the burden of proof not on me but on you to prove that it isn't a blue water navy. It is still the second largest navy in the world. Also, the Russian navy is building a fleet of new and state of the art nuclear subs, one of which has already been launched, see Borei class submarineUser:Ilya1166 3 June 2007

The USSR collapsed due to a variety of factors. One significant consequence of that was that the miltary, icluding the navy, became underfunded, and many of their ships became either un-used or un-usable. I just looked through the wikipedia article on teh Russian navy, and see nothing to suggest it has recovered to the strength of the former Soviet navy. Remember, it isn't just about what is there, it's about what it does.

Also, please stop reverting the article. Once challenged, the onus is on the proposer to back up the material they propose, with cites. I have not seen any of that. I'm not going to revert right away, since I know you'll only revert back immediately anyway (wp:3rr). But unless I see some cites added soon, it will go back to before, since the status you are claiming for the Russian navy is unsupported by the evidence available. Rhialto 09:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if "many of their ships became either un-used or un-usable", it still exceeds the capabilities or the British or French navies. Yes, after the USSR collapse they stopped maintaining many ships, but the USSR was operating 170 nuclear subs, while now it operates 40, still easily the second largest in the world. And did you not see the article about the fleet of Borei class submarine the Russians are building? The recent steps to modernise and restart navy shipbuilding has been made possible by Russia's spectacular economic resurgence based on oil and gas revenues. The military is in the process of a major overhaul in Russia's military infrastructure, with the government in the process of spending about $200 billion (what equals to about $400 billion in PPP dollars) on development and production of military equipment between 2006-2015, of which a large chunk is going to the Navy. With this significant influx of funding, (former) defence minister Sergei Ivanov stated that he wanted to exceed the Soviet army in "combat readiness". User:Ilya1166

I said "many of their ships became either un-used or un-usable". I still say you could have a thousand aircraft carriers, but if you don't use them in an ocean-going cruise, they may as well not exist. the Russian navy, certainly failed that criterion in the immediate aftermath of the Soviet collapse, and hasn't shown signs of a full recovery yet. As for the Borei class submarine, they aren't actually in service yet, and the article is about present-day activity, not future potential. Regardless of whether the military is in major overhaul and growing rapidly, the article is about what it is able to do NOW, not in the near future. Rhialto 06:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you assume that the Russian Navy does not maintain Continuous At Sea Deterrence with their fleet of nuclear subs? They do form part of Russia's nuclear deterrent.--Ilya1166 11:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't deny that the Russians have such a fleet, which is why I consider them an example of a navy with considerable blue water capability. However, a ballistic missile submarine fleet is designed to attack land based targets; it can't control a given area of water, and controlling the space is one of teh key characteristics that makes a navy have blue water status. A submarine fleet which has such weapons is, at best, hiding in blue waters. Rhialto 19:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Rhialto, your logic is flawed. Russia in operation have more ships, balistic nuclear submarines, attack nuclear submarines than UK or France therefore it is capable to project its power at least as France or UK do. And lets talk about that "power projection" of the UK and France! It is sufficent enough only to bully litlle third-world undeveloped countries. Main purpose is to keep under control regimes of their ex-colonies or other small countries (oil rich ofcourse). And not even thats is always possible. Do you remeber Egypt, Korea, Vietnam, Falklands? Anyway, Russia doesnt wage a war against defenceless regimes over seas and that the main reason of "inactivity" of their surface fleet. However if need arises it is capable to "project power" to protect its interest at the sea. But I find very unlikely that Russia will go to attack some country 10.000 km away from Russia. Main purpose is to protect its merchant fleet. 147.91.1.44 17:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It isn't just about numbers, but demonstrable usage. I haven't seen any real evidence that Russia has in recent years operated its ships in a blue-water capacity. Yes, you're right, Britain and France mostly use theirs to "bully litlle third-world undeveloped countries". Fortunately, this isn't a discussion about the ethics of how a navy is used. (Aside: if you had to use the navy ethically to qualify, not one country could be counted.) As you note, Russia *doesn't* wage wars over international waters. You have very neatly explained exactly why it doesn't have a blue-water navy. It may (arguably) be capable should it see the need; Japan is too. But the list is about actual present-day blue-water navies, but potential blue-water navies, and part of being an actual blue-water navy is acting like one, which, as you stated, Russia's doesn't. Rhialto 22:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest that sustaining CASD is more than just the launch platforms, those platforms need force protection and adequate waterspace management to assure survival to launch. There is an argument that numbers matter here, so that a level of attrition can be compensated for and reducing the force-protection requirement. We know from previous doctrinal decisions that high attrition is an acceptable strategy for Russian forces.

Whilst I would not suggest that the Russian Navy has adequate force protection for their launch platforms, if we consider the attrition approach it could be considered that there is a marginal capability, although I'm not convinced by my own argument.

All that said I think the argument that Russia has a viable CASD capability is a little specious, their hulls are, according to open source material, in a pretty poor state and their deployments are routinely reported by various security monitoring firms.

ALR 20:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Arguments? Sources? NPOV? 147.91.1.44 17:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Russian Navy, they have a lot of problem to solve. But still can be in the Examples of navies with considerable blue water capabilities list.[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=20582][2][3][4] Chanakyathegreat 13:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Revival?[5][6] Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

They made the blue water cruises without any incident. It's a revival of the Russian Navy. [7]. Adm. Gary Roughead, U.S. chief of naval operations, downplayed the incident and said it reflected Russia's emerging naval power.

"I think what we are seeing is a Russian military or Russian navy that is emerging and, in the case of the navy, desiring to emerge as a global navy," Roughead told reporters at the Pentagon.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 09:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the whole world with the exception of possibly some Russians view only the UK, US and France as having blue-water navies. Your argument about the UK and France using their navies to bully other countries is also a bit rich when we see how Russia is crumbling internally, bullying all of its bordering neighbours and its democracy is about as democratic as Hitler's Germany. Russia has a long way to go before it becomes a fully fledged naval power again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.97.11 (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC) You also seem to fail to understand that while Russia may have more vessels than any other nation it does not mean they are of the same quality. It is a well known fact that The Soviet Union often went for numbers over quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.97.11 (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Democracy and blue water navy are not interlinked. We must not get into whether Russia is a democracy or not. Regarding technology Russian naval technology is world class. Even though second only to the U.S but still is ahead of others in this area. Russian Navy has already moved into Venezuela and they have started operating globally. We must also remember that they are doing it alone. Surely the Russian Navy can be in the Blue water Navy list.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 03:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The russian navy operates 40 nuke subs thats enough to bash up france and uk together.Shouldnt that be justification enough.ALso it operates cruisers which uk doesnt.Zoravar (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Woah bold statement there. Might want to tighten your belt first. Lets stick to accepted facts here OK. Find me one source that says the UK or France is not a blue water navy. Find just one and I will entertain you.Usseahawk (talk) 04:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Japan

What about adding Japan to the list? Their Kongo's are certainly Blue Water units, though I admit to being unfamiliar with their deployment habits.

Japan seems to lack abilities to carry out offensive strikes -- no aircraft carriers, no cruise missiles. This might change quite swiftly should the political will be present in the future. Rama 21:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

In any case, the list is meant to serve as examples. It is NOT intended to be an exhaustive list. Trying to make an exhaustive list is what caused teh article to get bogged down in edit wars before. I hope we've moved past that. Rhialto 22:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well Japan lacks the ability to project power because the JMSDF does not have a carrier, they are in a similar situation as China, if we are to include Japan, shouldn't we include China as well? 68.95.126.191 04:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That section is meant to be examples, not an exhaustive list. Look at the archives to see the mess and flamewars that result from trying to make that section an actual list. Also, one major reason Japan isn't noted as a full blue-water navy is their constitutoion essentially forbids such operations. Japan's navy is significantly more powerful than China's though. While they don't have a true carrier, they do have amphibious assault vessels, and their destroyers do in fact have the capability to carry vtol aircraft, so they can simulate a carrier quite well should the need arise. Rhialto 07:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

They have the potential to be a blue-water navy but that doesn't mean they have a blue-water navy as of now. You can say China has the potential to have a blue-water navy as well with their booming economy, SSN/SSBN and good AshM. But I understand the purpose of being examples so I won't change anything. 66.142.43.32 20:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yea right on. Japan does not have a blue water navy, although their navy is sophisticated. in any case, they have no need for one since the formidable US Navy is the guarantor of their security along with other allies. China isnt a blue water navy, their tech is nowhere near us or our allies but we should and are watching carefully. They are building up and we need to take necessary countermeasures to ensure our preponderance at the high seas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usseahawk (talk • contribs) 04:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Russian Navy 2

It was argued before that althou the Russian navy had the capabilities of a blue water navy, it did not presently qualify as one since most of its ships were ported, and there had been almost no deployemnts during the 90s. Well the situation is pretty much reversed. Starting in 2003 a number of sea exercises and deployments have taken place, culminating with a 11-ship deployment to the mediterranean in december 2007, and as of right now, the russian navy has a number of ships deployed in the indian ocean doing exercises with the indian navy, a task force conducting manouvers in the carribean after visiting venezuela (Including a nuclear battlecruiser), another task force in the mediterranean (headed by their aircraft carrier) and a frigate patroling somalias coast, not to mention their usual deployments of SSBNs. Its pretty obvious that they are intent on regaining their naval power status and sources are very easy to find on the internet aluding to their regained position among naval powers, is it time to update the article then? 189.104.7.8 (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide cites? (nb. wp articles are not valid as cites). Rhialto (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You mean for the deployments? This article mentions three of them (caribean, indian ocean and mediteranean: [8] and this other one, the frigate off somalia [9] 189.104.7.8 (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

That first one looks like a valid cite for this purpose, the second one isn't (a single ship does not demonstrate blue water capability). On the strength of the first cite, I think we can push things up a little. [10] also notes the navy's visit to Venezuela. Rhialto (talk) 08:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

See my comment below. I would like some firm evidence that Russia has a true blue water navy. Else, I think we should only say it has limited capabilities at best.Usseahawk (talk) 04:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

"Examples of navies with considerable blue water capabilities" why?

