Talk:Blue-water navy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Removal of content poll

For reasons listed above, I propose a straw poll to determine consensus. Should the 'Navies with limited expeditionary capabilities' section be removed? Please keep replies brief.

-Yes. In my opinion it is of little value to the article and acts like a target for nationalism. This all besides the fact no sources given support the claim those navies have limited expeditionary capabilities, making this original research. G.R. Allison (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

-Yes although alternatively it could be massively shortened (and no longer with a separate heading) with simply a mention of those countries/navies with limited blue-water capabilities. A single sentence in the article stating that some navies have limited blue-water capabilities/ships that can operate globally and then a quick list of example navies. Detail can go in the actual articles of the navies in question. David (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes - Section is currently synthesis. Is there a professional source that makes a three tiered distinction between brown-water, blue-water and, "limited blue water?" I'm only aware of such sources describing the first two cases. The sourcing for the "Navies with blue water capabilities" subsection could also use improvement, as it also appears to suffer from synthesis.  ::Makes note to self to go digging for sources someday when free time magically appears:: Sailsbystars (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

(response to point raised) To address your concern on the 'Navies described as blue-water navies' section, a reliable source from a political think tank has been added which directly mentions the US, Royal and French navies as being blue water navies. G.R. Allison (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, I wasn't doubting the description of that section, since I've read several rs that agree (although not everyone agrees on the ones aside from the US). When I get time I will try to find some of those sources again (which are various academic books and thus not immediately accessible). Sailsbystars (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes - they can form their own article Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment - if the nations cited do have blue water navies, they should be mentioned in this article. "Limited" is a judgement and thus a matter of one's point of view. Editors cannot put their own points of view into the article. Thefrefore, the article should use the word "limited" - either in characterizing a specific nation's nay, or in a section dedicated to "limited," only if the sources cited explicitly use this language, otherwise it violates NOR. Otherwise, it is enough to provide the number of vessels that operate in deep oceans, and let readers make their own conclusions. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. The key issue for me here is that the sources do not use the term "limited" in relation to any capability and appear to be sources cobbled together to support a viewpoint not directly implied by any of the sources, this is why I am seeking the removal of the section. G.R. Allison (talk) 13:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

But are there verifiable sources saying these nations navies operate beyond their coastal waters i.e. in oceans beyond national control? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe so but we can't combine sources on deployments and such to make the claim they are capable of limited blue water operations. My interpretation of the policy is that we need sources that directly state they are capable of limited BW operations rather than just include sources to suit our own definition as that becomes synthesis. Basically sources should state they are capable of limited blue water operations (or something along those lines) or the section should be cut. G.R. Allison (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand the point about NOR, but according to you this only applies to claims about "limited." If the article is simply about blue water navies, why not simply list all nations with navies that have carried out operations beyond coastal waters? What difference does it make, limited or "unlimited" - my point is that a compromise is possible because we are not in an all-or-nothing situation. Remove the OR claim about "limited" and include all navies that have operated in blue waters. Wouldn't this be a workable compromise? It seems to me that it is only the unnecessary question o "limited" that is at issue, so just chuck it. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is about blue-water navies, not "all navies that have operated in blue waters" - the difference between the two is massive and is rather the point of the article. Lots of navies have operated in blue waters; lots of navies have ocean-going vessels; lots of navies frequently send vessels as part of a multi-national fleet (usually around a core blue-water navy fleet of the US, UK or France)... a blue-water navy (which is what this article is about) is about a navy which can deploy and operate from the oceans, far from home, not as part of a multi-national fleet but acting on its own. David (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

David said that better than I could have, I agree with him fully. G.R. Allison (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

"a navy which can deploy and operate from the oceans, far from home, not as part of a multi-national fleet but acting on its own" is certainly a good clear definition! Whose definition is it? I mean, where did you get this definition from? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think he got it from "Blue-water naval capability means that a fleet is able to operate on the high seas". It means the same thing, with 'far from home' being the 'high seas' and also "The vessels of a green-water navy can often operate in blue-water for example. A number of nations have extensive maritime assets but lack the capability to maintain the required sustainable logistic reach. Some of them join coalition task groups in blue-water deployments". G.R. Allison (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

No ... "Blue-water naval capability means that a fleet is able to operate on the high seas" is the definition I was using. It is sourced and in the article, and if this is the definition, any nation that has a fleet that is capable of operating in the high seas should go in this article. The definition that Dpaajones proied is much more specific and exclusive. If we wish to use Dpaajones definition, then we either need a source, or we are violating NOR. Please reread what I wrote: "why not simply list all nations with navies that have carried out operations beyond coastal waters?" By "coastal waters" I meant those waters patrolled by green navies, i.e. in the high seas. This would be a reasonable compromise and would not violate NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I mean the definition David used is a paraphrased version of what is in the article. Also, any modern warship is capable of operating on the high seas, a blue water navy however is one that has "a sustainable logistic reach allowing a persistent presence at range" this means a navy must have a sufficient fleet of assets such as replenishment ships and oilers in order to keep warships indefinitely deployed and very few navies have this ability. The source for the navies listed directly calls them blue water navies and the source listed gives the definition "to maintain a forward presence globally, and the ability to influence events tactically throughout the world" it also states "no ‘blue-water’ fleet is complete without a coastal assault capacity" and very few navies have this either. G.R. Allison (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You now provide additional quotes that are not in the article. So you can't really blame people or addin material that fits the current definition in the article. But the ensuing conflicts could be prevented simply. If these quotes are as you say in the source cited, I highly recommend you add them to the first sentence, so that our article provides a complete definition. Then at least some improvement to the article will com out of this discussion! Slrubenstein | Talk 13:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think the current description of a blue water navy is appropriate and is nearly identical in meaning to the definition given in the source. The problem here has been people adding navies without a source calling them blue water etc, not the description of the term itself but I don't see the harm in including it as it will benefit the article. PS, why did you feel the need to say "our article"? G.R. Allison (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of this page is to discuss improvements to the article, which is all I have been trying to do. The material you quoted is not in our article, and therefore not in our articles definition; if you and another editor think this extra material is important - and since you brought it up to answer my questions, it seems important - thn yes, I do think adding it to the article woulc be an improvement. To answer your question, I emphasied "our" article only to emphasize the difference between it and the book or article that we are using as a source for the opening definition. That's all. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Do anyone ask for opinion in any naval page or it's just the people who has been discussing here deciding on it? A better thng to do is to call for expert view on the matter and then decide. I will object to the removal. Also what about adding the navies listed in the limited section to blue water navy, if the section is removed? Else the Royal Navy should be removed from the list to make it nuetral. The Royal navy has been reduced to a small navy due to the ongoing defence review and cuts and from the sources it can be found that its not capable of overcoming the challenges meant for a blue water navy. Hence only three Navies will be really qualified to be in the blue water navy list. U.S, Russian and French. That's what we get on being realistic. Britain's power has diminished to a level that it's no more a power. Don't understand why it's so sad for some to put the realistic things in perspective and rather hold on to belives. But if things are not seen the way it should be then, no comments. Bcs09 (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

-Yes. The content is original research and was included without even an attempt to gain consensus here, let alone achieved it. Quite vivid blur (talk) 15:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Really? You better check history of the talk page.Bcs09 (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Response to Mediation Cabal request

Hey, guys. I'm a volunteer mediator. I saw this request over at the Cabal pages, and after looking over the conversation here, it looks like you could really use someone who isn't invested in the article to help you sort things out. Mediation is totally voluntary, and I don't have any special qualifications or authority. I'm just a friendly voice of reason who likes to help people reach middle ground when they can. As such, any decisions we make will be made by the group, and the only blanket statements I'll ever make are my (nonbinding and subjective) interpretations of policy. However, by accepting my help, you are agreeing to:

1. Assume good faith - remember that everybody wants what they think is best for the article;
2. Remain civil - when you're not being nice, people don't hear what you're saying, they just hear the way that you're saying it; and
3. Abide by this blunt but accurate essay - it's fundamental to getting along in a huge, collaborative community.

Of course, the first step is to be sure that everybody's on board to participate in the mediation process. Things tend to be lopsided when some people aren't along for the ride. So, if the parties involved in this dispute would still like help from a mediator, please reply here and let me know. I hope I can help! --Moralis (talk) 05:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for responding. As you can see above there is an almost unanimous consensus for removal of a section which is synthesis (navies with a limited expeditionary capability) as it's synthesis as mentioned but also it does not fit in with a description of a blue water navy and the list of examples of such a navy. Every time an action is taken to perform the removal backed by consensus, user Bcs09 simply reverts it. We can't get any removal of synthesis done without it being reverted by a single user, what should we do about this? G.R. Allison (talk) 13:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

There are two issues here (to which only Bcs09 forms one side of the argument) - the inclusion of the Royal Navy as a blue-water navy (even though it obviously is one; it has been included as one since the beginning of this article's history) and the matter of this "limited capabilities" section. As I say, the consensus is clear - the Royal Navy should remain in the list of blue-water navies and the "limited capabilities" section removed or radically reduced and demoted to not being a separate section in the article. Only Bcs09 forms the other side of the argument and all he can do re: the Royal Navy is spout tabloid press articles about how the Royal Navy is somehow now equivalent of the Belgian Navy, which is a bit daft. David (talk) 12:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it worth including the section Bcs09 started on my talk page as he seems to have been threatening me? It's hard to assume good faith with that going on. G.R. Allison (talk) 13:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me now that given the near unanimous consensus on the proposed removal, the situation is pretty much resolved, I'll remove the offending article section in a few hours if nothing significant pops up. G.R. Allison (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

As we have consensus for the change and no objections have popped up, I have acted in the manner agreed upon. G.R. Allison (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem in you helping. The best way seems to invite naval experts and let them sort it out. When we do it, it will look non-professional.Bcs09 (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I actually think since consensus has been reached that the situation has been resolved. G.R. Allison (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad to see that you guys seem to have sorted things out! Since there doesn't seem to be a dispute anymore, I'm going to go ahead and close the MedCab request. If you feel like you need somebody to step in at some later juncture, you know where to find us - or just leave me a message directly. Happy editing, everybody! ---Moralis (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

The Navies with considerable blue water navy section has been removed with the so called consensus. The reason for it still cannot be accepted, because it seems totally stupid like "It's original research". What's original research when there are articles that describe them to be having blue water capabilities to a certain extent. How can such things be removed just like that because if three people agrees can anything be removed from Wikipedia? The logic for the removal is not there. No links no source has been provided to state that the navies don't have limited blue water capability. And also why should not there be a section in blue water navies that describe limited blue water naval capability? Why is it haram? I did not get the answer for it. And should I bring in more people may be three more to make up a total number of four to make the changes that I like to make it, the way i like and then claim the article is correct now. I don't get it. Bcs09 (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've been keeping an eye on the page since the day the MedCab request was filed, and I think this discussion could benefit from an uninvolved commentary after all. I think you've all become too frustrated with the situation to really hear each other.

Bcs09, I think that the editors who removed the content have been very clear about their reasoning: they say that the sources in question don't call the navies in question "blue water navies," nor do they refer to them as having "limited blue water capability," and Wikipedia policy states that content that isn't sourced should be removed. If there are articles, as you state in the above comment, that describe those nations as having blue water navies, those articles are acceptable sources.

That said, I haven't looked in detail at all of your sources, but from skimming them, it appears that other users on the talk page are correct in saying that they do not describe these navies as blue-water navies, or support the statements made about the navies in the section that was removed. Indeed, the source for the statement "All 4 of [the Indian, Italian, Japanese and Spanish] navies are capable of limited oceanic operations" is a BBC article titled "Japan ships join piracy patrols"; the article does not address the other three nations listed, nor does it describe Japan as a blue-water navy, a nation with "limited expeditionary capabilities". No other sources are provided regarding Japan, Italy or Spain.

Several of the other sources support statements that the listed nations possess carriers, or the ability to deploy ships at long range. However - and again, I haven't looked in detail at all of them - if the sources do not directly state that the navies in question are blue-water navies, limited or otherwise, then those sources do not justify the material being included in this article.

What makes it original research is the drawing of our own conclusions. We have sources that state, as in the above example, that Japan has helicopter carriers and is able to deploy ships at long range, and this satisfies some definitions of a blue-water navy. However, the sources do not actually or explicitly state that Japan's is a blue-water navy, and we aren't allowed to make that leap on our own.

I hope this helps clear some things up. I know this has been a frustrating experience for everybody, and if you guys need a cool head moving forward, I'll be available. --Moralis (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

If it's something worth to hear, yes it can be. The points raised were merely sidelined because the other editors don't belive in it (I do think belief without any credible sources don't have any validlity in Wikipedia). The articles do say blue water capabilities. So should there be seperate article for blue water capability article or a subsection will be enough? Regarding Japan this may be enough to add them to blue water navy section.[1] Since it did not have the nuclear capability (due to Japanese constitution) and don't have full fledged aircraft carriers (some articles point it out that it's a requirement to have aircraft carriers), it will not be wise to add it to the list of blue water navy, hence the requirement for a sub section. Is it necessary to remove the whole section if the sources are missing for some. Only that must have been removed rather than the whole section. Similar credible links can be found (not just one multiple) for the Indian navy and PLAN. No objection on everyone's point that, articles don't say blue water navy, articles dont' say limited blue water navy but it says blue water capabiitiy? What does that mean and why should navies having blue water capability be removed from the article? Also the herny jackson society link need to be removed, it's not a good source, more like an association for purposes other than nuetral. Bcs09 (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Bcs09, this has been done to death. For the sake of moving forward, let it go. Missing sources for some were not why the sub section was removed, as Moralis said "Several of the other sources support statements that the listed nations possess carriers, or the ability to deploy ships at long range. However - and again, I haven't looked in detail at all of them - if the sources do not directly state that the navies in question are blue-water navies, limited or otherwise, then those sources do not justify the material being included in this article." Also, The HJS source has been discussed and accepted before. From the wiki article "The Henry Jackson Society is a non-partisan think tank (with charity status in the United Kingdom)" it seemed fine to us and must be to you as you give a source for Japan from the same type of institute, the closest the source you give gets to calling the MSDF a BW navy is "For the blue water interdiction ambitions of the MSDF, four years of practical experience in the Indian Ocean is invaluable", that is not the same as calling it a BW navy. Your proposal was defeated and editors gave a reason for why it was not accepted. Please try and help in other ways and stop pushing this. G.R. Allison (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Only navies that have reliable sources citing them as blue water navies may be placed in this article. G.R. Allison (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The task has been left to the experts. Let's hope that they will bring in the sources and their expertise to improve the pages.Bcs09 (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The task has been concluded Bcs09, the solution has already been implemented. G.R. Allison (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

No, now the article did not appear nuetral.Bcs09 (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Consensus on the Russian navy

As the paragraph on the Russian navy has been added and removed a couple of times, I think this issue should be settled. In accordance with the previous section on the Royal navy, I think that the Russian navy as a blue-water navy should be maintained if it is the case for the Royal navy. What are your opinions ? Fulcrum-35(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC).

