Talk:Blue-water navy/Archive 1

Dispute:
The recently expanded list of navies includes more green water navies than blue water. Whilst there is always an element of subjectivity involved, I fail to see how, for example, the Brazilian navy can be classified as blue water when their naval infantry / marine capabilities are minimal. Credibility doesn't just mean having ships in dock. They have to work, the support has to work, the different areas of naval forces have to be balanced for the navys size, and there has to be a history of political will of the nation concerned to use those forces. That is what a credible ability to power project means to me.

Thoughts anyone ?--jrleighton 07:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The Brazilian navy has at least one functional aircraft carrier, the São Paulo. But you are welcome to improve the list. Rama 09:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that list is too long. Germany for instance hasn't got a blue water navy. David 10:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * agreed Australia's Navy is not a blue water one any more.User:bigkev

Maybe I am not all that clear in my head about what a blue water navy actually is. I would have though that the ability to have reasonable warship sailing offshore for months, for instance to patrol main sailing lines, would fit in this category, but apparently it is more subtle than this. Maybe my mistake can be used to make the article even clearer. Rama 08:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Under people's republic of China, it says that they do not currently have a blue-water navy, but are working towards one. I am by no means knowledgeable in this subject, but thought perhaps someone here could look into this or at least explain the disparity between the two DaveyE

I think the Indian and chinese navies are not considered blue water navy yet.


 * It is stupid to define anything without a proper defintion first. Wandalstouring 08:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Definition of Blue water navy
In my viewpoint, the blue water navy should be composed of at least 1. 1 aircraft carrier 2. sizeable amount of naval capability Also, the nations should be willing to maintain a offshore power projection capability. It would mean that if the navy requires to operate for months outside the country region, it should be able to do it.

So, I think we should classify the navies and "blue water" and "Potential blue water" navy.

I think, china, india, and some other can come into potential ones, wheras UK,US,Russia etc are true blue water navy. -Vinay Khaitan 08:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree with vkhaitan; aircraft carriers are not necessary for a navy to be Blue-water. Rather it is about 'Force Projection'. The US for example has used carriers as their main means of force-projection. The Soviet Union always planned to project power using a submarine heavy navy although they also had other large surface units such as the Kirov class. Blue-water means an ability to sustain operations is deep waters away from home. To this end Australia, China, S. Korea, India etc do not have this capability. Nor in fact do most of them want it. The French, British, Americans and Russians do. One might add Italy into the list as they have large surface vessels capable of independent operations. The concept of green-water navy in effect describes the abilities of China, India and Brazil amongst others, to project regional power. A single ship operating in international waters does not prove blue water capabilities nor does the ownership of a carrier. A carrier is no use if it goes down with all hands to a submarine and a single destroyer or frigate is vulnerable to air, surface or submarine threats. A final comment; typically a navy is tailored towards it main mission. The Swedish Navy has no need for Blue Water capabilities. Similarly the Israeli navy operating in shallow waters would be crazy to deploy major surface units such as carriers as they would be vulnerable. Hence the debate is not about status but tasking.130.237.175.198 08:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right about "Blue water navy" being equivalent to "ability to have power projection". But Without Aircraft carriers, you just can't exert force on land powers. Aircrafts are necessary to have operation on lands(With ability to transfer army personnel and keep ration supply open). Submarines and destroyers are necessary and only good, in general, for Sea operations(Some missile capabilities are not enough for land operations). I hope, you do know that Aircraft carriers are never left alone, instead they are surrounded by many submarines and destroyers to protect them. So aircraft carriers are necessary for any country if it wants to maintain blue-water navy. As you said, it is all about power projection, hence you dont need to actually use aircraft-carriers for deep water operations, but for projection, it is must.

There seem to be two separate concepts at work here. The article header says "deep ocean power projection" ability. For ocean-centred operations, airpower is nice but in no way essential, as submarines and missiles can do teh job just as well of projecting force against naval targets (presumably the only targets in an area of deep ocean). For coastal operations agaisnt shore-based targets, airpower is today considered essential for a naval force, but even there, missiles can do the job, and even submarines with the proper missile loadout and supported by GPS (or equivalent) can do it credibly. It's certainly worth noting that while the Royal Navy has aircraft carriers, the nuclear submarines are today considered their primary capital ships, at least as much as their carriers.