Why is there a section about navies with "considerable" blue water capabilities. I cleaned up some uncited, poor English, and nationalistic crap from the section. After having done that and cut it down by half, I've started to think why is this even here? This is an article about what a blue water navy IS. Not about navies with "considerable" (whatever that means) blue water capabilities. I mean adding two navies that hardly ever leave their home waters (the Indian Ocean and the Med respectively) doesn't make sense. It's bad enough Russia is listed as a blue water navy example...floating a some broken down ships to Venezuela isn't exactly a major feat here. Maybe 25 years ago... SoulBrotherKab (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree this section adds nothing to the page. I removed it but was reverted, lets discuss... RP459 (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm while I agree the section had problems before, I'm not sure I agree it shouldn't exist at all. Clearly there are navies that have considerable "blue water capability" but aren't considered blue water navies in general. Any country that operates an aircraft carrier would seem to fall into this "gray zone", in my opinion. TastyCakes (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I really do not understand why we have 2 sections: Examples of operating blue-water navies which seems like a reasonable section detailing some major powers, and Examples of navies with considerable blue water capabilities which includes the Italian and Indian Navies. Honestly the 2nd sections seems out of place and people will continue to add their home countries to this section under the argument that they are considerable, which is why I deleted it. Really we should not be using considerable at all as it is a weasel word... RP459 (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm but isn't the term "Blue water navy" in general an imprecise and thus "weasely" concept? It seems to suggest as much right in the introduction. To me, any country with aircraft carriers have at least some ability to operate effectively (and independently) far from their home waters and so should be mentioned in the article. The operation of aircraft carriers seems a fairly concrete (and convenient) way to define a country's navy one way or the other. I have no problem renaming the section to something like "Other navies with blue water capability". TastyCakes (talk)

Blue water navy is a pretty subjective term...but c'mon. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck. Meaning we all know that the US and UK navies are "blue water" with France coming in at third there. These navies can sail around the world and effectively control the surround sea area. Let me explain that being able to do that is INCREDIBLY hard.

But the problem with the whole "other navies with such-and-such..." it just invites overly enthusiastic users to add in their nation's "capabilities." Put it this way...India and Pakistan both have several nuclear weapons...sure, a big deal on their own. But when compared to the US or Russia, their "nuclear weapons capabilities" are pretty small. But with the blue water article we're saying India's nuclear weapons arsenal is the same as the United State's arsenal just because they both have broken the nuclear threshold. Not considering the actual amount and actual capabilities of each arsenal. Same goes for the navies. Just because you have an aircraft carrier, doesn't make you a blue water navy. Consider if India decides to act up and do something to Japan's navy...Japan has a very good navy. In a fight, the Japanese navy would probably trash the Indian navy. But somehow the Indian navy is "blue water" because they can float several airplanes on top of a boat, and they don't even do it that well. SoulBrotherKab (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Which brings us back to why have 2 sections, one for operating and one for considerable when considerable is just going to be a problem in the long run... RP459 (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, which is my point. You either are a blue water navy, or you aren't. SoulBrotherKab (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually think there is a slight difference in our arguments even though we are advocating for the same thing, I am suggesting that listing considerable blue water navies is silly and that WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies here, but I am not suggesting that they are not blue water navies, ... RP459 (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ya, I'm not sure I would agree with that. I don't think you're either a blue water navy or you're not, I think there's a gray area in there as I've pointed out before. It is possible to have "blue water capabilities" without being universally recognised as a blue water navy. Hence my support for this section. TastyCakes (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC)I appreciate your argument. Perhaps I incorrectly implied aircraft carriers are the definitive element of a blue water navy. I believe they are a requirement for a modern navy to be considered "blue water", but I agree with your observation that having them alone doesn't guarantee such a definition. However, part of the implication of the term seems to me the ability to operate offensively outside of their territorial or neighbouring water. Aircraft carriers are built for this very purpose - fighting a war against someone from outside your territorial waters. While Japan has a respectable navy, it is geared towards the defensive (as is all of its military, by constitution). Its "force projection" or offensive abilities are limited as a result. India, on the other hand, maintains its navy in large part for its offensive ability - specifically against Pakistan. Having an aircraft carrier (and, crucially, having one deployed at all times) goes a long way towards demonstrating "blue water capability" as I understand it. I'm not asking for an extensive writeup on each of the navies with aircraft carriers. But at least mentioning them (there are nine, Brazil, France, India, Italy, Russia, Spain, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States, of which Thailand's and Brazil's are not currently operational) seems reasonable, just as the Nuclear powers article mentions every state with nuclear weapons, whether or not they have arsenal's comparable to the "field leaders". Also, I think if you briefly mention countries with aircraft carriers you will take away the incentive for people to insert sections on their navy of choice, filled with the usual biased, unsourced material. Anyway, I'm not too wrapped up in this, do whatever you guys think is best. TastyCakes (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

To be specific, my proposal would be to replace the disputed section with this:

Navies with limited blue water capabilities
Several other countries maintain navies capable of some "blue water operation". India, Italy, and Spain all operate aircraft carriers. Brazil owns a carrier currently undergoing upgrades and Thailand owns an ex-Spanish carrier that is largely inactive. Many navies operate a limited number of ships far from their home waters either alone or in coordination with true "blue water navies", including Japan, China, Canada, Australia etc. without aircraft carriers. TastyCakes (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I can get behind this proposal. RP459 (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be okay with me. I just want everyone to take notice and to try and keep an eye on this "limited capabilities" section because we all know some ignorant, ultranationalist, with little regard for the realities of the world are going to try and add in insignificant info to make themselves feel better about their navies. So, good job people. SoulBrotherKab (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Where did "ex-Spanish" carrier in Thai navy came from? It was built in Spain, but never operated by Spanish Navy. Changed to "Spanish-built". Tizoc (talk) 11:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Came from me, thanks for fixing it. TastyCakes (talk) 14:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This section is such a big mess. Nationalism has made the addition of Hanky Panky navies into the list. It's a disaster. Need complete rewriting with verifiable facts.Bcs09 (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bcs09 on this one. I have removed Japan from the section it was in. Also I have removed the citation notices on this section as it makes no sense. The navies listed do indeed have expeditionary capability as they have the assets mentioned. Citations aren't needed in the editors opinion when the assets mentioned are sourced on the navy article pages. I think we should again add with consensus or simply rebuild this section. G.R. Allison (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with you on removing JMSDF from Blue water Navy section. But disagree on JMSDF not being temporarily included under "Navies with limited expeditionary capabilities" until the discussion is over and consensus is reached. The first criteria is to determine what makes a navy "Navy with expeditionary capabilities" changed from "Navy with limited blue water capability". Should we stick with "Navies with limited blue water capability" or go for the term "expeditionary capability"? What is this expeditionary capability and how to determine it. Is this means going out doing nothing navy or a navy that has the capability to project power? First let's add the description for it in the page. So what's the description for it? Any idea? Bcs09 (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Blue water navies are the same as expeditionary navies. I changed the section header as it's simply more grammatically correct. The 'description' as it were of expeditionary is in the very first paragraph "The term blue-water navy is a colloquialism used to describe a maritime force capable of operating across the deep waters of open oceans.[1] While what actually constitutes such a force remains undefined, there is a requirement for the ability to exercise sea control at wide ranges. The term used in the United Kingdom is expeditionary." I feel the ability to project force with heavy assets such as carriers or helicopter assault ships. A simple definition but it's my opinion. We should rewrite the JMSDF section into the limited section as they have two new heli carriers. G.R. Allison (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

May not be. It differs in what the U.S navy means by "blue water" and what British Navy means by "expeditionary" Even though the term is used as replacements for each other, there will be big differences. I have found a link providing explanation of an expeditionary force.[11] Power projection by a navy means this.[12]

Strike Warfare

   The destruction or neutralization of enemy targets by carrier and land-based aircraft; cruise missiles from surface ships and submarines; and naval surface fire. 

Attacks and Raids

   Small scale offensive operations to demonstrate resolve and the ability to conduct more severe actions. 

Amphibious Warfare

   The insertion of ground forces from the sea against a hostile or potentially hostile enemy. 

Maritime Prepositioning Force (MPF)

   Use of MPF permits rapid deployment into areas where force introduction ashore has been accomplished. 

Naval Special Warfare

   Small, mobile, and flexible units conducting special operations under, on, and from the sea. 

So what about checking each Navy for the above mentioned capability and then adding it into the list.

Now I do feel that that the whole article needs rewriting, especially after reading the difference in expeditionary and blue water power projection.