The Russian Navy has been removed from the article a few times, primarily because of a lack of authoritative sources - I.e, there weren't any. You may think the Russian Navy is a blue-water navy, but to be included on this article it would need to be supported by an authoritative source. Until we get some clear citations to support the Russian Navy I will object to its inclusion. Talk^Woe90i 20:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Links for adding section of China in Section:Countries described as having an emerging blue-water navy

possibly using the following links

• http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/03/Beijings_blue_water_navy
• http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JIW/is_1_57/ai_113755343/
• http://cpost.uchicago.edu/blog/2011/07/08/chinas-blue-water-navy-is-not-a-threat/
• People's_Liberation_Army_Navy#Future_fleet
• http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=49512
• http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/china-may-develop-full-fledged-blue-water-navy_620083.html

Anir1uph (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Anir1uph..I have added a new section with very little info about PLAN.I surely required expansion.Thanks Srikar Kashyap (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thom2002 and I have successfully added a new paragraph for PLAN.It is not complete but has the basic info. Srikar Kashyap (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Links to Continuous At Sea Deterrence (CASD)

There are links to 'Continuous At Sea Deterrence (CASD)' for each of the US, French, and Russian Navies, yet the linked articles do not mention Continuous At Sea Deterrence, or CASD. OutOfBand (talk) 11:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

All of the literature I have reviewed considers 'Blue Water Navy' as a conventional/limited warfare concept, not a strategic nuclear warfare concept. Therefore I believe that strategic nuclear deterrence is irrelevant to this article. I propose removing the three mentions of strategic nuclear forces unless a discussion of strategic nuclear capabilities in the context of Blue-Water Navy can be cited. Thom2002 (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thom2002, What i want to say is that a fleet of nuclear subs (which can be deployed far away from the regional waters) is an important component of a blue water navy. This has nothing to do with them carrying nuclear weapons or ballistic missiles. It has got to do with them being able to be at sea at long ranges and for very long times. So presence of a nuc. submarine fleet in any navy contributes heavily to it being a blue water navy. Refer to the section: [[2]], which mentions the nuclear subs. Whether the sub carries a nuclear deterrence capability is irrelevant here, but unlike a diesel/electric sub, the nuclear sub can be deployed at sea at extremely large distances continuously. Hence I re-added them to the India section. Thanks Anir1uph (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this Anir1uph. I think we almost agree. Its certainly the case that nuclear-powered attack submarines are an important aspect of the blue-water navy, and are discussed as such in the sources. The seven nuclear-powered boats described in the UK section that you quote are nuclear powered attack submarines, designed for conventional attack on enemy shipping and land targets. The equivalent in the IN is the nuclear-powered INS Chakra of the Akula-II class, which I was careful to retain. However you will notice that the four UK Vanguard class submarines are not mentioned in the UK section. This is because they have a special mission: strategic nuclear deterrence. It is extremely unlikely that they would ever be used in any other role. The same is true for the Arihant Class, given the Indian nation's commitment to 'no first use' of nuclear weapons. The general sources about 'Blue Water Navy' cited in the main part of the article do not mention strategic nuclear deterrent as it is a special role. Therefore the sources indicate that nuclear-powered attack submarines are a component of the blue water navy, but strategic deterrent forces (including the Vanguard and Arihant vessels) are not described in this way. Thom2002 (talk) 13:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, but if you go to INS Arihant, in the infobox, it says it is a SSBN/SSGN, as it may carry anti-ship/land attack cruise missiles AND torpedoes too. And it it has not been given a nuclear deterrence/secondary strike role yet. So it is independent of that, and must be included for now, till its role in the Indian Navy is clear. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

OK that sounds reasonable, I might just make a small edit to be clear that is is the SSGN role being referred to, rather than the ballistic missile capability. Thom2002 (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the reasoning works, all BNs carry heavyweight torpedoes, as they still have to be able to defend themselves if they are detected and prosecuted.

Whilst I agree that the deterrent itself isn't a component, although I can't recall the discussion of their inclusion or otherwise when this article was significantly improved, their deployment does imply a significant BW capability in their force protection.

They're an indicator of capability, although that said the IN capabilities aren't strategic, they're very much a tactical ballistic capability. There is also no secondary and independent assessment of the counter-detection capability that can be credibly included.

ALR (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Why not add Emerging Bluewater Navies?

I propose addition of emerging blue-water navies like PLAN and Indian Navy.The emerging powers are added in Nuclear triad page but not here.So I request addition of them even here.Thanks Srikar Kashyap (talk) 05:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Srikar - no objections but the problem is making sure that any additions are properly sourced. If you look through the talk archives you will see that there have been many arguments along the lines of "my navy is best", "no my navy is better" etc. Such arguments are not helpful in my view. This makes it particularly important that any claims (even to emerging blue water status) are properly referenced as per WP:CHALLENGE. Do you have any suitable sources? Thanks Thom2002 (talk) 08:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thom2002 - yeah, I agree with you...I've seen the history and talks.....some people have been asking to include Italian Navy too. But I personally feel that a navy can't be called as a true blue water navy without nuclear capability. Italy has no nuclear submarines and has no plans of building them in the near future.This is contrary to PLAN and IN who have/are building Nuclear Submarines.India already operates an aircraft carrier and is scheduled to receive two more by 2013.PLAN also will induct Ex-varyag by the year end.On the other hand, India's indigenous SSBN is also expected to enter service this year.China already has 2 or 3. Anyway, I found these references from the respective naval pages

• PLAN http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-03/07/content_10963412.htm

• IN http://web.archive.org/web/20080528002213/http://www.jmss.org/2008/winter/articles/scott.pdf Srikar Kashyap (talk) 08:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with both Srikar and Thom2002. Section about the 2 emerging blue-water navies can be added, and a lot of sources can be easily found. My concern is that, though both India and China will be soon/already are operating aircraft carries, SSNs and SSBNs, these will never be deployed beyond their littoral regions. Both the navies are not going to deploy these assets across the globe any time soon, which is in fact the definition of a blue water navy. Proper references which talk of the current limitations - logistical, political and economic, are a must. Anir1uph (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the Indian reference does cover a lot of that territory, although the Chinese one is a lot shorter. Still I would suggest adding the section on emerging blue-water navies and see what happens! Thom2002 (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Anir1uph is right.Neither India nor China plan to deploy their ACs' or SSNs' away from their territories.China might deploy them to Indian Ocean at max while the Indian ones will not cross Indian Ocean.But if required, they can be deployed wherever required, a character of Blue Water Navies'.Hence, I support the addition of a new section but I cannot author it because of my not-so-good English.Can any one of you do that?...Thanks in Advance Srikar Kashyap (talk) 03:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Srikar - your English is pretty good. I don't know much about the topic but if you author it I'm happy to fix any problems with the English. Thom2002 (talk) 07:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thom2002- LOL..Are you serious?...anyway, I wont take the risk. I know some administrators who write about defence.I will request them to do the work. Regards and thanks for the appreciation!..;)..:P Srikar Kashyap (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm reminded of Bradley's dictum "Amateurs talk about strategy. Professionals talk about logistics." The article is currently far too focussed on sexy stuff like carriers and boomers. But blue-water is about sustained operations away from home port, and that means that the defining unit of a blue-water navy is the large fleet replenishment ship, an AOR/AOE or similar. Sure, nuclear power reduces your stores requirement, and friendly ports can help out if they are nearby. But only a supply ship truly gives you the freedom of the seas. The article does mention this in passing, but it needs to be more prominent, talking about navies that "lack the capability to maintain the required sustainable logistic reach". That's why the most important Chinese ships of recent years are the Fuchis, they are the ships that have allowed the PLAN to eg operate destroyers off Somalia. Replenishment capability is the best guide to the blue-wateriness of a navy, China is following a more US/RN path. India with just the Aditya is following more of a Soviet strategy, the USSR saw its surface fleet more for defense of the homeland/bastions than for offensive bluewater use.Le Deluge (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, various overseas bases and fleet replenishment tankers were mentioned in the article, but I fear we may be straying into OR and armchair admirals here.... Thom2002 (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I have added a section on IN. There is a related article called Green-water Navy which appears to be a neologism and inadequately referenced. Unreferenced text proclaims IN, PLAN & Italian Navies as "green-water" without any meaningful references. I have left a note on the talk page of that article. As per references, IN fulfils the criteria for a blue-water navy. I leave the addition of references to Srikar and others. BTW I'm not the admin guy but just an editor who also edits on military history. AshLin (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks AshLin. As per the previous discussions, it is not up to us as wikipedia editors to decide which countries meet the criteria of a 'blue water navy'. We can only follow what the cited sources in relation to blue water navies. The only source provided for IN (the one above) describes IN as an 'emerging' blue water force, so I have created a new section as originally discussed. Thanks again Thom2002 (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks AshLin.I'll try my best to add more references to the article.Thanks for the support..Srikar Kashyap (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I've added much information and correct some.I'm trying to find more references and add more info.In addition, I feel(plan) to add PLAN and Russian Navy too.They are also rising blue water navies.Srikar Kashyap (talk) 09:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I've added some limitations to the rise of India.But I don't find any more references for limitations.

If anyone can get references for limitations, I would be very happy! Thanks Srikar Kashyap (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

We had a section like this before and voted to remove it (see previous archives), the same will happen unless the sources provided state directly that these navies are emerging blue water navies. G.R. Allison (talk) 06:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Korea, Russia, Japan?

All of a sudden, many nations are added to Emerging BWN.All the info added is not sourced.What do you say people....remove it or keep it? Thanks Srikar Kashyap (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced material should be removed. I notice that some sources have now been provided, but in my view there must be at least two credible sources saying that they have an emerging blue water navy. Therefore I'll remove countries that have not been described as an emerging blue water navy by two credible sources. Thom2002 (talk) 11:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I find only one source that depicts the ROKN's BWN ambitions.The other sources only say about that rescue incident.Rescuing tankers or other ships from Pirates is not something really a characteristic of a BWN.These kind of operations are performed by PLAN and IN very frequently.So, that's not at all a point for BWN.I dont understand how patrol boats help BWN ambitions.lol!.....Like the PLAN section I created, this section deals with the current situation itself.It says that ROKN plans to have 2-4 rapid response fleet.Based on what?...Amphibious Assault Ships?....Nuclear Submarines and Aircraft Carriers also are crucial for BWN but I dont find any source which says ROKN plans to build them in the near future.I object to the inclusion of ROKN in the section.Lets see the responses of other users here.. Thanks Srikar Kashyap (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I've re-arranged the section to make it clearer which sources go with which statements. Have a look at the three sources I've moved next to the name of the country. Also see Republic of Korea Navy. I would say that the ROKN is a "country described as having an emerging blue water navy", although the text can no doubt be further improved to focus only on genuine blue water capabilities. Thom2002 (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I've also asked editors from the Republic of Korea Navy talk page to contribute here. Thom2002 (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

YI agree...ROKN seems to have enough sources.Yes, as you said...it needs to be improved.Srikar Kashyap (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the flag-waving navy fancruft has begun again in earnest. Anyone remember the original [[3]] that led to the article being trimmed about and almost nominated for deletion, or is it just me? Rhialto (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest expanding the paragraphs of other navies.Because, an emering navy should be supported with more sources and info than those which are already BW capable.What do you say? Thanks Srikar Kashyap^<<Talk>>13:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Ironically, there is still some commented text that is left over from the old flamewars, which I quote:

<!--please do not add further examples; this section is just an illustration, it is not meant to be a list. see the archives for flamewar details -->

The common consensus at the time that line was added was that the section was intended to be non-controversial (to a layman; if it needs multiple cites, that demonstrates a degree of controversy around it)examples, not an exhaustive list. It's patently obvious that even if this was trimmed back to that again, sooner or later it would all come again back to the glorious mess it is now. Before I make a more active contribution than being the "greybeard", I'd want a way to ensure history doesn't repeat itself again.

The problem with listing every example of a blue water navy is that on a tight definition you get many many people complaining about their favourite team being excluded and arguing about angel bums on a pinhead. On a broad definition the list gets so large it detracts from the focus of the article. otoh, some examples are useful to illustrate the concept; this is were the "non-controversial examples only" compromise came from.