Bcs09 (talk) 02:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I fail to see a significant difference in what the term means. Expeditionary (used for military forces) means designed for military operations abroad or far from home. The same as a blue water navy which is designed to operate far from home. There's no need to pick the meanings apart as this seems counter productive, the article doesn't need rewriting at all in my opinion, both terms are synonymous to most people. I only recommend rewriting the 'examples of navies with limited' section. G.R. Allison (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Overall the section is a shoddy work with no facts. The inclusions are based on assumptions rather than on facts. Need some Maritime experts to update the section with all the facts and figures. So I am leaving it to them. Let them do it.Bcs09 (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

While I agree it should be re-written, it is indeed all fact with the exception of "operate a limited number of ships far from their home waters either alone or in coordination with true "blue water navies"". We should simply include navies with aircraft carriers currently until such a time we can fully improve it as carriers etnd to be the heart of a blue water operation. What's your opinion? G.R. Allison (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft carriers are an important and essential part of a blue water navy. But making it as a criteria for "limited blue water navy", there will be serious objections. Especially other than the U.S there is no other country that fields aircraft carriers in large numbers. Let's take the example of PLAN. They do not have an aircraft carriers. But reports suggest that in Chinese sea which is their background, the U.S Navy itself will be in very grave danger trying to intervene in any Sino-Taiwan war. So that tells the difference between a Navy without carriers and with Carriers especially in specific areas. Here the U.S is failing as a blue water navy. So I don't know whether it's good to make it that way or not. Bcs09 (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they need to be operated in large numbers, simply operated but you are right. We'll see if any objections come up with what we have currently. G.R. Allison (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The present setup seems totally inappropriate and inadequate. Atleast try to add quotes to make it look good. Please don't forget to add JMSDF as well to make it balanced.Bcs09 (talk) 02:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment

Guys I think we're going about this the wrong way. We can't choose an arbitrary definition (such as having carriers or nuclear subs or X number of ships) and decide which countries get in an which don't based on that. What we do need are reliable sources that state that country X has a blue-water navy or that coutry Y has some blue-water capability and go with that. 201.50.143.70 (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I would agree, but there isn't a 100% defined answer to what a blue water navy is. That's mostly because of nationalistic posturing by nations with smaller navies, but are considerably bigger than their Third World neighbors (ahem, India). But like I said early, you know in your gut what a blue water navy is. It's like the whole definition of pornography, "I know it when I see it." Italy has an honest to God aircraft carrier, but it's not a blue water navy. Japan has top flight anti-air craft, anti-surface, and anti-submarine capabilities...they can, in theory, control sections of the ocean...but they aren't a blue water navy.

In my mine, a blue water navy is a navy that can leave its own home waters, sustain itself at sea for long periods of time (30-180 days, just throwing out a number there) without having to head to port constantly, conduct combat operations without the need of land bases or the cooperation of other nations or military branches, be able to control the waters it's in, underneath it, and the skies above it, all the while being able to do these things in HOSTILE waters. While doing all of this, hasn't deployed its entire nation's naval forces in this particular action...meaning it still has reserves. As to a physical example of what I'm talking about is a modern United States Navy Carrier Strike Group. I know most people are going to argue my definition is too narrow, and maybe it is, but I set it high on purpose. It's like I said with nuclear weapons...big deal you have a tiny handful of tactical warheads. That's not going to win a war. That makes you a nuclear state. Having hundreds and thousands of nuke-tipped ICBMs makes you a nuclear power. SoulBrotherKab (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to say that Wikipedia cannot include your opinions in the article. You must provide sources while editing.. Navies that goes along with blue water navies will be removed from the page until sources stating them as blue water navies are provided.Bcs09 (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment the concept of a limited blue water capable Navy is not well defined, either in literature or online... RP459 (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The navies mentioned all demonstrably operate across the deep waters of open oceans, and so "by the letter" spelled out in the introduction, are blue water navies. The truth is more nuanced, of course, that would be were the "limited" comes into it. But thank you for your wiki-policing none the less. TastyCakes (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

True that there is no standard rules of description of a blue water navy. So every addition need to be backed up with sources describing them to be having considerable blue water capabilitiesBcs09 (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Giving articles that show the navy in question to be operating on the other side of the world would seem to me to implicitly describe some sort of blue water capability, a limited capability as it's put in the article (not "considerable", as you say). Would you disagree that a navy with "blue water capabilities" is a navy that operates far from its home waters? If not, how is carrying out such operations not a demonstration of blue water capabilities?

The whole point of this section was to form a compromise, to mention navies that fill some of the hazy definition of blue water navies but for whatever reasons are not seen as being full fledged "blue water navies" in their own right. I think an article about blue water navies should mention countries that operate far from their territorial waters, as well as countries that operate air craft carriers closer to home (like India) despite them not being generally recognized as full "blue water navies". To me, that information is relevant and its inclusion is an improvement to the article. TastyCakes (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

POV's need not be applied here. Only credible addition with credible sources is the way to go. There need to be difference between navies that operate in blue water and the navies that are blue water navies. Indian Navy is regarded as blue water navy[13]. But it cannot be included in the list of true blue water navies until the addition of Aircraft carriers INS Vikramaditya and INS Viraat, Arihant class SSBN's, Kolkata class destroyers, Shivalik class frigates, P28 class corvettes, Mig-29K's and HAL Tejas aircrafts and other improvements in Amphibious capabilities and Scorpene class submarines, which may happen only around 2013 onwards.Bcs09 (talk) 04:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The latest additions are without providing proper sources. The content of the sources did not describe the navies as blue water navies. Bcs09 (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As I've tried to explain above, the sources demonstrate blue water capability, which is all the section is claiming. I'm sorry, I don't think I understand the problem you have with it. TastyCakes (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is the addition of navies that don't have considerable blue water capabilities and you assuming that blue water operations means blue water navy. I will try to explain it. A latest report suggests that Royal Navy may not be able to mount international military operations independently.[14] That's the criteria for a blue water navy. Britain will not stop sending ships into blue waters for the next 100 years but the challenge is to maintain a blue water navy which can mount international military operations independently and sustain it for a long time.Bcs09 (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you are confusing the terms "blue water navy" and having "blue water capabilities". I do not assume that the latter means the former, but it seems you do. TastyCakes (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Blue water capabilities means a blue water Navy, whereas blue water operations did not mean blue water navies. That's why sources with the term blue water navy was asked.Bcs09 (talk) 04:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see how "capabilities" and "operations" are different, but if that is all that is upsetting you about the new section I don't see a problem at all with changing it to "Navies capable of limited blue water operations". TastyCakes (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Simply put, a one ship Navy can operate in blue waters but capability wise it will be just useless against any other blue water Navy.Bcs09 (talk) 13:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. TastyCakes (talk) 14:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Alrite, I seriously don't understand why some people who I presume to be Indian seem to be constantly harping about how India has a blue water navy or will have a blue water navy soon. This is a an remarkable falsehood. As a point of comparison, it can be said Russia is a not a true blue navy. and if russia aint one, india which is far weaker in all dimensions (tech, numbers, training, capabilities, tradition, international respect) at minimum will take few decades to approach Russia. Then it might take another several more (if everything goes perfect) to reach UK/France. This may even never happen given the massive discrepancies. I wont mention US cause it not worth pondering for india. Writeups by Indian media must be taken with a sackful of salt and are frankly not worth much if anything as they are not respected. Find an educated Western source which says so (you will find none) because it isnt even close and doesnt exist. As a brown/green water at best navy it cannot by any stretch of the imagination undertake extensive blue water missions. Hell, its naval coast guard itself is beset with massive loopholes as evident by a half dozen men surfacing up to the coast without detection and shooting up the city last year. Some People here need serious reality checks. I would also submit for a third world country like India, it would be better to spending it on the poor instead of allocating millions of dollars to your military when half the country is starving . Talk about misplaced priorities. but I digress.Usseahawk (talk) 06:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Regards.Usseahawk (talk) 06:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You can keep your belief for yourself. I remind you this is not a forum where you can vomit your hatred for others. Please don't dirty the place. If you have a point to make, come with proper sources rather than hallucinated thoughts.Bcs09 (talk) 02:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

@Bcs09, just ignore him. It's obvious said user is a troll and he isn't here to discuss an article rather just spew his bile all over the internet. Vedant (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Usseahawk, that’s un-called for abuse! Any way, people here seam to judge capabilities on numbers of ships rather than technology! Remember a western war ship is worth at least two of its developing counterparts. It also cost western navy’s more to build a ship than developing nations due to the superior technology our nations operate. Technology raises costs!

As of 2010, Russia has 1 Carrier, 1 Battle cruiser, 23 Cruisers, Destroyers and Frigates, 14 SSNs and 18 SSKs. So no, Russia doesn’t have a fleet 3x the size of the Royal navy. Royal navy technology is also far superior to Russian naval technology. Recon.Army (talk) 10:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep it as it was

Last time i checked India had the world's fifth largest navy. Clearly much larger then one of the four stated blue water navies. It also has an aircraft carrier and I believe three more on the way as well as the new INS Arihant class nuclear submarine. These should be operational and inducted into the Indian navy within a few years. I don't see how many people can make the claim that it either has limited blue water navy capabilites or shouldn't be mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.14.210 (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It will take some more time to become a full fledged blue water navy. May be around 2013 when new acquisitions are inducted and the old ones are phased out.Bcs09 (talk) 05:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Easy. India cannot conduct combat operations anywhere outsides its home waters in any serious manner. Therefore, not a blue water navy. Russia has one of the largest air forces...doesn't mean its effective in any real sense. The only time India is away from home waters is in concert with other nations (US mainly) doing some kind of sea lane patrol. 72.154.176.68 (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Operationally the Indian Navy was in the Atlantic ocean very recently. They conducted exercise with the French and British and also made friendly port calls in Europe. It seems Indian Navy is the only Navy like the U.S and Russians that operate far from their shores without any U.S support. Even navies of U.K and French are either part of some CTF or joint Task Forces. But still it will take time for the ships that are under construction or launched to become fully operational. Until then it is better to keep Indian Navy off the Blue water navies list.Bcs09 (talk) 04:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Bcs09, even senior Indian officers have called Viraat, India's sole aircraft carrier a "toothless tiger" (see [15]) with more than half of the original complement of 30 harriers being lost in various accidents. Not to mention, the ship is at port far more often than it is at sea. In addition, several sources state that Arihant is still without a nuclear reactor and other key systems so I don't think the claim can be made that the country has a nuclear deterrent at sea (it simply does not..). With regards to the future fleet acquisition plans, I don't think the Indian navy needs a separate paragraph. While I am against bias in general, I don't think it serves the interest of Wikipedia to make triumphalistic claims that simply aren't so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vedant (talk • contribs) 23:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Viraat is an old AC. It is of not much use against a blue water Navy but is surely useful against others. It was very recently that the Harriers were upgraded with BVR capability. The real capability will come when the Mig-29K's enters service along with the INS Vikramaditya. Until then it has to be the Viraat and land based Mig-29's.Bcs09 (talk) 10:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Arihant has a nuclear reactor and by 2013 indian anvy will be way stronger then french and british navies.Around 2010 well get another ac(vikramaditya) and and vikrant in 2011.We aldready have more ships then royal navy and french nacy.Zoravar (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