There is of course also the question of how to define blue water. As I noted in my comments all those years ago, by at least one definition from a supposed expert (an Indian navy admiral), Malta's navy (a coast guard patrol, essentially) fits the blue water navy definition quite well. There is no reasonable definition of a blue water navy that cannot be considered as original research wp:or. Rhialto (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have absolutely no interest in 'flag waving' as you put in Rhialto (Quite the reverse, in fact). The objective is not to decide which countries meet the definition of blue water navy - that would clearly be OR, no two ways about it. Instead, the article lists those countries that have been described in multiple credible sources as having a blue water navy ('countries described as having a blue water navy), or as actively building one ('countries described as having an emerging blue water navy'). So original research is not necessary. Of course, we can debate the credibility of sources and that's fine, all part of the proper process, but I see no reason why the article should not be inclusive. We can also debate the relative size of each entry, which again is completely proper if the article is appearing unbalanced. Personally, I don't think that the 'example' formula you upon a few years back works because of the obvious issues with example selection. Better to let the credible sources speak for themselves. Thom2002 (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I Agree with Thom2002.Anir1uph (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2012‎

Agree with Thom2002.Till now, we were willing to include navies with atleast two credible sources.Maybe we can increase this number to 3 or 4.Probably then, we won't have any fights here? Srikar Kashyap^<<Talk>>05:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the basic problem is that this "article" is heading towards being a WP:LIST of the orders of battle of random navies at a moment in time, rather than telling people about the concept of BWN-ness. I find it...peculiar that the biggest section is devoted to India, yet there's no mention at all of Russia, who have had a BWN at 4 times in the last century and within the last year deployed a carrier out-of-area to project power and influence people off Syria. (I am working on a Russia section however - they're just too important to the development of concepts of BWN to miss out - the arguments in the 1920s were pretty much the same as in the 2000s....)

Part of the problem is that "BWN" has a slightly different meaning among naval professionals and the general public, like "impulse" or "momentum" mean different things to physicists and the public - and even professionals may use the more general meaning when they're talking up national prestige or lobbying for new carriers etc. So I'd emphasise quality rather than quantity in references - let's have more "professional" publications like the Proceedings of the USNI, and try to find references for BW-ness from outside the country concerned.

As some have mentioned above, the list approach will just fill the article with WP:LISTCRUFT, and yet there's no mention of operations and people that are key to any serious discussion of the concept of BWN-ness. I'd disagree with one of User:Thom2002's recent edits to remove the Falklands because "this article isn't about history" - I'd say that concentrating on history is exactly what we should be doing, move the OOBs out to List of OOBs of the top 10 navies or something. Any serious account of BWN should mention people like Sergei Gorshkov, BW demonstrations like the Great White Fleet, Operation Sea Orbit and Visna/Okean '75 and yes, the textbook BW operations like the Falklands. Under Thom2002's concept, all those are explicitly excluded from the article. As an aside, you don't often hear the term BWN in British conversation, the WP:COMMONNAME is "a fleet that could recapture the Falklands".<g> Another factor may be that the metaphor of blue water doesn't make much sense to a country stuck between the North Atlantic and the Norwegian Sea - green-grey water maybe.... Le Deluge (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Le Deluge - Just wanted to say that I've got no objection to the article being extended to cover the history of the concept, and to include navies that have been described in reputable sources as being 'blue water navies' in the past. Sorry that my edit description was too terse. However I feel that it might be useful to separate out a historical discussion of the topic from the issue of the present, as is normally the case in articles, using a 'history of...' section or similar. Maybe "Former Blue Water Navies" and/or "History of the Blue Water Navy"? I will continue to rigidly insist on the provision of sources though, even for historical information, to avoid (and be seen to avoid) any OR problems. I have removed Russian/Soviet material before, but purely and solely on the grounds that they were unsourced. While the participation of editors with expertise is very welcome, that expertise is of course no substitute for the provision of proper references (this point is addressed at editors in general and not any specific editor). I also quite agree with your point, Le Deluge, about improving the quality of the sources. Finally, I do agree that there is an issue with listy-ness, as describing all the ships/fleets in a given navy is not necessarily within the scope of the article title. Thom2002 (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the foundation of this article has really moved on since the discussions in the earlier archives. There is an absence of a clear definition of what is meant by a Blue Water capability. Previously I provided sourcing that discussed the nature of the topic, albeit from a NATO doctrinal perspective but there was little appetite to do anything other than reverse engineer a justification for listing examples.

Personally I would use the article to discuss the concept and history, rather than provide a list of contemporary OR. Most of the examples used wouldn't be considered to be sourced in credible publications. The point about expertise is an interesting one, but probably a bit of a side issue. What expertise allows one to do is determine what the quality of a source is, and what it means in context.

If we look at the India example, the individual who understands the topic would ask why India feels the need to develop a "blue water" capability, and indeed whether that is a broad spectrum capability or narrow. The main strategic drivers for India are political competition and nuclear escalation with Pakistan, and regional resource and influence competition with China. There are two threads of development there, the Theatre Ballistic SM capability is oriented towards the Pak threat and the aspiring maritime air capability is aimed at the China dimension. Does that really make it a blue water Navy? Personally I would say that it's very limited and the known build programme doesn't really extend much so I would be very sceptical of sources that claim that it is, although I'm conscious that most editors are very content with a simplistic hull count.

I've previously suggested that the Brown Water and blue Water articles be merged and use that as a vehicle to discuss the concept of maritime operations. The two aren't exclusionary as the BW capability is generally operating in someone elses GW back yard. The point becomes the ability to exploit symmetric or asymmetric capability to deliver operational objectives in a joint environment.

ALR (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have no desire to reverse engineer a definition to support different navies as I don't care about any navies. The fundamental problem is that we are talking about a colloquialism rather a precise term. Given that there appears to be no single definition of the term, it would at the very least be helpful to provide some more definitions. Could you please re-introduce your sourced NATO doctrinal definition, ALR? Or is this in contained within Winkler or Cole? It doesn't have to be "the" definition, but it could at least be "a" definition and I would certainly support that. As to which countries get listed, as I have said quite a few times this should be simply down to which countries have been described as either having, or separately, as developing, those capabilities in credible sources. I can't help but feel that personal opinions, pro- or -anti, are not a helpful guide to what should or shouldn't be included. Remember, even if a perfect definition could be introduced, it is still not Wikipedia's job to attempt to apply that definition to any existing or future naval capability. Only credible, external sources can be used to make the leap between a definition and the satisfaction of that definition, not Wikipedia editors, no matter what expertise they hold. That's why I removed Japan and Russia, and that is why India is still there under "emerging". Other than correcting inaccurate figures or replacing terms like 'numerous, I have no interest in hull counts, only in the qualitative assessment of credible sources. That should be the one and only criterion for any of the content in this article. Thom2002 (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey! If one can find multiple credible sources (say 4) which say that a navy has/is developing blue-water capability, sure, you can add it here. Atleast that is what i feel. Maybe when we gather a lot of data about what Blue water navies are, then we can have a separate page for list of blue water navies or something appropriate. Anir1uph (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a more sensible way to frame the "provide definitions" aspect is to find definitions from reputable citable sources, then with each definition, identify a few navies that fulfil the terms of that definition? That way, the article will be framed in terms of defining the term, rather than framed in terms of listing examples. Rhialto (talk) 06:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is South Korea mentioned but not Russia? I'm pretty sure Russia, with its large fleet of nuclear submarines and an aircraft carrier, is more of a blue-water navy than Korea!! David (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Please find reliable unbiased sources that say that Russian Navy is a blue water navy. If you do, then feel free to add them here. Anir1uph (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I added some description about the JMSDF for "Emerging blue-water navies" because there are some reliable sources such as the SOW journals and the Japanese Government statements. Today, ObscureReality (talk) have removed these description. I would appreciate your teaching about this editing.--Panda 51 (talk) 09:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

ObscureReality tell me to gain a consensus amoung the other editors (and also work on my English). So I'd like to propose you to add the JMSDF in the section "Emerging blue-water navies". Reasons are as follows:

Their ambition

It was true that they were established as the green-water navy because of the restriction. But the principle was changed with the "Sealane 1,000 nmi doctrine" of Prime Minister Nakasone. This doctrine require the JMSDF to defend the SLOCs of Japan even outside of the EEZ. With this requirement. the JMSDF have intended to be the BWN.

Their capabilities

The JMSDF has helicopter carriers and air-capable dock landing ships. They can deploy eight surface action groups, and have operated plural task groups abroad. And they also have a base overseas from their homeland, operating aircrafts and surface combatants.--Panda 51 (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Panda. Can you put the sources here (ie sources that say Japan has a blue water navy)? We can use non-English language sources but you may have to help us out with the translation of any key bits. Thom2002 (talk) 13:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for tolerance for using use non-English language sources, but I'd like to use the article in English on the web as much as possible. There are some sources expressing the JMSDF as the BWN such as the Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus ([4], [5]) and MIT Center for International Studies ([6]). So they would be able to be considered to be the BWN indeed, but I would like to leave the decision to you.
There are many articles about the growth of the blue-water operating capability of the JMSDF in the Ships of the World (a Japanese monthly magazine with maritime topics) authored by the JMSDF officials, but they are all written in Japanese and paper media. So I'd like to present you a English literature, "Japan's Sea Lane Security, 1940-2004: A Matter Of Life And Death?". On page 117, there are some explanation of the extention of the JMSDF to undertake sustained blue-water operations. And on pages 143-144, the author refers to the strengthen of JMSDF and the plan of "1,000-mile sea lane defense" by Nakasone.
The JMSDF operations in the Indian ocean is described in the Japan Focus article above, and explanation about counter-piracy operations is available in the MOD website.--Panda 51 (talk) 03:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Really?

So a bunch of people are arguing over over a term nobody can define, and one person controls what's included by insisting there are no credible sources, and in doing so completely destroys any credibility the article might have. Russia does not have a "blue-water" navy because nobody can cite a reputable source? What a joke. This article is worse than useless.Nickrz (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Bruce, It may be 'true' that Russia has a blue water navy. However, Wikipedia is run according to WP:VERIFY. To quote, "Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia; truth, of itself, is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement." Thom2002 (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I know how you feel Nickrz - the omission of Russia, yet the inclusion of South Korea (!!), is ridiculous. David (talk) 11:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I've argued several times that, rather than discuss navies, the article should be discussing definitions of blue water navies. That, at least, would remove the flag-waving focus of the current article. Rhialto (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Since there is no concrete definition of Blue-water navy, those navies that are called or projected to be blue water navies by reliable sources serve as an alternate definition for the term, defining what a navy must possess to be labelled blue-water. Again, if you find reliable sources which state Russian navy to be blue-water, or progressing to be blue-water, i welcome you to add it here as an example. The term blue-water must not be confused with superpower status of the country, hence if relaible sources say South Korea is developing a blue-water navy, then it can be included here.

Inclusion of countries like South Korea, India and China illustrate what level of modernization existing navies must undergo to achieve blue-water status. Merely possessing aircraft carriers is not sufficient (Thailand has one). It is the ability to sustain large scale operations from large distances from the mainland that counts. Anir1uph (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, if Russian navy is a blue-water navy, why do you find it difficult to find reliable sources to support that. I am sure such information of their naval capabilities is not suppressed/classified by Russia or any other country. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Rhialto - I don't think anyone disagrees with putting in more content around what a Blue Water Navy actually is. If you have any thoughts and some suitable sources, do you have the time to have a go? Thom2002 (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that the current layout of the article will intrinsically lead to flag-waving. What is needed is a total re-write from the ground up, which specifically excludes "lists of navies" from the layout. Unfortunately, a consensus to do that can't exist, because most contributors are too focused of highlighting how their favourite nation is important. Rhialto (talk) 09:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Something on the lines of: "General Blobby of the USN said that the Chilean navy is a blue-water navy because they have over 9000 rubber ducks. By this definition, many other navies, including Libya, Peru, and Burkhina Faso, could be considered blue-water navies." The key is to shift the focus from the national navy to the cited expert. Rhialto (talk) 10:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, two points. 1) I don't have a favourite country/navy but I still think a discussion of specific navies is useful, AS WELL AS an improved description of the concept of blue-water navies in general. We can improve both, and the second does not really depend on the first. 2) I'm glad we're finally talking about the sources, in line with WP:V! Three nations are currently described in the article as having blue water navies: US, UK and France. These are not well backed with sources, but are probably fairly non-contentious so this isn't too much of an issue. the RN may be a bit more borderline since the loss of fixed wing aviation, and all three would benefit from more sources. Three further navies are listed as 'emerging' blue water navies: India, ROK, and China. In this context, the stated intentions of military leaders are relevant, but more so is the view of independent experts, such as those at the Institute for Strategic Studies and those published in journals such as the Journal of Military and Strategic Studies, as referenced in the sources. Further sources would increase the credibility, but it is not accurate to say that one could find a variety of credible sources to say that Libya etc have blue water navies - try it if you don't believe me! Thom2002 (talk) 21:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to specifically discuss national navies at all in this article, because each and every one of them already has an entire article dedicated to them (in addition to my earlier points). Rhialto (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure we're going to reach agreement! The main articles can be reached through their main article links, but it is sensible to link to the blue water navies and the emerging blue water navies from the blue water navy article, together with a short decription of what makes them a blue water navy or an emerging blue water navy, according to credible sources. Thom2002 (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I am in full agreement that the very concept of "you can't find a source of Russia being a blue water navy and thus it ain't" is dodging the very question at hand. What is a blue water navy? A navy that can deploy a taskforce anywhere in the world and support it with conventional air and land forces? Then Russia qualifies on the basis of its many transports, missile submarines and aircraft carriers. It needs not be sourced as little as cow milk being white or France being a nuclear power. Milk has the color of white, France has nukes. Russia has Aircraft carriers and everything else that has been mentioned. Certainly an economy of Russias size can sustain it a deployed task force judging from its vast merchant fleet and large stocks of weapons, food and what not being a country of over 100 million people. 46.59.99.97 (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, WP:V says that a statement must be sourced if it is challenged, or likely to be challenged. The statement, "Russia has a blue water navy" is contentious (see history of this talk page) and thus needs to be sourced. That's about all there is to it. These things are fairly straight-forward if we simply follow the rules. Thom2002 (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't you see the problem with this?? It is painfully obvious that the russians deserve a mention on this article more than any of the other "emerging" navies. But just because most users here are english and perhaps the russians use different classifications of their navies then a source can't be found that easily. Apply common sense, Wikipedia is getting more and more bogged down for each passing day. Further more the rules seem to have changed since I was a bit more active. Undeniable truth was definitely acceptable in the past. As the number of general sources on the internet diminish and information is centralized it will be ever more difficult to uphold an unbiased stance using purely so called "verifiable" sources. Discussion and common sense should be applied instead. A vote perhaps?

Please do not get me wrong. Un-opinionized data should be verifiable. That is Russias naval capabilities. This is verifiable by looking into the the official statistics or even taking a look on the wiki-page of their navy. We reach a problem though when standards applied to for example the French or Indian navies (capacity to deploy task forces, active international roles, combating piracy) can not be taken into account simply because someone hasn't formed the opinion that Russia is a blue-water navy. Despite its capacity to match or outmatch India in basically all areas and France in most as sourced and verified.46.59.99.97 (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I am completely unbiased and have nothing against Russia or its navy. I think your argument here is really with the principle of WP:V. In my view, if it was as obvious as you say that Russia is an emerging or current blue-water navy, then English sources such as the Journal of Military and Strategic Studies would have written about its emergence or current status in the same way as they have written about India, China or France. Thom2002 (talk) 09:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Well I disagree and my problem is not with the policy. The problem is that we have a bunch of sourced and verified data, as mentioned above, that is used directly to justify the Indian navy as an "emerging blue water navy" or the french as one but we can't use it with Russia because people are unable to find sources citing it as such. In this case it shouldn't be necessary. Please address my arguments. If we define Subject A by the qualities described by Researcher 1 to be X then if Subject B exhibits the same qualities as Subject A that should suffice for it to be called X as well. It is not necessary for Research 1 to point this out. 46.59.99.97 (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

New definition

I've added a definition of blue-water navy that I found from an obscure (to me!) agency of the US DoD. It is quite nice as a definition, and hopefully carries at least some weight as the product of a national defence agency, albeit a very small one. The first part of the quote is very, very similar to the Royal Navy doctrine document referenced in the first sentence of the lead. If there are other reputable, verifible viewpoints, we should explain these alongside as per WP:BALANCE.

With this done, I was hoping to trim down some of the coverage in the article that does not appear to relate to this definition. In particular, I think descriptions of structures and operations near to the home country of a given navy is contrary to the idea of 'projecting power far from the home country'. This is not intended to denigrate any particular navy, merely to focus on genuinely 'blue water' aspects. I am quite comfortable with 'emerging' blue water capabilities as a legitimate subject for discussuion. Indeed, much of the serious literature available online is given over to discussing emerging blue water capabilities rather than current ones, so it is right for this article to reflect that, at least in part. Thom2002 (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the "emerging BW navies" sections would need trimming to limit itself to discussions related to blue water capabilities, and not general upgrading and capabilities. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 16:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, is info from this section relevant in the Indian capabilities? See: INS_Shakti#Deployments. Just asking. Regards, Anir1uph | talk | contrib 17:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"Countries described as having an emerging blue-water navy" - should be removed from article

Editors have reached a consensus on this material before (many times). Any section dealing with emerging Blue-water navies gets messy really quickly! One issue we have is finding a cut-off point, I.e If India is in the list why cant we include Russia or Brazil? Soon things spiral out of control. Secondly, the citations are purely speculative of potential/future capabilities and often abuse the term blue water navy.

As it stands the paragraphs regarding the emerging blue-water navies is just recycled information already found on the main Indian navy, PLAN and South Korean navy articles. Do we really need it here? As per past consensus we do not.194.46.235.146 (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The above IP is myself.Talk^Woe90i 22:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Effort is best used on improving the citations for the three blue-water navies listed rather than further deteriorating the article with speculative flag-waving. Talk^Woe90i 22:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Russia or Brazil would be included under blue-water navies or emerging blue water navies if there was multiple, verifiable and authoratitive evidence that they had blue-water navies or are actively developing them. There's nothing messy about it, its a pillar of Wikipedia called WP:V. I'm not sure what's so speculative about actual ship-building programmes which are currently underway. It may be best to have the conversation about sources on a case-by-case basis rather than simply deleting vast chunks of referenced information. The information about navies in the article should focus on their blue-water capabilities or the blue water capabilities which are being developed/built, and if you want to help refocus the information on to the topic then please do so. That is not the same as deleting large amounts of relevant information, emerging blue water navies feature heavily in literature on this topic, and it is perfectly reasonable to include discussion of them here. Thom2002 (talk) 07:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• The whole article reeks of original research at the moment, I'm afraid. --John (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Partially Agree The true meaning of a blue-water navy is obviously OR as no reference could be found which gave a clearer and perfect meaning. TheStrikeΣagle 09:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

John, Strike Eagle, exactly!Talk^Woe90i 09:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, simply because a term does not have a universal, agreed definition does not make it OR. For an encylopedia, it is simply necessary to discuss how the term is used, includuing differences between defintions. I think the definition I have quoted in the lead is OK, but please feel free to add further definitions from authoratative sources if you wish to remove any impliction of bias from the article. I have never conducted any OR on this page, and I don't think it is neccesary. The article simply needs to reference authoratitive sources on this topic, like any encyclopedia article. Thom2002 (talk) 10:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This section was added without a consensus. As per the most recent consensus (see archive) I am removing this section.Talk^Woe90i 10:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't agree, I'm afraid. There's no good reason to not discuss the countries which dominate the literature on the topic. Perhaps we need an RFC, to determine the current consensus? Thom2002 (talk) 10:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

None of the sources to support that section are authoritative. The majority of citations are from online news/press and blog sites. Most recent consensus is to remove the section.Talk^Woe90i 10:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this removal follows good wikipedia practice. I don't want to 3RR myself, perhaps another editor who favours the inclusion of material about emerging blue water navies could please restore the material? I'm happy to help improve the citations, there is a wealth of authorative material in the .mil domain and in google books available online to support the fact that the term 'blue water navy' is very frequently used by authoratitve sources to discuss the emerging capabilities of these navies. Thom2002 (talk) 10:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Even I'm on verge of 3RR vio.But it seems User:Vibhijain restored the content.It is highly recommended to Woe90i that he doesn't revert the change again. TheStrikeΣagle 11:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to limit my input into this discussion because it's clear that neither side will back down and I'm not going to waste my time in a heated Wikidebate. All I will say is this: why is the "emerging" section longer than the "actual" section? The "emerging" section, should it remain, should be fairly brief.

And again, I still can't get my head around how this article waxes lyrical about how super the Korean Navy is, but doesn't mention Russia!! Bonkers - sort it out! David (talk) 07:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The reason the article waxes lyrical about some navies while ignoring others is that those sections get puffed up by patriots wanting to embiggen their own nation's importance. This is news? Rhialto (talk) 08:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The section "Countries described as having an emerging blue-water navy" has many issues. Firstly there is an over-reliance on news media sources to support its inclusion. The problem with this is that the media does not present a neutral point of view, nor is the media an academic source - which would be the preferred on this article (see Great power). Secondly, the section is bloated with inane rhetoric and [borderline] patriotic puffery while having little or no mention of global blue-water operations. I think, that with the lack of a solid definition for the term "blue-water navy" the media has obviously been lead to abuse and manipulate/misuse the term repeatedly.

I agree with David that Russia - being a navy that has recently returned to global operations - isn't even mentioned in this article, but a navy like India that is yet to achieve the capability to sustain extended operations in its own front yard (the Indian Ocean) is mentioned. Poor show!

I can only hope that some of the long established editors of this article return here once again and reach a consensus and remove this material as we have done before. Now im not pointing fingers, but demographically it appears to be editors of Indian background that repeatedly push for this type of material in this article. Before "Countries described as having an emerging blue-water navy" it was "Navies with limited blue-water capabilities" and before that I think it was "potential blue water navies" or something similar. Talk^Woe90i 14:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I really shouldn't need to say this, Woe, but can we please restrict ourselves to a discussion of the content, and certainly not the assumed motivation or ethnic background of our fellow editors. Hopefully we are all grown-ups and we can talk about our differences over the content of the article in a mature fashion. Thom2002 (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Just making an observation that others have noted too. Could you please provide those "authoratitve sources" you spoke of earlier in this disscussion? and, can I ask you why you didn't use them in the first place?! Im confused. Also, I trust you intend on improving the emerging blue-water navy section and will not leave it in its current state! In my opinion, and as David suggested, if the section is too remain it needs only to be brief. A well sourced paragraph or two mentioning a number of emerging blue-water navies is all that's needed. This article should primarily be focused on things directly related to "Blue-water navy", for example, major European navies during the 1700 - 1900s, the Falklands, the two Gulf wars, Japan during WW2 or Russia during the cold war. Anyway, good luck with the Olympics.Talk^Woe90i 16:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, as I've already said I intend to go on improving the quality of sources, building on what has already been provided in that section such as the references to the Journal of Military and Strategic Studies and the International Institute for Strategic Studies. If you just do a quick google search along the lines of "site:.mil blue water navy" or "type:book blue water navy" you'll see there are plenty of reputable sources out there so this is something that any editor can help with. Thom2002 (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC).

I also wanted to add that this article is nowhere near any maximum size limit. So even if some editors do not agree with the inclusion of the emerging section, that is not to say that they need to stop contributing to the rest of the article. I think a 'history of the blue water navy' section would be a very good addition that I would very much support. Thom2002 (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The article is supposed to be about blue water navies, not green water navies or brown water navies but blue water navies, and therefore the content of the article should adhere to the title of the article. Including navies sometimes referred to as emerging blue water navies leaves the article open to speculation and POV, which is not the aim of Wikipedia articles. Any number of navies could be claimed to be 'emerging' as blue water navies. The fact is they're not. They're green water navies. There's an article on those navies and that's where they belong. A navy can be included in this article if or when it becomes a blue water navy. Quite vivid blur (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to add that it seems slightly strange than the sections on emerging blue water navies are twice as large as the sections on actual blue water navies. This article has been hijacked by the jingoism of Indian, Chinese and Korean editors. Quite vivid blur (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

as opposed to what? the historical dominance of editors from the United States? :P Anir1uph | talk | contrib 12:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, there is little bias for speculation or POV if the cited sources say that an X navy is an emerging blue-water navy, and when a navy's martitime future document says that due to XYZ billion dollars being allocated over next 10 years, we plan to operate a blue-water navy by then. That is not synthesis.

And that is why we find it difficult to include the Russian navy as a blue-water navy. I have not seen sources saying so explicitly. BTW, since you are talking about POV and sources, i am inviting you to provide references to show that the Royal Navy is still a blue-water navy. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 12:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I support trimming of the section. More references should be added to show their transition, and the rate of transition of the emerging navies. It is an academic subject - hundred's of think tanks devoting their times and publish papers about this emerging trend - of Asia's navies rapidly expanding, due to internal rivalries. There are green water navies limited to their shorelines, and then there is the US Navy, which operates in the seven seas. Then there are navies in between. The Royal and the French navies have limited global power projection. The Russian, Chinese, Japanese and Indian navies follow. That there are scholarly article which deal with this rise - makes the removal of this section absurd. I believe when the consensus to exclude the emerging navies was first achieved, these navies were on the the very initial path of increasing their power projection. That situation has clearly changed now. The western think tanks worry about area denial by the PLAN up to the 1st island chain in the Pacific Ocean, and gradually handling security of the northern Indian Ocean to the Indian Navy. More text must be devoted to operational and power projection capabilities than just listing acquisition of new capital ships. And of course, better references. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 12:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Section should be deleted from article, the section is speculative, not informative, why include emerging navies at-all? In-fact the whole article is dubious to me, "Blue-water navy" is an american term, whereas in Britain they use more plain terms such as "A global force". Britain's armed forces have been capable of expeditionary warfare since the late 1600s, as a result the British public or government have never had the need to emphasise their nations ability to wage war anywhere on the planet. This is not true for the Americans who during the early 1900s before WW1 felt the need to show to the world their new found expeditionary warfare capabilities. One way in-which they did this was through the deployment of the Great White Fleet emphasising Americas Blue-water capabilities. The French like the British use plain terms, as again historically France has been capable of expeditionary warfare since the late 1600s. Perhaps it should be noted in the article that the term "blue-water navy" is American?

"The Royal and the French navies have limited global power projection. The Russian, Chinese, Japanese and Indian navies follow. That there are scholarly article which deal with this rise - makes the removal of this section absurd."

Everything is limited, the US navy has a limit too you know! Delete India please, a rust bucket navy should not be listed along side the Russians or Japanese! Also are the citations academic as you say? I believe the citations in the article for the emerging navies are largely based on current planning assumptions and financing provided by their respective governments, with the hope to achieve blue-water capabilities at some point in the future. Politically based citations are not academic or "scholarly" im afraid. It is yet to be seen whether or not, China, India or South Korea will achieve this. Its all speculation.

Russia has recently resumed regular deployments around the world, not on par with the British or French, but still a significant sign that it has naval expeditionary capabilities of sorts. However, I am yet to see the South Koreans or Chinese even make regular naval deployments outside of their territorial waters! So this begs the question, why isn't Russia mentioned in this article if China and South Korea are? For goodness sake even India wormed its way into this article, but not Russia!! Amusing indeed. Osama is Obama (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe the citations in the article for the emerging navies are largely based on current planning assumptions and financing provided by their respective governments, with the hope to achieve blue-water capabilities at some point in the future. - No, there are scholarly references as well. Actual reports of blue-water deployments are supported by news citations. Yes, all references are not scholarly, and hence this is not a GA or FA. The cited sources are reliable, and that is what matters. None of the citations in the India section are Politically based, as claimed by you. I am willing to discuss each reference with you, if you so desire. Seeing your statements, i would urge you to actually go through the cited references and wikilinks before making comments about them.

American, British, French navy terms - If you have reliable sources to support your claim, then go ahead and add those to the article.