While I don't have the numbers, I would think to confirm or deny your claims, a comparison of total displacement and total budget of the Indian Navy, compared to the French and Royal Navies, would be better metrics than "number of ships". Note also that the French and British Navies are also commissioning new ships over the next decade or so, most notably the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers and the Future French aircraft carrier. TastyCakes (talk) 15:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The Vikramaditya will enter service by 2012 and the Vikrant class will enter service only in 2014 and not in 2011. The Launch of the ship will take place in 2010.Bcs09 (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Numbers do count and is the major and the first most measurement of a Navy's strength. Along with it will be the quality of ships including weaponry, training provided and all other things that are as important as number of ships. The Indian Navy, French Navy and British Navies belong to a next set of navies after the U.S in terms of power projection capabilities.Bcs09 (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually the British Royal Navy has power projection capabilities considered second only to the US Navy.G. R. Allison (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Numbers count, but they can heavily mislead. You can't really say a river boat with a 50 caliber machine gun attached to the back is equivalent to a frigate, for instance, and you can't say a frigate is equivalent to an aircraft carrier. To make the number of ships have any meaning, you need to provide some kind of breakdown of ship type in there as well. TastyCakes (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I assume you do not work in the Indian navy or british or french navies for that matter so I believe you do not the standards of training of either of them.ALso.our country does not give the breakup of defence spending so we dont know howmuch goes to which service,also on ppp our budget is way higher,not to say that building ships here costs less then 1/2 of the cost of building ships in developed countries.Zoravar (talk) 06:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reference to support that, on a PPP basis, India has a "way higher" naval budget than France and Britain? TastyCakes (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

India 72.7 United Kingdom 54.7 france47.9 18b difference between ind and uk,25 bil between ind and france.202.88.148.56 (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC) Taken from wikipedia,

Where on Wikipedia? Please link. TastyCakes (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures.Zoravar (talk) 10:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC) Also i noticed you mention something bout queen elizabeth class cairrer and future french carrier.Th royal navy is going to operate 1 of the 2 carriers without aircrafts and france is not sure whether to build a second carrier or not.Zoravar (talk) 10:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC).I assume that youll demand source .so here it it is.[n October 2009, it was reported that the RN had agreed that one of the two carriers would be operated without F-35s and so reduce the total buy down to 50 aircraft, with the RAF replacing most of its Tornados with Typhoons instead of F-35s.[108]]]Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II#United_Kingdom.Zoravar (talk) 10:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

That is military expenditures as a whole, not naval expenditures. India has 1.4 million active troops, compared to 240,000 in the UK, I would very much expect it to have higher spending at PPP, but it says nothing about the naval expenditures of the two place. Further, it seems very likely to me that the UK spends a higher percentage of its total budget on the RN than the percentage India spends on its navy. It also seems likely that a PPP number is going to be much larger than the nominal number in cases involving a lot of manual labour, and people in general (such as the army) and less in areas that involve large capital expenditures (like the navy). I'm not saying you're wrong, but the data above does not show that you're right.

You seem to be misreading the bit about aircraft carriers: it is saying that the RN will use Typhoons rather than F-35s on one of the new carriers, not that it will not operate any kind of aircraft on them (which is a bit of a silly assertion if you think about it). TastyCakes (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be telling half the story only, the British defence minister revealed a week or two after that story that neither carrier will be primarily an LPH. It has been claimed by an article in the Times newspaper that only one future aircraft carrier will operate F-35s. However, this claim was dismissed by the defence minister in Commons Hansard, 02 November 2009, Written Answers. http://services.parliament.uk/hansard/Commons/ByDate/20091102/writtenanswers/part010.html G. R. Allison (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Lol the other day I found sources saying that you might sell one of the 2 carriers 2 ind.202.88.148.56 (talk) 09:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Read the discussion, that was simply rumour and will not be happening.G. R. Allison (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Read the source,didnt mention anything bout what a/c they will operate.59.94.181.101 (talk) 14:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

There will be no sale or purchase of Aircraft carrier from U.K. India did have a bad experience in this regard with respect to Gorshkov. So the future carriers of the Indian Navy will be the INS Vikramaditya, ADS-1 and II followed by improved variants.Bcs09 (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Folks, I am seriously at a loss for words... I mean there's a guy here claiming that India is on par in terms of power projection with historic Royal Navy and the French Navy? When there is no fact checking and dose of reality things can get seriously out of hand. Look, India is a brown water navy according to all military experts. Being a Soviet sympathizer notwithstanding, its capabilities and technology is vastly inferior than even the not-so-capable Russian Navy, which itself relies on Soviet-era obsolete technology. That is not to mention the very able UK and French forces which if they found engagement necessary, would send the Indians scurrying back to their caves in a heartbeat. All the trend lines suggest the true blue water navies maintaining their vast superiority over all others for the foresseable future. To deny this would be laughable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usseahawk (talk • contribs) 04:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Since you're new to Wikipedia, maybe you're unaware but your past comments indicate to me that you are having difficulty with the concept of a neutral point of view. It also seems to me that some of your comments like being a Soviet sympathizer or sending the Indians scurrying back to their caves indicate your inability to remain impartial in disputes. In fact, it seems like your whole account exists to spread useless POV banter and not contribute to any productive collaboration. Vedant (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Nail on the head there Vedant. Agree. G.R. Allison (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Indian Navy

The removal of information on Indian Navy's power projection capability is uncalled for.Bcs09 (talk) 07:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The section is for a basic listing. The information accompanying India in the section was simply just too detailed. "Navies with limited blue water capabilities" is not "Examples of Navies with limited blue water capabilities". We need to get consensus on altering the section to fit more information, but please stop changing unilaterally like you have been.G. R. Allison (talk) 11:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

So detailed information is the problem for you. I am rewriting it to suit that requirement. Hopes that helps. I would also like to remind you that it was you who removed it unilaterally.Bcs09 (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe the Indian Navy can be considered a blue-water navy yet although I'm aware that is one of their aspirations. Pursuant to what I posted above in October, I don't think the IN can be listed as a blue-water navy until some of their future fleet acquisition plans are realized. Namely, the commissioning of the Project 15A, Project 17, Arihant class and remaining Talwar class warships. In addition, the INS Vikramaditya and Vikrant class of aircraft carriers haven't arrived yet forcing the Indian Navy to rely on the Viraat which is itself an outdated ship that doesn't represent much of a credible deterrent. Vedant (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft Carriers, Nuclear submarines and a good force of Destroyers doesnt mean you have a blue water navy, its the ability to support those units in any ocean around the world that makes a blue water navy. Recon.Army (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I would be more inclined to believe that if a navy possessed a sizable fleet of Aircraft Carriers, Nuclear Subs and Destroyers, it would indicate an implicit acceptance that a navy is a Blue-Water navy. Aircraft carriers themselves an indication as to the power projection and support capabilities of a navy. Granted, there are exceptions as the aircraft carriers do have to be of a certain size and have significant enough range to patrol international waters. Even if the USN didn't have bases all over the world, we'd still consider it a BWN because it has the largest battle fleet in the world (worth the combined tonnage of the next 13 navies combined) including a large of number of CSGs among other things. Vedant (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

French navy

The french navy currently has less then 70 vessels which is pretty low.I dont think the french navy is a blue water navy.Zoravar (talk) 10:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You may have a point here. What was the justification for France being listed in this article? Or any of the navies for that matter? There is no citation given for any of them saying "this is a blue water navy". I guess having a continuous nuclear submarine deterrence goes a long way in demonstrating Blue Water ability, but that's really not for us to gauge but rather a reliable source. TastyCakes (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The number of ships doesn't mean it isn't a blue-water navy. That is within reason obviously. It could have 30 and still be one as long has it has the major assets.G. R. Allison (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely, but it seems that the ships listed as having blue water navies haven't got sources supporting that. I can see people saying "oh it's a given", and that may be true for the US navy, but for everyone else it's kind of hazy: we're demanding any new navies added to the list have a source saying they're blue water navies, but there aren't sources for the ones already on the list. Or maybe I'm missing it? TastyCakes (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