Russian navy - I have no problems about discussing their blue-water capabilities. However, it is not in my field of interest, and hence you must find reliable references for emerging/existing blue-water capabilities before adding that here. No it does not beg any question or arouse wonder and suspicion - it is only a matter of someone finding reliable references for them. Maybe you can help in that. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 00:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it is time to get those who have invested time in this article to vote on the section in question... I would also like to see some Russian editors provide Russian language citations so we can include Russia if the section is voted to stay. A simple gogle search revealed this - Putin Pledges Billions to Build a Blue-Water Navy. 194.46.241.129 (talk) 11:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Well include Russia then, atleast. Please!! Osama is Obama (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Update

I have improved references for India by adding more scholarly references, as demanded by an editor. The referenced books range from one published by Oxford University Press to another by Jane's, and a few by credible think tanks. This should be enough to pass Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Notability. Similar sources may be found and added for China, Japan and Russia. Thanks! Anir1uph | talk | contrib 00:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I am quite disappointed with the recently added citations regarding India's regular deployments to the Western Pacific Ocean. None of the citations confirm India has any regular standing deployments in the Western Pacific and none of the citations (except for one! Operational Deployment of Eastern Fleet 2011) give any insight as to why the Indian Navy has deployed into the Western Pacific. That one citation is thankfully from the official Indian Navy web site, where we find the India Navy does indeed deploy on a regular bases to the Western Pacific as part of Exercise Malabar.

A major concern is that apart from that single citation from the official Indian Navy site, the rest appear to be newspaper and magazine blogs (tho thankfully blogs by professionals :D). Wikipedia Verifiability policy advises to use blogs with caution so I would not consider them "scholarly references" as Anir1uph put it. Therefore I would like to see more official citations regarding India's overseas deployments rather than mere blogs as citations.

For now i would suggest removing the blogs as citations, keep the one from the Indian Navy and mention the deployments to the Western Pacific as part of Exercise Malabar.Osama is Obama (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Glad to have helped. Which are the blog references? Can you list them here? Anir1uph | talk | contrib 22:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The references appear to be journal articles. Not academic journals, but reasonably credible publications. Thom2002 (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

A journal essentially is a blog, and I would disagree Thom2002, some of the citations provided by Anir1uph are blogs written by academics. For example, Mohan Malik is a professor at the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies. The only issue here is using a blog as a citation in the first place, policy is to use caution and allot of editors would advise against using blogs full stop. However, as the writers all appear to be either academics or professionals in their field then I will not argue that the citations be removed. I only will suggest what I would do - and that is remove them and replace them with more official and policy friendly citations. I am quite happy to let Anir1uph make the decision here, hes a responsible editor and thank him for his work and effort.Osama is Obama (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. In this case, I feel that the sources i have cited follow WP:SOURCES and are not WP:BLOGS. Blogs are generally not reliable as they are self-published. None of the article i have cited are self-published. It is difficult to find book references for the exact deployments, but i have located two:

1. The Rise of China and International Security: America and Asia Respond by Yoichiro Sato; Taylor & Francis US, 2009; pp 198, 199. Link

2. The East Moves West: India, China, and Asia's Growing Presence in the Middle by Geoffrey Kemp; Brookings Institution Press; 22 June 2012; pp 2024. Link

What about these? Anir1uph | talk | contrib 21:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Royal Navy, A Blue Water Navy Today??

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"A blue-water navy allows a country to project power far from the home country and usually includes one or more aircraft carriers"

That's the idea of a BWN

And today the Royal Navy does not have any fixed wing capability, or in other words, no Aircraft Carrier in Operation.

Does the Royal Navy still qualify as a BWN now in 2013, based on it's Merits from 1982(Falklands) and 2003(Iraq)? — Preceding unsigned comment added y 120.62.167.213 (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Some editors, including myself, have taken the view on the Royal Navy page is that an assertion that the RN is a BWN would require a recent source. Some editors have argued that the assertion is similar to "the sky is blue" and therefore does not require a recent source. However, since there is disagreement between editors, normal wikipedia practice would indicate that a reliable recent source should be found. Thom2002 (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

That definition you quote, "A blue-water navy allows a country to project power far from the home country and usually includes one or more aircraft carriers", is just a vague definition by a single American official. It is not an authoritative description. Also, in practice, the term 'blue-water navy' is an American term not British and currently there is no existing definite defintion on what a blue-water navy is or should be.

The British describe their navy as an expeditionary force or a Global Force (the former actually pre-dating the US term 'blue-water navy'). Furthermore as set out in the 2010 SDSR the Royal Navy will maintain significant expeditionary capabilities and continue its global operations. As of 2013, along with the Royal Navy only the US Navy and French Navy are committed to and are engaging in global expeditionary operations. It is for this reason that the three nations are listed here as BWNs. Agreed, while an aircraft carrier is a powerful tool of power-projection and is widely viewed as a symbol of naval power, it is NOT the making or breaking of a blue-water, expeditionary or global navy.

Anyway this has been done to death time and time again ever since the Royal Navy retired harrier, and the constant result of the consensus that follows is that the Royal Navy is indeed an expeditionary navy. There is a significant 'expeditionary capability' gap between the Royal Navy and the lower tier of navies that follow (i.e Russia, Japan, India) and this sir is as obvious as the sky is blue.Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

As an exercise in original thinking that sounds very sensible, but that approach is not usually acceptable on Wikipedia. A reliable, recent secondary source would put you on rather stronger ground. Remember, it is not our opinion that counts, it is only the opinion of reliable sources that can be acceptable. Thom2002 (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yet is it not also 'original thinking' on behalf of those who claim the Royal Navy is not an expeditionary navy? Purely on the basis of HM Government retiring harrier? Perhaps a reliable secondary source [of a militarily academic/strategic nature] would put those people on stronger ground too. I fear that absent such secondary sources for both parties there will always be debates such as this. However, given the marked acknowledgement in SDSR 2010 that the Royal Navy is to uphold its global commitments and continue to maintain significant power projection capabilities (albeit temporarily reduced in naval air), I suggest keeping the status quo. The Royal Navy remains distinguished as an expeditionary navy whose capabilities exceed the likes of Russia or Japan etc in those specific fields. It is for these reasons that past consensus likely agree to keep the status quo and will probably continue to do so.Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Aha it is not necessary for me to 'disprove' the assertion (or indeed to prove the negative), but merely to point out that it is both contentious and unsourced. By normal wikipedia rules, that would mean that the assertion has to go, unless someone can find a reliable source. Thom2002 (talk) 08:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me for this diversion of subject but, as per normal Wikipedia rules (WP:FUTURE and WP:SYN) the "Emerging blue-water navies" section should be overhauled immediately. The mentioning of government intention to develop a blue-water navy is acceptable, but this still remains speculative and may or may-not happen and therefore should not be presented as fact via a synthesis of published material. For example take India as listed, it begins by stating the Indian Navy's intention of developing blue-water capabilities, however the paragraphs that follow are an accumulation of recent ships commissioned and some sporadic over seas deployments that "serve to advance a position not advanced by the sources". Simply Thom2002, to take A (a recent ship commissioned) and join it with B (an over seas deployment) and come to conclusion C (the assumption that India is an emerging blue-water navy) is against policy. Even the section title, "Emerging blue-water navies" is presumptuous and serves to suggest the text held within is fact. Despite this, in my opinion the navies of China and India are developing blue-water capabilities and I feel they should remain in the article. However, they should remain in a manner which is in harmony with policy.

Now returning to your latest reply. You have changed, to an extent, my standing on the issue. I agree that with no recent secondary source to prove or disprove the Royal Navy as being an expeditionary navy that it should not be listed in the same category as the US Navy. Though I do not think the Royal Navy should be removed entirely from the article, but rather an alternative solution. The French Navy should be addressed too, absent recent citation.Antiochus the Great (talk) 12:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I will make some edits to clear up these issues and very much desire you opinions and input. Thank you.Antiochus the Great (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

In today' context, it's not right to compare the Marine Nationale and British navy.MN operates a nuclear carrier(the only one outside US), a host of amphibious ships and guided missile ships.I now seems inevitable that some reliable sources are necessary to prove RN's blue water capability as well as their great power status(in my opinion) Personal opinion doesnt count in Wikipedia, Mr.Antiochus...read Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat and Wikipedia:Soapbox Thanks TheStrikeΣagle 15:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yet you state your personal opinion as if it is fact? Contradiction much? There is currently no clear definition of what constitutes a blue-water navy. Therefore aircraft carriers are merely subject to personal opinions. So yes, we can compare the Royal Navy with its French counterpart. You mention that France possess a "host" of frigates and amphibious ships, but so too does the Royal Navy. In fact the Royal Navy operate 19 major-surface combatants (destroyer and frigates) and 7 large amphibious warfare ships in comparison to 13 major-surface combatants and 4 large amphibious warfare ships for France. Not to mention the Royal Navy operates 7 larger and more capable nuclear-powered fleet submarines, while France operates 6 significantly less capable ones. The only temporary advantage the French have is in its aircraft carrier, however, it is due for a major overhaul in 2015 and wont be available for operations for around 3-4 years! So during that time will France not be a blue-water navy?

Anyway, I have added a citation from 2007 supporting both Britain's and France's expeditionary/power projection capabilities. A newer citation would be more preferable, but absent a more recent reliable source that states the opposite it will do for now. I will address the policy issues regarding the "Emerging blue-water navies" section later.Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain which personal opinion of mine did I try to show as fact? TheStrikeΣagle 16:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

This... "In today' context, it's not right to compare the Marine Nationale and British navy." based upon your personal opinion that aircraft carriers are essential for a blue-water navy.Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Im sorry, but someone posted saying "There is a significant 'expeditionary capability' gap between the Royal Navy and the lower tier of navies that follow (i.e Russia, Japan, India) and this sir is as obvious as the sky is blue.""

How does one come to this conclusion.? Royal Navy has 18 Major Surface Warships(13 Frigates and 5 Destroyers) and 10 Sub Surface Warships(Nuclear Submarines). Apart from that Royal Navy does have Auxillery ships like Fleet tankers to enhance it's endurance overseas and a number of amphibious ships to transport 5000+ troops overseas.

In contrast, say the Indian Navy has 34 Surface WArships(16 Frigates,9 Destroyers,8 Corvettes) and 15 Sub surface Warships(14 Diesel Submarines,1 Nuclear Submarine) also supported by several Auxilleries like Fleet tankers. ! Aircraft Carrier in Operation, while another completeing it's Sea Trials. And Number of Amphibious ships to transport 5000 Troops overseas..

So the statement, that RN's capabilities is more than IN's, isnt as obvious as the "sky is blue"

Infact, what's keeping RN in the BWN department and IN not?

The PLAAN furthur has more Warships and Ausxileries/Amphibious ships than IN. Though they lack an Operational Carrier.(The Carrier based jet wont be ready till 2015). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.185.242 (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Expeditionary warfare or expeditionary capabilities is the action of, or ability to use your armed forces to fight/operate around the world. India has never undertook an expeditionary operation in its entire history and currently India's armed forces are incapable of fighting beyond the surrounding regions of India. Britain on the other hand has been an expeditionary power since at least the early 1600s! The Royal Navy have 19 major surface combatants (destroyers and frigates), while the Indian navy operate 23 major surface combatants (destroyers and frigates). I guess on paper this looks good, India has 4 more destroyers and frigates, however the warships of the Royal Navy are far more capable than those of their Indian counterparts. Numbers are therefore irrelevant, for example two lightweight boxers as opposed to one heavyweight boxer? I'd bet on the heavyweight.

The Indian Navy operates a single 17,000 tonne Landing Platform Dock (LPD), this single vessel cannot deploy 5,000 troops overseas during an amphibious operation (as you said), try around 800 max! However the Indian Navy also operate two Nicobar Class troop transports (ex merchant ferry's) - so yes, if push came to shove India could transport around 5,000 troops overseas, but with only one landing Platform Dock, only around 800 troops would be initially available to assault the beachhead! The other 4,200 troops would still be sitting in the Nicobar transport ships. If the beachhead is contested by a defender then 800 troops is simply not enough. The Royal Navy is in a far better position and maintains seven amphibious warfare ships! Furthermore, as per SDSR 2010 the Royal Navy maintains the capability to deploy at least 2,500 troops during an amphibious landing while the largest overseas deployment (including Merchant Navy assets under Royal Navy command) would be around 30,000 troops. So as you can see there is a huge difference between the Indian Navy who can deploy a max of 800 during an amphibious landing and whose largest overseas deployment is likely around 5,000 troops.

The Royal Navy has a large Auxiliary fleet (larger than the Indian Navy's) and maintains military bases around the globe which serve to keep the Royal Navy operational anywhere in the world (the Indian Navy does not have this). As for submarines the Royal Navy maintains 7 modern nuclear-powered fleet submarines with decades of experience and operations under their belt. The Indian Navy? 14 less capable conventional submarines and a singe nuclear-powered fleet submarine (leased from Russia) which according to naval experts is comparable to (now retired) early models of the US Navys Los Angeles-class submarines built in the 70s. Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

So your point is, unless a country actually undertakes a war overseas , it cant be deemed as a BWN?

Correction , RN has 18 Major warships(5 Type 45 Destroyers are commissioned while the 6th is on sea trials), and i would count a Corvette in the IN cause that's a combat ship, over 1500 tons.

More capable ships are to be chosen over size, Correct. So I would rather choose a 21st century Stealth Shivalik Class or Talwar Class Frigate(equipped with the world's fastest anti-ship missile,Brahmos, over an old Type 23 Frigate? + Size is a bonus.

Are u aware of India's Shardul Class and Magar Class Amphibious vessels? Total of 5 ships with 500 troops and 10 tanks in each.

Infact here's the source talkin about carryin 5000 troops overseas http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeZBQZxg2v0

About the Submarines, Size(India) vs Capability(Uk)

And i would be fairly convinced if u could provide a source that RN can transport 30,000 troops if the need arises? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.182.152 (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

No, that is not my point.

There is still a single type 42 destroyer in service with the Royal Navy. Therefore the RN has 19 destroyers and frigates in total. No, a corvette is not a major surface combatant! It is designed to fight in the littoral zones. If you were to attach a corvette to an ocean going task force during a high intensity conflict it would handicap the task force and be a military liability, not an asset.

Brahmos is nothing special, it is merely a fast cruise missile. Western naval air defence systems (such as Aegis and PAAMs) can track, engage and destroy ballistic missiles at hypersonic speeds! So Brahmos? Pfft, bring it on! Anyway, the technology involved in developing a supersonic anti-ship cruise missile like Brahmos is old school, the western powers could commission such a weapon any day of the week. I would take a type 23 frigate over a Shivalik or Talwar class in a heartbeat, a type 23 frigate has superior organic air-defence to either a Shivalik or Talwar class and the top trump of the type 23 frigate is its anti-submarine warfare capabilities thanks to the Sonar 2087 and type 2050 bow sonar. So to recap, the "old" type 23 frigates can defend themselves against air attack better than the Shivaliks or Talwars and the "old" type 23 frigates have far superior anti-submarine warfare capabilities than either the Shivaliks or Talwars. The Royal Navy is decades ahead in terms of technology than the Indian Navy, and the type 23 frigates are continually updated - soon they are due to receive the modern Artisan 3D radar and Sea Ceptor air-defence missiles which will further widen the gap of the technological superiority of the type 23 frigate over the Shivalik and Talwar classes. So, relying purely on the Brahmos missile as your basis of believing the Shivalik and Talwar class are superior to the type 23 frigate is just silly, isn't it.

Nope, the Shardul and Maga class tank landing ships are not true amphibious assault ships, lol, they are designed for short range amphibious support, and they are slow and have limited range at sea. For example, their slow speed of 15 knots would slow down a traditional ocean going task force - therefore making it highly vulnerable to submarine and surface threats. Their limited range and thirsty engines would also put too much of a high demand on auxiliary vessels over a long distance. Lastly the Shardul and Maga class cannot berth the troops they carry.

Alexander the Great had capability, the Persians had size. Alexander won. In an expeditionary operation modern nuclear-powered fleet submarines reign supreme - not technologically inferior, less capable conventionally-powered fleet submarines (no matter how many you have). The only scenario where India's large number of conventionally-powered fleet submarines become an advantage is at home operating in the littoral zones of India.

In 1982 during the Falklands war the Royal Navy deployed around 15,000 troops at sea. Today the Royal Navy has more than twice the number of amphibious warfare ships than in 1982 and presently the Merchant Navy has more large sea going cruise liners than it has done in decades. If the need arose, deploying 30,000 troops overseas would be child's play. The SDSR 2010 clearly states Britain will maintain the ability to deploy up to 30,000 troops on a peace time budget. You can look it up for yourself.Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum and this is going off topic, so I conclude my participation in this recent evolution of the discussion. Additionally you have displayed a severe lack of knowledge on the subject. Go home.Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

You contradict yourself AtG.You call the other person's comments as forum but you seem to be quite busy boasting of Royal navy too! TheStrikeΣagle 05:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ROK status

I am starting this discussion about the Potential BWN navy status of South Korea. The section does not mention even one source which states that the ROKN is developing into a BW capable one. Building four assault ships won't suddenly make a navy BW capable nor does one naval base. I will remove the section of ROK in one week if no one objects to it. Thanks TheStrikeΣagle 13:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree to the removal of South Korea. Yes while they are building flat top assault ships as part of a "strategic mobile fleet" the ROK Navy has no intention of operating in an expeditionary capacity around the globe for sustained periods of time. Essentially a blue-water navy must be capable of expeditionary operations far from home - thus far only China, India and Russia have the potential to achieve blue-water capabilities and all three of them have stated they are seeking to develop such capabilities.Antiochus the Great (talk) 14:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Above all, they don't need to! DPRK is their one and only source of concern and reaching it would hardly need a raft..leave Amphibious Assault Ships and Nuclear Submarines.. TheStrikeΣagle 15:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I also agree that it should be removed. David (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Remember that personal opinions aren't relevant - its only about the sources. There were more sources, some have been removed, so I've added a couple. There are plenty more! Thom2002 (talk) 07:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources support that the ROK is developing blue-water capabilities to counter China, but I don't think we are ever going to see a South Korean task force deploy outside of Western Pacific or ever see a time where the ROK maintains standing deployments around the globe. Sources only tend to use the the term "blue-water navy" for the lack of a better term to describe the ROKs ambitions. In my opinion the case is weak for South Korea on this article and we must remember we don't have to list every nation/navy that says it wants to develop blue-water capabilities. Also remember, just because a navy perform replenishment at sea, or builds amphibious assault ships doesnt make it a blue-water navy.Antiochus the Great (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thom2002 - a blue-water navy is generally one that deploys around the globe in an expeditionary capacity for sustained periods of time. The ROK navy has no intention of deploying on global operations and most certainly not in an expeditionary role! I think you are forgetting what a blue-water navy is.Antiochus the Great (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a nice new definition. Do you have a source for it? Sorry to be such a stickler for the whole 'encyclopedia' thing! Thom2002 (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Not a new definition, its pretty much the same as the definitions presented and sourced in the article. "Blue-water capability means that a fleet is able to operate on the high seas, throughout the world, far from its home base.[4] It implies force protection from sub-surface, surface and airborne threats and a sustainable logistic reach, allowing a persistent presence at range." So I think im pretty correct in saying that a BWN is one that deploys around the globe for sustained periods of time with the capacity to perform expeditionary operations.Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

With respect, you have introduced the word 'global', which is not stated or even implied in the sources. Thom2002 (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

"Blue-water capability means that a fleet is able to operate on the high seas, throughout the world, far from its home base.[4]" I think the fair use of 'global' is perfectly acceptable to describe what is implied here. Furthermore, the Americans, British and French claim to operate on a global scale. So yeah...Antiochus the Great (talk) 07:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

That quote is not what the source actually says though, is it? Thom2002 (talk) 08:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The source uses the phrase 'throughout the world', the articles interpretation and representation of the source is correct. I dont understand your question?Antiochus the Great (talk) 09:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC):

I think this is disingenous. The defintion quoted is, "designed to operate on and range over the open sea; oceangoing" This is the definition. It goes on to give a usage example in italics: "a bluewater navy that can be dispatched throughout the world, far from its home base." It is not part of the definition, it is an example. Nothing here implies that all blue-water navies are global. Thom2002 (talk) 06:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

JMSDF

I'd like to propose you to add the JMSDF in the section "Countries described as having potential blue-water navies". Reasons are as follows:

Its ambition

It was true that they were established as the green-water navy because of the restriction. But the principle was changed with the "1,000 miles SLOCs defense" doctrine proposed by Prime minister Zenkō Suzuki. This doctrine require the JMSDF to defend the SLOCs of Japan even outside of the EEZ. With this requirement. the JMSDF have intended to be the BWN(Tomohisa Takei (2008). "Japan Maritime Self Defense Force in the New Maritime Era" (PDF). Hatou. Retrieved 2012-12-03. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)).

Its capabilities

The JMSDF has helicopter carriers and air-capable dock landing ships. They can deploy eight surface action groups, and have operated plural task groups abroad. And they also have a base overseas from their homeland, operating aircraft and surface combatants(Japan Ministry of Defense. "MOD/JSDF ANSWERS - Anti-Piracy Efforts". Retrieved 2012-11-16.).

If there is no objection, I'd like to make it reverted to this version.--Panda 51 (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you have only provided sources of the Japanese govt..which in this case are not so reliable..can you get more(atleast 5-10) non-governmental academic sources? Thanks, Strike Σagle 02:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your indicatation. I use some other non-governmental sources in the draft. The list is above:

• References about SLOCs protection and fleets of the JMSDF
  • Katsumata, Hidemichi (2009). "Japanese sealane defense today". Ships of the World. 702. Japan: Kaijin-sha: 76–81. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  • Koda, Yoji (2011). "History of Fleet Escort Force since 1961". Ships of the World. 750. Japan: Kaijin-sha: 76–85. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  • Euan Graham (2006). Japan's Sea Lane Security, 1940-2004: A Matter Of Life And Death?. Routledge. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• References about Maritime security operations of the JMSDF
  • Richard Tanter. "Japan's Indian Ocean Naval Deployment: Blue water militarization in a "normal country"". Retrieved 2013-05-06.
  • Asahi Shimbun. "Japan's New Blue Water Navy: A Four-year Indian Ocean mission recasts the Constitution and the US-Japan alliance". Retrieved 2013-05-06.
  • Richard J. Samuels (September 2007). ""New Fighting Power!" for Japan?" (PDF). Retrieved 2013-05-07.

--Panda 51 (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

@Panda_51. Japan is very VERY unlikely to abandon its current maritime policy of "self-defence" and switch towards developing an offensive blue-water navy. Also, Japans post WW2 constitution would not allow it! I think you need to inform yourself as to what a blue-water navy is and then fully understand its meaning. BTW, the ROK navy is not a potential blue-water navy - the citations only say that the South Korean navy wants to develop "strategic mobile fleets" based around helicopter carriers to defend against North Korea and to work with the US Navy providing security in the region. Nowhere does it mention that the ROK wants to develop a blue-water navy to deploy on operations around the globe. ROK should be removed from the article.Antiochus the Great (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Antiochus - that's a very well reasoned argument. However, is it backed by sources? Remember, even if you are the world's leading expert on all Navy matters (which you may well be!) that it is still no substitute for sources. Remember, the condition for inclusion is not truth, but verifibility. Thom2002 (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the key prerequisite for a blue-water navy is a capability to deploy one of more task forces (not single vessel) in the remote area and maintain both home-defense and expeditionary operation. For example, Japanese Ministry of Defense describe blue-water navy as "the naval force being able to control remote area 1,500 nautical miles away from the coast line"(Ministry of Defense (2005). "DEFENSE OF JAPAN 2005" (in Japanese). Retrieved 2013-05-08.). The JMSDF deployed three task forces (Japanese component of the CTF-150, DAPE, DSPE) in the Indian Ocean from 2009 to 2010, and now, still there are two (DAPE and DSPE). The capability of these TFs is almost restricted in the maritime security operation, but they have destroyers, a combat support ship, rotary and fixed-wing aircrafts, and ground forces. --Panda 51 (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thom2002, sources for what exactly? I do not need a source to say the current citations for the ROK do not mention it is developing a blue-water navy!!!! The citations only say the ROK is developing naval capabilities as response to the political and strategic environment of its region, this is not the same as saying its developing a blue-water navy. In comparison, China and India have publicly stated they are developing blue-water capabilities to exert military force at sea far beyond their home regions.

Anyway, it is best we get feed back from other editors who take an interest in this article before we proceed further. There is no rush to add or remove countries from this current revision, but any changes should be thoroughly discussed first.Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Editors becareful on the article when in consensus because Antiohus the Great has a way of taking articles even when there is no concensus or little consensus made, he'll change the article without proper authorization with anybody seeing it. It is bad practice to change an article than not see some kind of pre written article in the talkpages first so people can see the change made such as consensus on the context, sources and more. Artiohus the Great has done that with other articles without proper consensus making it very difficult with other editors, incerting bad sources and critizing good sources. That's not right and bad consensus, so I would imply maybe question the article more than let more than one editor assuming he'll change the article himself but really instead like editors work together changing it one sentence at a time or something similar because what I have witnessed on Antiohus the Great has been doing is bad editing and taking articles out of context. --103.246.114.86 (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

@ 103.246.114.86, there are over 6 editors (including and admin) at the other article in question who think you are in the wrong. Your also being accused of sock-puppetry by a small number of other editors too. Stop making false accusations against me and the other editors on the various talk pages you follow them to. Now go home.Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh boy, nice try Antiohus the Great with your lies and false editing tactics. Editors, you can view Antiohus the Great contribation history on the other articles, just follow the deleted edits and so on his history. Should put alarm bells with him trying to change this article like he has with all the other articles, DANGER WIll ROBINSON, don't trust it at all.