US Navy, British Navy and French Navy are all givens in my opinion... they all have the same type of assets just in different numbers. The Brits are second only to the US in power projection. The French have a similar type of fleet to the Brits.G. R. Allison (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying I disagree with you (indeed, from what I know on the subject I'd say you're totally correct), but, as with everything in Wikipedia, we should find a reliable source saying the same thing. TastyCakes (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

http://www.henryjacksonsociety.org/stories.asp?id=279 This directly states the British Navy is a blue water navy. Will this be of use? G. R. Allison (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It also claims France is too. G. R. Allison (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a good source and should be included in the article. I notice it doesn't say Russia is a blue water navy (it says the only three are the US, UK and France). Does anyone know any other source claiming Russia is one? TastyCakes (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Should we remove all unsourced claims for the time being?G. R. Allison (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I think it depends how dubious they seem. If nothing else I think we should add ... TastyCakes (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that should provide incentive for sources to be brought up.G. R. Allison (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...I can go on some forums or host a freewebs site and say Bangladesh Navy is blue water.We have to look at the ships.The only givens are American and Russian.Zoravar (talk) 11:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The source also says Britain and France, please have a read. The Brits have a huge blue water power projection ability via their navy, you can't just dismiss that when Russia is even more questionable. G. R. Allison (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The source is from a well known and well respected defence think tank, not some forum. G. R. Allison (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the Henry Jackson Society seems to be a reliable source. Forums, of course, are not. TastyCakes (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree.Henry Jackson is only famous in UK and USA.Never heard of him.Zoravar (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Anyway Russian navy has more cruisers,destroyers,submarines,battlecruisers.The royal navy has one more ac(even though by tonnage russian 1 beats the 2 brit ones) and frigates.Maybe a navy double the strength of royal navy?Zoravar (talk) 12:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Your ignorance of the Henry Jack Society (a think tank of experts not a person) does not discredit the society, also reserve or not, the British have 3 carriers with 2 on the way and a much more modern fleet than Russia. Finally, as has been established, the number of ships is largely irrelevant, even considering the lack of decent amphibious ships in the Russian Navy. Find a source for the Russian navy and we can add the source, if not please stop complaining. G. R. Allison (talk) 13:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok,do you forget that the tonnage of those 3 aircraft carriers is less then the one russian one?How is the fleet more modern then russia?Akulas designed in 80s can do waht those useless tridents do now.Not to mention that british aircraft carriers arent even proper aircraft carriers but ships with a deck due to a last minute change of heart.ALso when those 2 come the currewnt one's will be retired.If being in reserve does not matter,the RUssian navy has 18 nuke subs in reserve.Zoravar (talk) 11:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Stop bringing up tonnage it doesn't help your case, I simply meant those 2 carriers under construction will be bigger than anything Russia has. As I said, numbers do no make much difference, useless Tridents? I suppose you have inside knowledge? Let's not forget how often Russian submarines get into trouble on the news. My point is simply get a source or stop complaining about other sourced information.G. R. Allison (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Gr Allison,first correct your user page,it says this user is needs a user page.Anyway even Russia isnt sleeping and even it's building aircraft carriers.Zoravar (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Hmm trouble in the news,if i go and press buttons that aren't meant to be pressed t hen theyh will come in the news,and by news do you mean BBC or Fox News or some others like those that keep spreading propoganda.Zoravar (talk) 15:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Look, please understand the issue here. It's not that you want to say these things, it's that you're saying these things without providing a reliable source. To be honest, I don't care if Russia, India and a dozen other countries are included on the list, but it has to be verified in a reliable source. All you're doing is bantering away like this is some kind of chat room, and Wikipedia isn't one. So please, provide a source for your opinions and they can go in the article, otherwise please stop your unproductive bickering. TastyCakes (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

What on Earth does my user page have to do with anything? I'll do whatever the hell I want with my own page, that is NONE of your concern. Actually I recall Russian state media reporting on many events, not least when British divers were instrumental. Some events include; the 2008 Russian submarine K-152 Nerpa accident, the one involving the AS-28 rescue sub, Submarine K-159, Submarine K-414 Daniil Moskovsky. That is what I was referring to, especially the incident that resulted in 20 dead. I'm not debating what Russia will have in the future, it could have super-space-doom carriers for all it matters, currently however we need a source claiming they are blue water. Verification not truth. Nice move there by claiming that Russian sub accident reports are merely evil propaganda. I assume you'll next call the west decadent then fire some sort of rifle into the air? I digress... simply get a source or frankly be quiet. G. R. Allison (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the accidents didn't happen,im just saying that fox and bbc dont always take a neutral pov.WHen trying to search for blue water navies i mostly got copies of wikipedia although I also found a source that says russia seeks to expand it's blue water capabilities so that means it aldready has blue water capabilities.Zoravar (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not debating news stations. Can we see this source then? G. R. Allison (talk) 13:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-58924677.html.Zoravar (talk) 10:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You are aware the source you have given simply states "RUSSIA: MOSCOW PLANS FOR EXPANDED BLUE WATER NAVY.(Brief Article)" with no free article? Having plans for an expanded BW navy is different to having plans to extend a BW navy. Grammar is a lovely thing. G. R. Allison (talk) 12:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Also you claim the French Navy has less than 70 ships, they have 81. G. R. Allison (talk) 12:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

To expand a bw navy you must aldready have a bw name,it doesnt say to extend into a bw navy.And for the french navy- urrently (2009) major ships in service are:

   * 1 aircraft carrier (Charles de Gaulle),
   * 1 helicopter cruiser (Jeanne d'Arc)
   * 2 amphibious assault ships of the The Mistral type
   * 2 Landing Platform Dock of the Foudre type
   * 13 destroyers (officially classified as frigates)
   * 11 frigates
   * 9 corvettes (classified as "aviso")
   * 4 ballistic missile submarines
   * 6 nuclear attack submarines

Zoravar (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Major or not, that's not the point, they have over 70 ships. Expanded it says, not expand. The source isn't acceptable I don't think, anyone else have an opinion? G. R. Allison (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The source might be acceptable, but all Zoravar seems to be basing it on is the title, which I don't think is acceptable. I haven't read the article, since it appears to involve jumping through hoops, and I doubt Zoravar has either. I think it's quite likely that some reliable source mentions Russia having a blue water navy. I just don't think the title of a news release qualifies. TastyCakes (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks TastyCakes, Zoravar, if you can find a reputable source claiming it we can put it right in the article. I'll have a look for one also. G. R. Allison (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Found another one,please tell me if it's not acceptable.Zoravar (talk) 16:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I would be cautious, do other encyclopaedias without sources really count as a source in them self? G. R. Allison (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm that source also identifies a number of navies that so far we haven't identified as blue water navies, including Australia (Royal Australian Navy), Canada (Canadian Forces Maritime Command), China (People's Liberation Army Navy), France (Marine Nationale), India (Indian Navy), Italy (Marina Militare), Japan (Maritime Self-Defense Force), Russia (Russian Navy), Spain (Armada Española), United Kingdom (Royal Navy), USA (United States Navy). I'm kind of at a loss guys... Since the term blue water navy seems to mean different things to different people, making an objective list seems very difficult. TastyCakes (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I vote we leave it in for Russia, it's as good as any so far. G. R. Allison (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright folks, this whole conversation reeks of one Russian, soviet sympathizer arguing that THEY have a blue-water navy and thus it HAS to be added because they THINK it should. Find a proper source like the one from the distinguished Henry Jackson Society. That the USA (btw the greatest navy and armed forces in the history of mankind), UK and France are blue water navies are a given. Rest I dont think so. Remember, Russia relies on aged, soviet tech that they are trying to pass on to 3rd world countries like India and can hardly be compared to sophisticated, advanced tech from the West. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usseahawk (talk • contribs) 04:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

There is little sources to suggest Russia as a blue water navy, but if recent operations are anything to go by then the Russian navy is Blue! despite its very out-dated fleet. Recon.Army (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyediting needed

Wikipedia is being a pain as so often and won't let me log in or edit the article, but for some reason I can still edit here! So... could someone please fix all the typos etc in the "Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force" subsection at the end of the "Navies described as blue-water navies" section? It's a bit of a mess as it stands. 86.136.251.177 (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Done and the section is moved.Bcs09 (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Russia: a blue water navy?

I desire some thoughts from military experts. Is Russia a true blue water navy? This New York Times article seems to suggest it may be doubtful. The link is http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/05/world/05patrol.html?_r=2&ref=world

Excerpted from the article 1. "But the collapse of the Soviet Union all but eliminated the ability of the Russian Navy to operate far from home ports"

2. "Once among the world’s most powerful forces, the Russian Navy now has very few ships regularly deployed on the open seas." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usseahawk (talk • contribs) 03:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It's true that the collapse of the USSR severely impacted the capabilities of Russia's military. However, I think that the Russian can still be considered a blue water navy for the reasons described in the article. For one, Russia's fleet of ballistic missile submarines give it credible nuclear deterrence. In addition, Russia has powerful surface combatants (like the Kirov and Sovremenny class warships) and is actively working on modernizing its fleet. It also operates a fairly large aircraft carrier (Admiral Kuznestov) which has the highest displacement of any aircraft carrier outside of the US Navy. Vedant (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Historical content

This article is missing all aspects of historical context. It doesn't mention historical high seas fleets, it seems limited to the current state of affairs, or at most, from the late-90's onward. This misses almost all of naval history. 65.93.13.227 (talk) 14:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Indian Navy

No consensus was ever reached on this talk page to include the Indian Navy as a blue water navy, hence I moved it back to the Navies with limited expeditionary capabilities section. If you disagree then please provide reliable sources stating the Indian Navy is a blue water navy and gain consensus on this talk page before including it to the article. Quite vivid blur (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Not yet.Bcs09 (talk) 12:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Not yet and not ever without reliable sources. G.R. Allison (talk) 21:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

What's your problem. Why you seem angry and upset (May be very upset with the Strategic defence review (I am helpless in that matter and hence cannot help you) and your imagination of me being an Anti-Royal Navy person like Hezbollah or something.) cool down dude.Bcs09 (talk) 04:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The Indian navy article implied the IN is a BW navy. I have since corrected this oversight in line with established facts raised on this article and in line with sources given in that article but Bcs09 is keen on reverting this alteration. If any editors have the time, whatever their point of view, please head over there to help resolve the problem. G.R. Allison (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Navies with limited expeditionary capabilities

Is there really any need for this section in an article about blue water navies? It's turned into a jumble of various navies and there is no direct source to support claiming those navies have "limited expeditionary capabilities". Would anyone object to removing it? G.R. Allison (talk) 06:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

lol. Let's only have the Royal Navy in the article and then remove everything else. It's better to remove the Royal Navy from the list of blue water Navy and put it into the Navies with limited blue water capability section.Bcs09 (talk) 01:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Why must you be so counter productive? If you have nothing related to the proposal to say then don't say it. Bcs09, I was looking for serious opinions here not this insulting nonsense. If you feel we should keep that section that's fine but why? If we are to keep it then I suggest formatting it like the other examples section with relevant information. G.R. Allison (talk) 14:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Besides, that section is original research is it not?G.R. Allison (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

See the links.Bcs09 (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I have done, hence bringing this up. There's nothing that directly claims these navies have limited expeditionary powers unlike the other sources which directly state those navies are blue water forces. Let's see what the consensus is. G.R. Allison (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Long back it was agreed to put those navies which can/cannot be put into the Blue water Naval list but has got good expeditionary powers even aircraft carriers, because all these will go into the blue water navy list if such a list did not exist.Bcs09 (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree it resolves many problems but it too has become very over pronounced. On reflection I now think it would be better cut down to a basic listing if it remains but I still think it would be better removed as it provides little value. G.R. Allison (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It's very valuable.Bcs09 (talk) 03:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Lol, valuable in your opinion but it is not valuable in mine. Obviously that's the case. That's why I want consensus before any removal. G.R. Allison (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

If I don't get any valid objections soon I'll remove the section or shrink it. Editors feel free to voice your opinions. G.R. Allison (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The section is original research and was added without consensus on this talk page. The section appears to have been included merely as an attempt by a certain biased user to present a certain non-blue water navy as being as close to being a blue water navy as possible after it was rejected from the blue water navy list. Quite vivid blur (talk) 10:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I will now remove it. G.R. Allison (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

What you mean by certain blue water navy. May be referring to Royal Navy. First remove the Royal Navy from the list. Then we can talk about other things.So you're taking it personally. If you have to remove it, you better discuss about the navies not having blue water capabilities. The links in the articles is more than enough for them to be there. Any removal based on origianl research and your whims and fancies will be treated very seriously. This is a final warning to you.Bcs09 (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This article is for navies with blue water abilities, not aiming to be blue water or to have limited capabilities. It has been agreed they be removed as the section was original research. You can propose it be restored if you wish, but that may only happen with consensus. G.R. Allison (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

In no way it's original research and it was not. The article linked clearly states that. Do you have any counter to prove otherwise. Else you cannot remove it. If you remove it, you're indulging in POV pushing and vandalism. Beware.Bcs09 (talk) 16:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The sources given do not directly imply that the navies mentioned have limited blue water abilities. Even if they did, there is very little place for such a section on an article that describes what blue water navies are. G.R. Allison (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You must read it seems you have not done it which can be judged by your second statement. If you cannot constructively contribute, you better leave editing. It's not you who decide what must be in Wikipedia, everyone can contribute their own bit with the intention of providing proper information. If you understand it better.Bcs09 (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Your continued removal and nuisance is a big cause of concern. This is not the way to discuss things. If you can provide proper souces to counter the persent articles and links, then yes we can remove it, until then you must not revert back anything and don't push your POV.Bcs09 (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

"it seems you have not done it which can be judged by your second statement" Your English is not of such a bad level, don't play dumb and pretend you did not understand my meaning. Please understand the issue, both I and another editor have looked at the sources and both agree that they do not directly state nor imply that those navies have limited blue water abilities. The other concern is that this navy is for the description of what a blue water navy is and examples of such navies. There is no place for navies that may one day be blue water navies. We cannot keep this section simply on your whim. I see you have reported me now rather than add points as to why you wish it to be kept? Useful action. G.R. Allison (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not that much bothered by me not mastering the English language. I do feel what I know is more than enough to contribute to Wikipedia. What I meant was your statement present in the second sentence clearly states that you have no idea of what you're saying and you're least bothered about any proper discussion and contribution. More like a vandal, you're destroying the article because you feel like playing with it. You must stop such behaviour. When you say directly, it did not state that they are blue water navies, if so these navies must be in the blue water list rather than on the list of limited blue water capablity. Why they are there is beause they cannot be added to the blue water list but they do have blue water capbilities as well. If the last class is to be removed, then all these navies goes to the blue water navy list because they do have some blue water capablities. I hope you understand it. Remember it was not me who added it. It was there for a long time and why? Beause it seems thats how the discussion was made and decided. Hope you understands, but still you want removal add all of them to blue water list. I don't like to repeat things again and again. If you cannot understand it, my contibution has no value.Bcs09 (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Royal Navy

The Royal Navy has decommissioned the Harriers and currently did not have any carrier strike capability.The Harrier takes its final bow "Wing commander David Bradshaw, who had flown the plane earlier in the day, will be heading to London for a desk-based job for the Ministry Of Defence (MOD) when the Harrier is formally decommissioned at RAF Cottesmore on Wednesday. Also please note that retired is the equivalent word used for decommissioning by the media. It's not different. The harriers are gone. And the carrier strike capability of the Royal navy.Bcs09 (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft infoboxes on Wikipedia all have the "Retired (date)" section, we use the word retired here in place of decommissioned. If you doubt this I insist you check out the infoboxes of some military aircraft articles, thanks. G.R. Allison (talk) 08:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, no one at all is disputing the fact the Harriers have been retired. G.R. Allison (talk) 08:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That's what I am saying. Whether decommissioned or retired. The carrier strike capability of the Royal Navy is gone. No need to put temporarily, for some time, etc. Clearly state the point as it is. Now one more question is should the Royal Navy be part of the blue water fleet? Who will provide the carrier strike capability to the Navy? Americans or French or the Chinese or the Indians? We need to think about this point as well.Bcs09 (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm (MrGRA) not home just now and that IP edit was me. It is important to signify with "temporarily" that the lack of carrier strike is not a permanent feature of the navy, leaving it out suggests the RN plan to stay out of the carrier game for good when in fact they plan to regenerate a carrier strike ability (this is pertinent information and should only be removed if many editors disagree). Also the article states that a BW navy is "a maritime force capable of operating across the deep waters of open oceans", "While what actually constitutes such a force remains undefined, there is a requirement for the ability to exercise sea control at wide ranges." and "In modern warfare blue-water navy implies self-contained force protection from sub-surface, surface and airborne threats and a sustainable logistic reach, allowing a persistent presence at range." all of these still apply to the Royal Navy (you'll note carrier strike is not essential), also please remember "As there is no clear definition of a blue-water navy, the status is disputed.". I have noticed in your past edits and talk page contribs that you seem intent on diminishing the status of the British military, I remember your argument for Britain losing great power status a while back which was defeated. Despite the 'definitions' given on this page you still seem to imply removing the Royal Navy, which shows that either you have not understood the article or you are being biased. G.R. Allison (talk) 11:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

To help resolve this I have asked for the opinions of experienced editors, please do not act until we reach some sort of agreement. G.R. Allison (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to argue with you. But let me explain it for the final time. Whether you take it or not, it's left to you. "Temporary or permanent lack is not the issue here. Rather than speculate about the future, it's best to remove the term that explains futuristic trends rather than present, because you don't know in 2020 it will be temporary or permanent. Now regarding the blue water capability all of that is not there. The ability of the formation from being attacked by enemy aircraft beyond the range of it's AA Missiles is very much there. And why should I be biased. It's the Royal navy that's removing this capability. Not me. British military is diminishing itself, may be due to issues related to a weak economy. What's the use in blaming me for that. You better be blaming David Cameron and his predecessor. Expert editors, that's the best way and I'm leaving the headache to them. Bcs09 (talk) 12:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Please try and understand that is hardly speculation because as it stands now, carrier strike will be regained as per the SDSR. If that changes in the future then it makes sense to adapt related articles. Also, "The ability of the formation from being attacked by enemy aircraft beyond the range of it's AA Missiles" has nothing to do with the status of a blue water navy, the descriptions of BWN status listed in the article however do appear to apply to the Royal Navy and as you'll see from the article, carrier strike is not necessary. Spain has the CS capability but is not a blue water navy for example. I am not blaming you for anything or claiming that the UK armed vforces are not changing, simply pointing out your editing pattern regarding UK related articles (to me) seems questionable although I admit that my doing that is unproductive here and should be taken up elsewhere. G.R. Allison (talk) 13:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me explain again. Things on paper and things on the ground are two different things. Let the carriers arrive and be commissioned, along with the F-35's then it can be said that Royal Navy has the capability. Until that happens how will you know whether it's going to happen or not. Like say a ship may be under trials. Whether it will be inducted or not will not be know. Then how can we speculate about things happening in 2020? Look I will quote from the same stuff you posted. "In modern warfare blue-water navy implies self-contained force protection from sub-surface, surface and airborne threats and a sustainable logistic reach, allowing a persistent presence at range." I would like to point out that at present due to the lack of Carrier based fighters, it lacks the capability to protect itself from airborne threats (Especially beyond it's ship based AA missiles). It's a major lacunae. Bcs09 (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, you have claimed "futuristic trends were removed following discussion and agreement" I don't doubt you but I would like to see those discussions msyelf as I have helped edit this article for a long time and I'm not aware of such discussions. Secondly, the RN does have the ability (albeit reduced) to protect against airborne threats via AAW destroyers, the description does not detail how airborne threats must be dealt with, simply that they must. While I appreciate your addition (that I have subsequently adapted for now) of "the plans are to reacquire this capability by 2020" I still do believe the inclusion of "temporarily" is better suited to the short descriptive nature of the section. G.R. Allison (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Any dispute here is pointless as the article itself states As there is no clear definition of a blue-water navy, the status is disputed. so both sides can claim to be correct. A compromise would be to states the Royal Navy has from 2010, no carrier strike capability until the expected commissioning of the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier in 2019.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I had originally put that in and I think the current edit will cover it. Thanks for the opinion, much appreciated. G.R. Allison (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding whether the Royal Navy remains a blue-water navy post-SDSR: clearly (until the new carriers are built are are in operation with F35s, c. 2020 -) the Royal Navy has lost a key capability, albeit (in theory) temporarily. However the Royal Navy retains its decent SSN & SSBN fleet, as well as good amphib forces and support & supply ships. It can operate around the globe, though quite what punch it can now throw without aircraft carriers is another matter. Clearly if up against a state like India it would face difficulties, but then any navy currently would with the exception of the US Navy. I would say the UK continues to have a blue-water navy, albeit without carrier capabilities... though the new QE-class and F35s are definitely on the way and will restore those capabilities. (Indeed post-2020, if all goes to plan, the RN will have better carrier capabilities than pre-2010.) If the Royal Navy cannot be considered to be a blue-water navy now, then neither can France's or Russia's navies, leaving only the US Navy. David (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't seem so. Even the French Navy can sink the Royal Navy pretty well with their air strike capability.Bcs09 (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you off your rocker? The French have air strike capability only once in a blue moon when their aircraft carrier actually decides to work. And then the Royal Navy is superior in every other respect, from SSNs to AAW destroyers. You seem to have become very anti-Royal Navy at the moment. Feeling grumpy? David (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