Lastly, Panda 51 I accept your versionthis version and do not object to what you have put forth. I'm ok with it.--103.246.114.86 (talk) 10:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You must think we're all stupid. David (talk) 10:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems there was some objection against my proposal, but they all broke off the argument for a week. So I'd like to make it reverted to this version if there is no another objection in three days.--Panda 51 (talk) 00:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Operating out side of its EEZ does not make the JMSDF a blue-water navy. BWN is an offensive military capability and Japans constitution would not allow it. A few foreign commentators who speculate on a Japanese naval mission in the Indian Ocean does not make the JMSDF a potential blue-water navy... Has the Japanese government states it wants to pursue the development of blue-water capabilities and thus the ability to perform offensive expeditionary operations? I don't think so.. India has, China has... Russia is re-building that capability and South Korea doesn't even belong on this article.Antiochus the Great (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

@_Antiochus_the_Great - The "offensive military capability" is a sufficient condition to be a blue-water navy, not an essential in my opinion. It could be a defensive one. And the "1,000 miles SLOCs defense" doctrine requiring the JMSDF to protect Japanese SLOCs is its core doctrine from 1980s (the period of the Prime minister Zenkō Suzuki). This aimed operational range, "1,000 miles", does not meet the condition to be a BWN proposed by the Japanese MOD itself, so the JMSDF is not BWN now even in its own definition. But now, JSDF assets in Indian ocean are operating sustained 5,000 nautical miles away from their homeland even if their mission is MOOTW, and the oceangoing capability of the JMSDF has been enhanced in comparison with the one of 1980s. So I think it can be described as a potential BWN. --Panda 51 (talk) 05:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Lots of countries deploy naval assets to the Indian Ocean, but they are not all blue-water navies or potential blue-water navies... ability to conduct and sustain expeditionary warfare at sea has always been central to a blue-water navy. A defensive navy is a green-water navy.Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

@_Antiochus_the_Great - It is true that there are many countries deploying their naval assets to the Indian Ocean, but most countries send only one vessel such as the Korean Cheonghae Unit and/or take part in the joint action such as the European Union Naval Force Somalia. On the other hand, "potential blue-water navies" such as the Russian Navy, PLAN, and JMSDF organize their own task force with the plural vessels with their own logistics support.
And I think we should not adhere to defensiveness or offensiveness because it is obscure matter. If the JMSDF vessels conduct anti-submarine operations to protect Japanese merchant fleet in the Indian Ocean, it would be difficult to be regarded as the defensive operation even if their tactical actions were quite defensive. It is unlikely situation in the current circumstances, but it cannot be said to be impossible. In fact, as a Japanese legal term prescribed in the Self-Defense Forces Law Article 82, "maritime security operations" (Japanese: 海上警備行動) is not restricted within OOTW and can be declared even for the anti-submarine operation, such as the violation of territorial waters by a Chinese SSN in 2004, for example. And this provision was also the legal basis of Japanese anti-piracy operations in the Indian Ocean. And even the defense mobilization order (Japanese: 防衛出動, which means the SDF is in a state of war) could be declared for the threat in the remote area because there is no restriction about geopolitical limits of "Surrounding Areas" in the "Act on Measures to Ensure the Peace and Security of Japan in Perilous Situations in Areas Surrounding Japan"[7].--Panda 51 (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I support Panda's view as it is backed by sources. Sourced and relevant material such as this should be included in the encyclopedia, regardless of personal opinions of any editors. Thom2002 (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Trouble is, no Japanese officials have stated/confirmed Japan's intention/ambition to develop a blue-water navy, so all of the arguments to add Japan to the article are based on wild speculation of circumstance or based on the comments of a handful of analysts. On those grounds I think it would be wrong to add Japan to the article. Also, since when is it necessary to add every single potential blue-water navy to this article? I think the section need only be reserved for the likes of China, Russia, India where there is official government ambition to develop true blue-water capabilities and a broad consensus among analysts reinforcing that idea. We do not however, need to add every Dick, Tom and Harry to the list just because they once sent a few ships to the Indian Ocean and an analyst or two got excited and started to speculate on them being a blue-water navy in the making. Otherwise where do we stop with this article? Do we add Brazil, Turkey? Australia? Some analysts speculate on them becoming blue-water navies too! Also Panda, the essence of a blue-water navy is that it is expeditionary in nature therefore making it an offensive military capability. So when you say "I think we should not adhere to defensiveness or offensiveness because it is obscure matter" I disagree with you and feel you are merely trying to avoid the issue altogether.Antiochus the Great (talk) 06:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

@_Antiochus_the_Great - It is very common misinterpretation that no Japanese officials have stated/confirmed Japan's intention/ambition to develop a blue-water navy, I think. The "1,000 miles SLOCs defense" doctrine is the official statement of the Prime minister Zenkō Suzuki, and from 1980s, JDA or MOD of Japan has stated the mission of JMSDF as "deploying its assets into blue seas and bring these area under its control to protect Japanese merchant fleets" (Japanese: 外洋に展開してわが国の船舶を攻撃しようとする敵の艦艇を制圧する) in the "Defense of Japan" (Annual White Paper; for example, the version in 1988 is here). And as previously described, some flag officers such as RADM Takei, Director General Operation and Planning department of the Maritime Staff Office, state the necessity of reinforcement of blue-water naval operating capability.
I agree with you that Japan is very VERY unlikely to abandon its current maritime policy of "self-defence", but Japanese WW2 constitution does not restrict blue-water naval operations completely. There are some loopholes in the law, such as the "Act on Measures to Ensure the Peace and Security of Japan in Perilous Situations in Areas Surrounding Japan" I refereed above. With this act, the defense mobilization order can be declared not only within the territorial water but also its surrounding areas. And there is no express provision about geopolitical limits of "Surrounding Areas", so this act can be applied to the situations in the Indian Ocean. And with the "Act on the Peace and Independence of Japan and Maintenance of the Nation and the People's Security in Armed Attack Situations etc.", if the JMSDF vessel was attacked once, the defense mobilization order can also be declared even if it was on the other side of the globe (Shimbun Akahata (2003-05-11). "有事法制 - 「修正」でも変わらない　これだけの危険" (in Japanese). Retrieved 2013-05-19.).
Or even in peacetime, the JMSDF can conduct anti-submarine operation as "maritime security operations", as previously described. So it is very unlikely under circumstances of these days, but it is possible legally that the JMSDF change its operations more offensive.--Panda 51 (talk) 09:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

So official policy is to operate assets in blue-water to protect merchant shipping and SLOC? Well I knew that already and like I said before this does not make the JMSDF a potential blue-water navy. My opinion on the matter has not changed since my previous comment.Antiochus the Great (talk) 09:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

@_Antiochus_the_Great - It seems enough to be a blue-water navy with the ability to perform defensive expeditionary operations such as protecting merchant shipping and SLOCs. There is a regulation about its expeditionary capability, but no mention of offensiveness in the definition of BWN as stated above. And even if it is a requirement, the naval force meeting every requirement for BWN except for the one of its offensiveness can be described as a "potential" BWN, I think.--Panda 51 (talk) 12:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems there was some objection against my proposal, but they all broke off the argument over 10 days. So I'd like to add the JMSDF into the section "Countries described as having potential blue-water navies" if there is no another objection in three days.--Panda 51 (talk) 10:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I still object, and I would suggest allowing more time for editors to respond. Most people are extremely busy this time of year (state school or college exams etc) and therefore haven't got the time to frequent on Wikipedia right now. There are still a great many editors who take an interest in this article who haven't responded yet... a little more time would be polite and much appreciated. Antiochus the Great (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

My view remains that this is well-sourced encyclopedic material that should be included. Thom2002 (talk) 05:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It passes one month since this discussion has begun. Isn't it enough time to discuss with this matter? (I think it's enough).
It is clear that the main objection is caused by the defensive security policy of the Japanese government. But I would like you to keep it in mind that there is no substantive enactment of offensiveness in the definition of the blue-water navy. The word "blue-water navy" merely means the naval force being able to conduct blue-water operations. The JMSDF is allowed to conduct some kind of high-seas operations such as SLOCs protection, and it has been proving its blue-water operating capabilities.--Panda 51 (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done It passes over a month since my last contribution and there is no other objection, so I revised this article as described above. Thank you for participating in the discussion. --Panda 51 (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Who decides which navy is a blue water force?

Who decides which navy is a Blue Water Navy? The latest Indian official Navy video already terms it as a "Blue Water Force" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.190.63 (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

This has been the subject of much debate! There is no universal definition of the term which makes it hard to say definitively and objectively whether or not a given navy "is" a blue-water navy. This article has sections called "Countries described as having blue-water navies" and "Countries described as having potential blue-water navies". The rough idea is that a country should have been described in such a way by reliable secondary sources in accordance with WP:RS. So it is not enough for an Indian Navy source to self-categorise in this way, journals and such like must also agree. Further, I think almost everyone agrees that the current nation-focus of the article should be better balanced with general discussion of the topic itself. Thom2002 (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The most reasonable answer to that question is that a blue water navy is one that is called a blue water navy by a person/organisation that is in a position to give an expert judgement on the matter, and does not have a vested interest in "talking up" that particular navy. If The Indian navy calling itself a blue water navy lacks a certain level of impartiality. In any case, as Thom noted, the article is better focused on what a blue water navy is, rather than who is a blue water navy. Rhialto (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Australia?

The Royal Australian Navy does fulfill the criteria of a blue water navy. It has two aircraft carriers and has in the past and at this very moment deployed ships and Naval personnel across oceans. The RAN fulfills the criteria of this mess of a term as much as the RN does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.124.71 (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Its not about us, 121.222.124.71. We're just a bunch of editors. What do the reliable sources say? Does anyone authoritative who isn't the Australian Navy (ie a reliable secondary source) say that the Australian Navy is a Blue Water Navy? Thom2002 (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@176.241.191.226

Please do not add further examples to the blue-water navy section without first gaining consensus on this talk page. Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. That section was meant to show examples to illustrate the concept in any case. It was not intended to be an exhaustive list, merely some examples. A few years ago it was realised that any attempt to make it into a complete list would rapidly lead to ongoing nationalistic chest-beating and edit wars. Rhialto (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Indian Navy, a Blue Water Navy as of 2015.

http://www.indiandefencereview.com/spotlights/indian-navy-the-quest-for-blue-waters/

"Bolstered by her growing capability, India’s ‘blue water’ reach has been displayed by the active deployment of such assets. The Indian Navy’s vision of “Taking to the Blue Waters” has resulted in increased deployments both within and outside IOR, with Indian Navy ships and aircraft being increasingly visible at sea and in ports near and far."

Various official Govt videos also claim that India is already a Blue Water Navy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKliWEtceaA 7.53 ".....As a credible BLUE WATER NAVY"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ry5N_7V6S3s 5.12 " The Blue Water Force...." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.245.175 (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Deployments as Far as the Western Mediterranean and South China Sea simultaneously.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Navy-to-dispatch-four-warships-on-overseas-deployment/articleshow/14101521.cms

"Such long-range deployments, covering the Indian Ocean region (IOR) and beyond, bear testimony to the blue-water capabilities and operational readiness of the Navy, said an officer." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.180.66 (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Listening and interception posts in Madagascar, Oman ,Mauritius and Seychelles.

http://www.aame.in/2013/02/indian-listening-station-in-oman.html http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/india-seychelles-sign-four-pacts-to-boost-security-cooperation/ http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/india-activates-first-listening-post-on-foreign-soil-radars-in-madagascar/205416/

The first link looks credible and reliable and clearly asserts India is a blue-water navy. Unfortunately we cannot accept youtube videos as a reliable source. The latter sources detailing the various listening and interception stations are very useful. Cheers. Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The following link essentially outlines that India is a blue-water navy or possesses significant blue-water capabilities. Consultancy Africa Intelligence (CAI). It is an African based intelligence resource, much like the IISS, if somewhat less prestigious. However, it is nonetheless a reliable source. Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

"potential blue-water navies"

I feel that steps should be made to reduce this section. Currently, undue weight is being given to the "potential blue-water navies" section - that is to say, the countries in that section and listed and presented in a way that gives them a level of undue importance, equal almost to the navies listed as blue-water navies. This is inappropriate. Condensing it into a number of shorter paragraphs and redirecting the reader to the green-water navy article for more detailed information would be better.

This article is first and foremost about the term "blue-water navy" and this should be expanded somewhat significantly more - history? I made moves towards this several months ago, adding bits to the "Attributes of a blue-water navy" section, including academic citations - I intend to do more of this. Secondly, the various navies that have citations for being blue-water navies illustrate the rather ambiguous definitions of the term, which I think is important.

I would like to eventually see this article pass a GA review. It won't in its current state. Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Who?

Thom2002 - Surely there is a better resource than the Defense Security Service to determine what a blue-water navy is? (something more... "naval" ...maybe?) - ^theWOLFchild 06:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

There are a few more definitions given in the article, but as you point out, it is strange that definition provided by the Defense Security Service is being given the priority in the lede. We all know the term 'blue-water navy' is highly ambiguous, but there must be something better, more authoritative.Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

China, Russia

I stumbled across a recent publication by British naval historian and professor, Geoffrey Till, where he asserts China and Russia have blue-water navies. In his interpretation, the USN is a global navy, emphasising its ability to operate in the blue-water of every ocean simultaneously. Antiochus the Great (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I have provided another source that describes the US navy as a global blue water navy. In addition, the same source describes the rest of the blue water navies as "Regional Blue water navies" and include other navies. I have put all these informations (including the other navies described as such) in a sub-section called Regional blue water navies. Barjimoa (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I have left a comment on the matter here on BilCat's talk page. Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Continuing on from the comment I left on BilCat's talk page, I have hidden the "Regional blue-water navies" section from the article for the time being. At-least until a proper consensus is reached and multiple verifiable secondary or third-party sources can be found. Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not think I can find more sources. For most navies here, there is just one clear source (including the ones recently added: China and Russia). For some countries there is not even one source that clearly states that their navy is currently a blue water navy. Most sources are not as clear as the one I have provided. I think that the source i have provided is enough.

I have two minor sources: The website of the Italian navy describing its fleet as a blue water fleet, (this article uses a royal navy's report as a source for claiming that the british navy is a a blue watet navy); and a report from a sort of research center named "Asahi Shimbun Culture Research Centersearch center " that uses the term blue water navy for the Japanese navy.

Barjimoa (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks Barjimoa. Regarding the sources for other countries, did you read the opening paragraph of the section? Because there are three independent reliable sources in that paragraph (2 which support the USA, UK and France, and 1 which supports India). Perhaps they would be better placed in the relevant country paragraphs to avoid confusion. In total, I count 3 sources for the USA, 4 for the UK, 3 for France, 2 for India and 1 each for Russia and China - all of which are independent reliable sources (both second and third-party).

Unfortunately, the source you provided is not an independent second or third-party source. It merely directs to a footnote which quotes the memoirs of Liu Huaqing! Memoirs as you know, are primary sources and Wikipedia has rules on the usage of primary sources. We only tend to use them with caution - and this is an example where we wouldn't use them. This is because, Liu Huaqing is directly affiliated with the subject matter, and his memoirs are obviously not subject to fact-checking, as they are only meant to be a published account of his opinions, views and memories.