lol, Atleast they do have it. The Royal Navy surface fleet is vulnerable to attacks from air strikes at the moment. Anti-Royal Navy. lol. What else. Anti-King, anti-queen. That will be even better.Bcs09 (talk) 14:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I can't see the problem with the current state of the article. It still lists the Royal Navy as a navy spoken of as a blue-water navy, it makes clear of the notion that the Royal Navy has lost its carrier capabilities, aswell as its plans to reenact those said capabilties in a (relatively) close future. Whether the sentence itself refers to the temporarity of those capabilities is secondary to if the readers would understand from how the article is written, which I think they would. Of course, if you wish to make sure of said readers' understanding of the matter, than you may wish to spell it out as temporary. My point is that there isn't a right or wrong to this, it's just a matter of clarity. There is also no wiki-guideline (that I know of that is) of how to treat dates in a sense of speculative future. That's my two cents atleast, other than that listen to both David and Sweeney, they both seem to know a lot more about the subject than me. Swedish pirate (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ten years seems not that close. If so, then there are many more additions to be made which are even more close like the inclusion of PLAN carriers. With futuristic trends being added, the article is going to be in a mess very soon.Bcs09 (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input gentlemen, I'm sure both Bcs09 and I appreciate the opinions given here as it seems to have help resolve the matter. G.R. Allison (talk) 08:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that the current plans will see the inclusion of carriers by 2020? Can you predict? Also why should Wikipedia take your predictions? So better try to put it as "has planned". That's the correct way to put it. Hope you'll correct it.Bcs09 (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well Bcs09, Yes... current plans will see the introduction of the carriers. The only way the carriers will not come to be is if the current plans change. The phrase "current plans will see" implies that if the plans in place at the moment are not changed with regards to delivering the carriers, then the navy will see the introduction of them.

"Can you predict?" Yes I can given the SDSR (the whole reason for this situation).

"Also why should Wikipedia take your predictions?" They are sourced to the most senior source on the issue.

These are not my predictions (if you really can call them predictions) but that of the SDSR. David I should give you a heads up if you haven't seen this before, user Bcs09 has displayed pretty unproductive rhetoric against the British armed forces over the course of his talk page contributions on various Brit Mil articles. G.R. Allison (talk) 11:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Defense review is actually a plan and not a prediction. Again I say plans are different from things on the ground. There can be any plans. Not that it's not being implemented. But will the carriers will join the Royal navy? The plans are there but will the carriers will be there in the Royal Navy in 2020? Who knows. No one. So don't speculate. Just state that there are plans to introduce aircraft carriers in 2020. Bcs09 (talk) 14:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Now I checked the Royal navy page. It got so many errors and outdated information. Need help in cleanup and updating the Royal Navy page as well.Bcs09 (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

"Just state that there are plans to introduce aircraft carriers in 2020." It already says that.

"But will the carriers will join the Royal navy?" Under the current plans, yes.

"So don't speculate." Using information from a source which sets out the future force structure of the British military is not very speculative.

"The plans are there but will the carriers will be there in the Royal Navy in 2020?" Hence the phrase "current plans will see".

You seem to just be picking holes in this for the sake of it... every person who reads the article will likely understand that it's possible for plans to change. Please stop being awkward with this, it helps nothing. G.R. Allison (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Should futuristic issues need to be mentioned? If so, the whole article need to be re-written to accommodate all the futuristic trends, plans, building etc to make it a neutral article. It's better if you remove those futuristic trends just concentrate on the present one. The danger in not doing so, is that, we will be seeing daily edit wars with each and everyone from every nation participating in edit wars. Hope you'll understand this and remove the statement meant to take place in 2020. We can add it then. Not now. Please. Else you rewrite the whole article, and improve it to the new standard.Bcs09 (talk) 02:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This issue is mentioned as the RN are the only BW navy without a CS ability just now, you yourself said "Just state that there are plans to introduce aircraft carriers in 2020" and that has been done. The other editors involved agree on this it seems. I believe the article is fine as it is now, we'll deal with any edit wars if they come and resolve as needed. G.R. Allison (talk) 11:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Might I remind some here that the definition of a blue water navy is a navy which operates across multiple oceans. The Royal Navy operates across multiple oceans, as do the other 3 blue water navies: The United States Navy, French Navy and Russian Navy. If some here wish to remove the Royal Navy from the article as a blue water navy then they should provide reliable sources stating the Royal Navy does not operate across multiple oceans, although this might be somewhat difficult to do considering practically every source, from the Royal Navy to the British government to the press, confirm the Royal Navy operates across multiple oceans, including the Atlantic Ocean, the Arctic Ocean and the Indian Ocean. The fact the Royal Navy will have period of not operating jet aircraft at sea until 2020 does not change the fact the Royal Navy operates across most of the globe. Might I also remind some here that a navy merely possessing an aircraft carrier does not make it a blue water navy. If this were true then the Brazilian Navy, Italian Navy, Spanish Navy and Thai Navy would be considered blue water navies, which they are not because they do not operate across multiple oceans. Quite vivid blur (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you eloborate on the point of "operating in multiple oceans". It will provide important inputs to the discussion. Do a navy simply sending ships across seas be considered as blue water navy? Royal Navy's weakness was first demonstrated when the confrontration with Iran took place. So that provides some details into a Navy that can go out but still cannot do anything. That's what the Royal Navy has become. Now even the AC's are gone. How they will confront the Argentines if an issue flare up? The Admirals are very pessimistic about it. So have a relook into your point before saying Royal Navy goes on sightseeing all over the world and hence is a blue water navy.Bcs09 (talk) 12:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

By "operating in multiple oceans" I mean just that, a navy which performs operations and deployments across multiple oceans. Your assertion of the "Royal Navy's weakness" in confrontation with Iran in 2007 is your own personal opinion. My personal opinion is that a minor incident with Iran in 2007 in which the United Kingdom sought not to escalate tensions for the sake of its (and the Royal Navy's) operations in Iraq and Afghanistan does not disprove the Royal Navy is a blue water navy. The Royal Navy has in recent years proved itself to be a blue water navy by performing operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Sierra Leone. Judging by this discussion I think you need to be reminded that content on this encyclopaedia is determined by reliable sources and not by personal opinions or original research. You conveniently fail to mention that the Royal Navy performs many deployments globally as mentioned in the Standing Royal Navy deployments article or that it possesses a number of naval bases across the world. The Royal Navy performs deployments almost everywhere, ranging from supporting operations in Afghanistan via the Indian Ocean to combating the drugs trade in the Caribbean or pirates off the Horn of Africa to patrolling the Arctic Ocean and Persian Gulf and protecting interests in the North Atlantic, South Atlantic and Mediterranean. The Royal Navy operates from numerous overseas bases such as Gibraltar, Ascension Island and Diego Garcia to name a few. If you believe the Royal Navy is no longer a blue water navy and no longer performs deployments and operations world wide then please provide reliable sources supporting your claims rather than expecting the article to adhere to your original research. I can assure you that there are a great many reliable sources which can be produced to support my claims that the Royal Navy performs deployments and operations world wide. Quite vivid blur (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I never disputed the fact that the Royal Navy is not going. That's what I also said. Yes they go, even now. Reasons for not acting against the arrest of Royal Naval personal seems so vague. Yes, in operations the U.K has been acting as a partner of the U.S forces. No wonder the recent cutting down of the fleet has resulted in some angry response from Washington. Also for the Naval personnel who fight the war are not happy about the cutting down of the forces. They mince no words when critizing the governemnt for this kind of an action.Officers Tie British Cuts and Risk to Falklands. This gives an indication that even though the navy goes worldwide, it lacks the power to act (either due to lack of resources or due to politics or a combination of both).Bcs09 (talk) 02:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Quite vivid blur, Bcs09 judging by past edits and posts seems to be displaying an undue bias on diminishing the British military based on original research or conjecture. Quite simply I urge you to only engage when needed with Bcs09. Merry Christmas by the way! G.R. Allison (talk) 21:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