I think for now, we should work on getting some second and third-party sources, preferably from various defense experts and academics. This would be a good place to start. Antiochus the Great (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I still think that the source is usable, considering the context of the book in which the sentence is used. Anyway let's wait if other people think that this source is usable in this article. Altough, I do not think we will ever reach a consensus in this article and it will remain a section that no one can see. Barjimoa (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

"According to the latest news"

Wikipedia is not in the business of news aggregation, it is an encyclopaedia based on reputable published material. Also, opinions -even those of former admirals- do not belong here. All countries listed in this article are supported by the published works of academics or defence experts. I don't see why China should be any different.Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

India

I do not think that it is widely accepted that India has a blue-water navy. Certainly if it does it is not due to, or associated with, it having aircraft carriers (since 1961).Royalcourtier (talk) 05:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article does it say India is widely accepted as a blue-water navy. However, several authoritative and reliable sources clearly indicate India is a blue-water navy and possesses power projection capabilities - primarily due to over 50 years experience with aircraft carriers. In fact, in this article, there are more sources supporting India as a power projection navy than there is China. Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

France and Britain need to be removed

The French and British Navies need to be removed from Blue water Navy list. The recent attacks in France by the ISIS and the inability of the French to counter or do anything in Syria shows such tiny navies like the French and the British are no more blue water navies. Need to remove them and clean up the thread.Deltadive (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Is this personal opinion or is it supported by reliable sources? For the record, France responded to the ISIS attacks by deploying their aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle. Thus your statement; "the inability of the French to counter or do anything in Syria" is demonstrably nonsense. Furthermore, I have come across absolutely zero sources that state the size of ones navy equates to blue-water capability. Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Seconding what Antiochus said, navies, blue-water or not, aren't really the appropriate tool for preventing terrorist strikes, especially inland ones. If this is the measure of a blue-water navy, then even the USA fails the criteria, due to 9/11. Rhialto (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

And what did the French do? Went there with an aircraft carrier and then? Waved white flags. Showed some demonstrations to the ISIS who cheered from the ground and then went back claiming victory. French Navy could not do 1/100th of what the Russians did to ISIS. The whole world knows that.Deltadive (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, is this personal opinion or is it supported by reliable sources? If it is the former, then kindly keep your thoughts to yourself. Wikipedia is not a forum. Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Relevant article Post-war fantasies and Brexit: the delusional view of Britain’s place in the world by Mike Finn is Principal Teaching Fellow in Liberal Arts at the University of Warwick, and Honorary Research Fellow in Politics at the University of Buckingham. Link here: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/brexit-view-of-britains-place-in-the-world/ - Britain's Blue Water navy claim dubious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.147.192.25 (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd respect that article a lot more if it was written by a military expert rather than a politics specialist. A military specialist would put far more weight on logistics, which is the real requirement for a bluewater navy. It's all about being able to sustain a force thousands of miles from home, which means AOR's are more significant than aircraft carriers. Otherwise Thailand would be a bluewater navy.Le Deluge (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. The Royal Navy is in shambles and their ships are towed to port every now and then due to electrical failures Reports suggest that the Navy is unable to combat global threats and one day unable to defend its own shores due to low number of warships.Deltadive (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Given the strong pro-military adventurism editorial slant of the Sun newspaper, I'm not sure I'd consider it a reliable and unbiased source on this matter. Rhialto (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The situation is so pathetic that all newspapers are reporting this, not just Sun. Go through the following. Royal Navy £1bn warship is towed back into port with 'technical issues' just two days after setting off to sea, Royal Navy 'woefully low' on warships, Royal Navy risks having 'pathetically low total' of ships, warn MPs, Is the Sun Setting on the Royal Navy? Deltadive (talk) 08:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Any sources from military-specific journalism (e.g., Janes Defence Weekly, Journal of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, or Defense & Security Analysis)? I'd respect them as relevant sources on this matter. The Daily Mail in particular, I once investigated one of their articles, and the only relationship between the research paper they were reporting on and the contents of their article was that the research paper actually existed. The actual conclusions of the research paper were pretty much the opposite of what their article claimed. I think this subject is too specialist for general-issue journalism to paint a clear picture. I doubt there's a single mainstream newspaper in any country that will not say more money needs to be put into their respective country's military defence. Additionally, please note this link's viewpoint. Newspapers are neither academics nor defence experts. Rhialto (talk) 09:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The stamp of approval from Janes Royal Navy surface ship numbers 'woefully low', committee findsDeltadive (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Janes is saying the number of escort ships is "woefully low". It is not saying the Royal Navy isn't a power projection navy.Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

First time i am reading that a Navy with "Woefully low" number of ships is a blue water navy.Deltadive (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The role of Wikipedia is to report what informed commentators say. It is specifically not to examine the evidence and synthesise a conclusion. Conclusions should be left for the readers to draw up, not for the editors. tbh, even if it is in some future date stated that the UK has no longer a true blue-water navy, it would still be appropriate to include a mention of it in this article in order to state that an expert has so declared it, because non-experts might reasonably expect to see it here. IN any case, as noted by the Todd & Lindberg classification system, being a blue-water navy is not a Boolean yes/no question. Finally, pay attention to quotation attributions. Janes did not say it was "woefully low". Janes said that a committee of MPs said that. Rhialto (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

You're right. Hence the report is authentic coming from the Committee that went and looked into the issues that's plaguing British Navy. Nowadays reports are coming that Royal Navy submarine Royally launched a nuclear missile towards the United states probably looking for Trumph. This is followed by another report that the woefully low ships which are said to be state of the art are not so and so noisy that they can be heard 100 miles away by even Russian submarines. And the crew using wooden blocks to keep the noise down. Such a pathetic situation but the ego of British parliamentarians is at stake that they never even released news of the botched missile launch. And still some here thinks that Britain got a blue water Navy. Let's remove it from the list. Deltadive (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Once again. This is an issue so charged with national flag-waving that mainstream journalism, and even less so ISP-based journalism, can not be considered a reliable and well informed source on the topic. For a step of this nature, it would require specialist journals that deal with military matters to give such a statement. Even then, the UK RN has sufficient notability in this specific area that an entry would quite reasonably be required in order to explain its absence in a formal listing of blue water navies. Please, until you have cites from specialist publications, give this a rest. Rhialto (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The article lead sections defines A blue-water navy is a maritime force capable of operating globally; essentially across the deep waters of open oceans. A term more often used in the United Kingdom to describe such a force is a navy possessing maritime expeditionary capabilities. Those navies may be less powerful then decades ago but that doesn´t change their nature. And terrorism or the ability to counter such, which is not their primary objective, has nothing to do with that. ... GELongstreet (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed - we're approaching WP:DEADHORSE territory here. We have one editor's opinion that the UK and France no longer meet the criteria, and zero sources to support the claim. Relative deterioration of naval strength or teething problems with new vessels has nothing to do with it's qualification here (if it did, surely the USN's LCSes, [which have just about all had serious problems] would disqualify it too). Let's move along and do something more productive. Parsecboy (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

After a whole year of beating, I'm pretty sure the horse is well and truly dead. (Hohum ^@) 18:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. The British horse is royally dead.:) Deltadive (talk) 12:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Just to note that the Royal Navy currently has a helicopter carrier on deployment to the Middle East,[8] and a destroyer in the South Atlantic,[9] which rather disproves the original contention. Alansplodge (talk) 09:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Ship deployments are common. Even sail training ships are going far off places. The deployment of just 2 ships tell the lack of power projection capability. on top of that all British attack subs are non-operationalDeltadive (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

This is WP:NOTAFORUM, or a place for WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. Using the Sun as a source will just get you laughed at. You have been told the kind of sources you need to present. Wasting your time with anything else will get no useful result. (Hohum ^@) 18:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The ultra nationalists in here mocked when i said Britain is not a blue water Navy. Now it seems don't have a navy. Go read the reports coming of the kind of situation they are in. [10] Reports of non-availability of any anti-ship missile for a very long time. Forget about anything decent, even subsonic harpoons. Amphibious operations are a necessity for any Navy and Britain is going to decomission even the basic two ships that they got.[11]. Don't forget to read this report from last year.[12] Everything said there is coming true with crew leaving because of low morale.[13] Why blame them when the Royal Navy soon to have fewer ship than landlocked Afghanistan. No ships, No weapons, No sailors and just big mouth in Wikipedia will not make you a Navy. :) Deltadive (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Of those links you gave in the above post, every single one of them is either a mainstream newspaper or sourced from Reuters, a generalist news service that provides articles for mainstream news outlets. You have already been told that for articles of such a specialist nature, specialist journals such as Janes are needed as reliable sources, as national newspapers have a clear interest in downplaying the strength of their respective armed forces (fearmongering sells newspapers). You have been told this time and time again. wp:deadhorse. Rhialto (talk) 07:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Janes, is long dead man. No one reads Janes nowadays. They even scavenge and copy whatever they could get from the same, mainstream newspapers which you mock. The source of all news today is newspapers and social media. And don't forget that Wikipedia runs because of the same and not because of Janes. The ultra nationalism made you all blind. By the way, latest news is Britain is no more a great power either. :) Enjoy. Deltadive (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Italy

someone here has added Italy as possibly Blue- water navy someone can explain me why Italy is not cited in the list yet?, I agree that Italy is green and Blue water similar such the Indian navy , the thing that I cant understand why India is listed when India has the " same" ranking of the " source" "unsourced"! India ranks in the same range of Italy, right? in that "list" appears India, Russia, Italy, Spain and "Brazil" ( really?)--Ivankazz (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Italy according to the main classifiaction list is blue - water navy 3rd type like India and Russia..He even changed 6 with five below the pic to block Italy.He deleted Italy....Some people have strong anti italian acting .I checked Antiochus the Great acting also in Great Power article that is against Italy.He deleted alone Italy without a serious explaining.This is propaganda based on the excluding.I hide you so i'm greater,this is his thinking.I mix Italy with Spain and Brazil so close to them it has a lower profile.Even an idiot realizes this.He thinks to be the only and the best person to know military all over the world or the smartest in propaganda.The matter is why to delete Italy from the article and not why to add it in the article!!!!When Italy people ate with forks your people ate by hands!!!Benniejets (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

but in what Page I can look that ranking of India, Italy, Russia , Spain and Brazil, ? I think that the source is dead link, Because I can't see nothing of that, However as capabilities Italy has deploy aircraft carrier and submarines abroad for military exercies in the coast of the USA and in the Indian Ocean for Military exercises with the US and France, if this is not Blue water navy, then I dont know what means the term blue water navy , However here in Wikipedia we need to work in a good faith without personal attackts.--Ivankazz (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Benniejets I would stop with the accusations I am somehow "anti-Italian" or engaging in "anti-Italian propaganda". Not only could that be considered an attack on my character, but neither you nor Italy are anywhere near interesting or important enough that even people with an "ulterior motive" would want to engage in propaganda against! Furthermore, as per the reliable citation, stop removing Spain and Brazil from the Rank 3 row of the Todd & Lindberg classification system. As for Italy being included in the "Examples" section, what a joke - it currently relies on only three citations from 1989-1996. Hardly evidence it is an example of a modern blue-water navy. Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

You've hidden Italy for long time in this article.It should have been in the blu-water navy list.Nobody cared of it and now you are so interested...strange in psycholgy.Spain and Brazil never were there.Till last year your UK hadn't neither a carrier and it was in great fanfare blu-water navy.This testified by the talk where more than somebody wanted to remove France and UK.I avoid to talk about british air force or army..just because my uncle is british .He lives in Cambridgeshire.Benniejets (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)Benniejets

If you actually bother to follow the citation (it has an ISBN, buy the book on Amazon) you will see that Spain and Brazil are included in the Rank 3 row. As for the rest of your infantile rubbish (I.e of what relevance is your uncle being British etc?) it doesn't explain the lack of modern academic citations referring to Italy as a blue-water navy. Relying on three citations from nearly 20-30 years ago is rather poor, and probably an indication that Italy actually isn't a blue-water navy. The Todd & Lindberg classification system is not a definitive or absolute authoritative classification of navies. That section is merely an overview of how defence experts / academics go about trying to gauge the relative capabilities of navies. It is an academic exercise, nothing more. Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

please guys we need to talk with a good tone, I remember you that we are in a community, exist also sanctions for the intolerance and racism.

But still I dont see the source , someone please can show me the " source" of India, Italy, Russia , Spain and Brazil, ?. actually Italy has deployed aircraft carrier in the indian ocean , submarines in the US and the Indian ocean, if India is listed and Have the same "rank" and examples of Italy, why Italy shouldnt be listed as a example of Blue water navy?, I never heard that Spain or Brazil has deploy ships in the US or Indian ocean .--Ivankazz (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Ivankazz, the citation contains an ISBN so I guess you would have to try Amazon, your local library or some other method. I cannot help you there. But Benniejets repeatedly removing sourced material is against Wikipedias rules. Antiochus the Great (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I like that probably you wrote,it's very scientific.Today italian navy with around 300000 tonne has the same size of french and british navy.You don't attack France for the faer UK to be attcked.To low the others to appear bigger it's old like the world.You care of a low profile of Italy and a lot .This to make appear UK greater.You aren't respecting rules being original.Benniejets (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Both France and the UK have a ton of modern reliable sources asserting they are blue-water navies. Italy? None! That is my issue.Antiochus the Great (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Italy is in a main study reference not in a secondary one.You wrote probably.This already shows you are guilty.Verba volant scripta manent.You set another time France aside UK.heheBenniejets (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

well, a country that has been categorised as a "regional blue-water navy" as in the same case of China or India , deserves to be listed like examples of Blue water Navy . people that talk about reliable source only wants make an exclusion. even here in the pic that I have added shows the Italian military Capabilities of Today. Italian Aircraft Carrier Cavour appears in the Indian Ocean together with the Aircraft Carriers of the US and France. it is funny because in the ranking "World Naval Hierarchy, according to the Todd & Lindberg classification system .(2015) shows that even Brazil and Spain should be inclueded like examples. Looking at this and with the examples that Italy posses TODAY ,I think that a country that has deployed aircraft carriers and submarines in the United States of America, Haiti, Indian ocean, etc, can be called :Blue- water navy. or at least regional Blue water navy but always Blue!, : "World Naval Hierarchy,

according to the Todd & Lindberg classification system ." says that Italy has the same range of India and Russia. LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)