No comments.Bcs09 (talk) 04:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Bcs09, things like this "It's better to remove the Royal Navy from the list of blue water Navy" are the problem and why I question your neutrality. You are not taking the editing of this article seriously. G.R. Allison (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The reason for Royal Navies removal is because it's not a blue water navy. You are not agreeing for it's removal and still sticking to your belief. A blue water Navy must have atleast one aircraft carrier in service. When the Australian AC was decomissioned their cheif at that time said, without an ac we are no more a blue water navy. And it seems you have nothing to talk about other than Anti-royal Navy stuff.Bcs09 (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The Royal Navy still has two aircraft carriers in service. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Two carriers? where did it come from? I know about the Ark Royal being decomissioned and with only one remaining without any aircrafts to fly from excpet helicopters. So more or less it's a Heclicopter carrier now.Bcs09 (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

"it's not a blue water navy!" (in your opinion). The majority of descriptions given by the article disagree. The RN are still capable of operating and fighting globally. "In modern warfare blue-water navy implies self-contained force protection from sub-surface, surface and airborne threats and a sustainable logistic reach, allowing a persistent presence at range" still applies, whether the RN have aircraft to launch from their remaining carrier (HMS Illustrious) or not. "A blue water Navy must have atleast one aircraft carrier in service" is not an absolute definition at all. Unless there is consensus from regular editors of this article for its removal it should be staying in. G.R. Allison (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

How many times it need to be told that Royal Navy is incapable of protecting itself from airborne threats which is a requirement for a blue water navy. Then it did not have the strike capability provided by the aircraft carrier which are the basic requirement for a good navy even for limited blue water capabilty.Bcs09 (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not a requirement of a blue water navy to have aircraft carriers. And of course the Royal Navy can protect itself from airborne attack. Type 45s? A blue-water fleet does not have to centre on an aircraft carrier, something which is clear in this article. It can be centred on an amphibious landing ship/fleet or a helicopter carrier(s). "Blue-water" means being able to operate globally: the Royal Navy can and indeed does do this. David (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

No. The type 45 cannot protect the fleet beyond it's AA missile range. Hence impossible to be called a blue water navy. Aircraft carrriers are very much a necessity for a blue water navy. Why do you think the Chinese Navy is building Aircraft carriers. Bcs09 (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

David sums it up very well. Basically Bcs09, making sensationalist claims isn't contributing. All you are doing now is repeating claims that have already been dismissed (such as the no protection from air threats claim). The description states "airborne threats" not "airborne threats at a distance greater than XX-Km", there is no range or platform criteria within the description that implies airborne threats must be dealt with by aircraft. As David said, "Blue-water" means being able to operate globally: the Royal Navy can and indeed does do this". G.R. Allison (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Airborne threats include all threats as you said. So if it cannot defencd an airborne threat beyond so and so kilometers then also it's vulnerable to air attacks and hence not capable of defeating airborne threats. Bcs09 (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, you will note that some navies in the "Navies with limited expeditionary capabilities" operate an aircraft carrier but are not blue water forces. This applies both ways. G.R. Allison (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

No. The U.K is not actually a blue water navy at the moment. It will take time to get to that status in 2020. Having an Aicraft carrier will not make a Navy a blue water navy but it's absolute necessary for a blue water navy. Bcs09 (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

In your opinion it is not. The U.K is not a navy anyway, it is a country. Besides, the article does not state that it is necessary to have a carrier, simply "Usually it is considered to be strongly linked to the maintenance of aircraft carriers". Usually does not mean "absolute necessary". Please read the descriptions given in the article. Could another editor please join in here? I feel like I'm being forced to respond to the same points over and over. G.R. Allison (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

As stated above the Royal Navy still has two aircraft carriers in service Ocean and Lusty. They have the newest AA destroyers in the world with the Type 45's. An amphibious force second only to the USN in size. A fleet of SSBN and SSN with ICBM's and cruise missiles. BUT all this is in the article. If User:Bcs09 wants to remove the Royal Navy from the list all that is required is to propose it here on talk and gain a consensus for the change. Simple if no concensus no change. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

No comments on your aircraft carrier part. The news agencies must be nuts when they say "Royal navy don't have carrier strike capability". Type 45 is a good, newer destroyer, but lacks in many ways. At the moment, don't seem equivalent to the Forbin class. Second? What about France? Even South Koreans do have good Amphibious capability. Sure SSBN's and SSN's armed with the Trident and Tomahawk. Some reports suggest the control is still with the U.S to intitiate the use of Trident SLBM's. Don't know whether it's same with Tomahawks.Bcs09 (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to say Bcs09 appears to me to be a troll and as a result I don't think I can take this user as a serious editor. Quite vivid blur (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No comments.Bcs09 (talk) 02:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree, the user seems to be deliberately ignoring points raised and then saying things which are either urban myths or baseless nonsense. To any editors reading this, I advise you do not engage with user Bcs09 unless they appear to be serious about editing, much time has been wasted here with no ground covered at all due to the perhaps willing inability of said user to understand points raised by multiple editors. G.R. Allison (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The conclusion is this. With the Removal of Arc Royal and the harriers, Royal Navy is without carrier strike capability and above all the fleet defence functions can now be performed within the AA missile range of the Type 45 class destroyers. HMS Ocean the helicopter carrier is in service, similarly is lusty12. This leaves the Royal navy vulnerable to airborne threats. Even the Queen Elizabeth class that's being built is said to have been cancelled if the penalty for cancellation is lower. The number of surface fleet has been reduced and is going to be reduced further with the decomissioning of Type 22.34 Hence it's said that Royal navy is not a blue water Navy. Bcs09 (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No, that's your conclusion. All (ALL) the other editors who have contributed to this discussion disagree with you. "Hence it's said that Royal navy is not a blue water Navy." - got a source? And no, the Daily Mail isn't a valid source. The Royal Navy like the Belgian Navy? It's more than 10x the size even after the latest cuts. Now stop being a troll and leave this article alone. David (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not my conclusion, it's a conclusion from all the articles before and after the strategic review. Yes oppose, but not logically. Daily mail is quoting from a person who is so closely associated with the Royal navy and knows it better than an outsider. Yes, the VTOL variant was cancelled because it was costly.1 The Belgium Navy comparision is to drive home the point that the size of the Royal navy is reduced to that of a small navy. It's atleast half the size of French Navy and the size of Italian Navy2.Bcs09 (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

As for the QE carriers - were they cancelled? No. I don't care about why they weren't cancelled in the end, the matter of fact is that they are going ahead and are both under construction. (And indeed will be built to CTOL standards.) The UK will also purchase F35s AND they will be the USN carrier variant (CTOL). That's commitment to restoring - indeed vastly improving - the Royal Navy's aircraft carrier capabilities. David (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The plan to have the carriers has affected the Royal Navy[16] in a big way. Bcs09 (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Some of the posters who criticized me for being Anti-Royal Navy must realize that I have not posted critical review of the defence cuts. I felt it was not needed, not because it cannot be posted. If you all wish to see what was the opposition to the cuts, you all be better reading this. 12345678 9These reports are before and after the review. It will give an idea of how bad is the situation. Those who still want to boast about the Royal Navy can do it. Thank you. Bcs09 (talk) 03:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Bcs09, every user here opposes your proposed changes. You are the only user here who supports your proposed changes and many users have told you many times why your proposed changes are opposed. Your attempt over the past couple of weeks to gain consensus on this talk page for your proposed changes has clearly failed and users' opinions are unlikely to change. Weeks of incessant and nonsensical arguing on your part has lead some here to believe that you are a troll and continued arguing on this talk page will only reinforce that view. If you are truely not a troll then you would surely realise that your energies would be better redirected to improve Wikipedia. Quite vivid blur (talk) 11:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Why the users opinion did not change, that I don't know. I am not reinforcing my views. I am just pointing out what the articles state. In here there is no value for personal opinion of mine or yours. I personally wish to see a strong Royal Navy under the present PM. But personal belives have no value in here. So things must be told the right way and the straight way. That's what I did. Now some of you may not like it because you people take it differently. Bcs09 (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Whether he is a troll or not, he certainly doesn't know what he's talking about. "The Belgium Navy comparision is to drive home the point that the size of the Royal navy is reduced to that of a small navy. It's atleast half the size of French Navy and the size of Italian Navy.." What utter nonsense. Half the size of the French Navy?! I'm not going to bother with this "discussion" any further, as it's futile, but (and I suggest others do the same) I will be keeping an eye out for editing done by Bcs09. He clearly has an agenda. David (talk) 12:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the articles? It's all in there. Bcs09 (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is a extract from Parliamentary Answers for December 2010, which shows that the UK government still considers itself capable of blue water operations.

Madeleine Moon (Bridgend, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect on naval operations in British Overseas Territories of changes to Royal Navy capability resulting from the outcome of the strategic defence and security review; and if he will make a statement.

Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

The Government reiterated our commitment to the defence of the UK’s overseas territories in the strategic defence and security review. The Royal Navy is a modern, powerful and capable force and remains able to deploy a taskforce worldwide in support of our national interests. Inevitably, with fewer ships there will have to be some reduction in activity, but the Royal Navy will continue to send ships to priority regions such as the north and south Atlantic, the Indian ocean and the Gulf.

I think that should be an end of the matter. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I think GRA's proposal seems fair provided it is backed up by a reliable source. I should caution I am not a military expert. A world of advice to Bcs09, repeated making tendentious points when everybody seems against you can lead you to become alienated. Nirvana888 (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)