I'd say a blue water navy requires a capital/command ship (this is almost weasel-wordy, but I want to allow for pre-modern navies in this definition), properly supported in a fleet formation by smaller ships, with roles and technology appropriate for the era, and sufficient logistics and political support to sustain extended (at least 6 months) active combat operations away from home waters.

I'm also curious as to why there isn't an article about white water navies. I'm sure I've seen the term somewhere before.

Rhialto 06:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm pulling the PLAN because I certainly know they are not a blue-water navy. All reports about them discuss them moving towards having that capability, so they can't be at the moment. The Russian Navy should also be pulled because it doesn't have the operational capacity to operate anywhere - it can barely get its surface ships to sea. On paper, sure, but we're not talking about theory. John Smith&#39;s 16:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The PLAN is considered a blue-water navy. It is comparable to the other navies on the list such as the Indian Navy.


 * The PLAN does not have an aircraft carrier, for one thing. But more importantly if you check the wiki PLAN page itself you will find the following:
 * "As part of its overall program of naval modernization, the PLAN has a long term plan of developing a blue water navy."
 * If other navies don't deserve to be on there, that doesn't mean the PLAN should stay there. Please do not comment on issues you clearly aren't knowledgable about. Only nationalist geeks would think the PLAN is blue-water - seriously-minded people know it is still trying to achieve such a status. John Smith&#39;s 21:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * An aircraft carrier is not a criteria for blue water navy. The fact is the PLAN is at least comparable to most of the Navies on the list such as the Indian Navy. Please read No personal attacks. RevolverOcelotX


 * Sorry, did you just ignore what I said about the PLAN article on wiki? Because I think you're trying to dodge the issue. I don't care if the Indian Navy is on the list. The PLAN is not blue-water. Blue water is not defined by whether a navy is "comparable" to another. The PLAN lacks sufficient power projection capabilities. I'll even give you another source for this:
 * "But the PLAN remains little more than a "brown water" coastal defense with limited "green water" capabilities."
 * Now are you going to address this, or do I have to ask for arbitration on this point? John Smith&#39;s 21:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Also I have found numerous references to the Indian Navy being blue water. For example:
 * "India entered the 21st Century with a small but formidable regional naval posture. Long considered a "blue water" navy, the Indian Navy faces major challenges as many of its major vessels near the end of their service lives. Indigenous shipbuilding efforts are struggling to achieve acceptable levels of productivity and efficiency."
 * Now, Revolver, are you going to ignore this point as well? How many military resources can you access that say the PLAN is blue-water and the Indian Navy is not? John Smith&#39;s 21:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact is that most of the other navies on the list are NOT truly blue-water navies either. That is explained by this intro, "Other navies may or may not be, depending on the precise criteria used." Note that none of the navies listed are cited on the actual article, so removing only the PLAN is POV-pushing on your part. Stop selectively removing only the PLAN, when other navies on the list such as the Australian, Indian, Italy, ect. is at least comparable to the PLAN. RevolverOcelotX


 * Jesus wept, the page I quoted said the Indian Navy WAS blue-water and that the PLAN was NOT blue-water. It is not POV pushing, it is using the knowledge I have available. The entire problem people like you have is that you don't have any in-depth knowledge of these affairs. The PLAN is big, but a lot of it is old or not very sophisticated. It has little power-projection. However what I will do is check up on the rest of those navies and pull them unless I can find a reference that says they are blue-water. But the Indian Navy will stay up there until you can find something credible that says it is not blue-water. And if you think the PLAN is blue-water I want to see military resources refering to it in that way.
 * The introduction should be removed. It's silly to have a list of "blue-water navies" if the navies in them are not blue-water. John Smith&#39;s 21:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't verify any of your statements. Name your sources when quoting and remember wikipedia is NO source. Wandalstouring 23:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources that say other navies are blue-water

 * Where is your actual source that says the Indian Navy is truly a blue-water navy? The Indian Navy is indeed comparable to the PLAN, they could both be considered potential blue-water navy. Having one aircraft carrier is not a criteria for a blue-water navy. At best, India is comparable to the PLAN. Australia, Italy, India, and the others on the list do not have blue-water capability. Nor in fact do most of them want it. RevolverOcelotX


 * The original source was the same one for the PLAN - globalsecurity. But because INS Vikrant was recently decommissioned I think it may have lost that status. How about a revised list of Australia, France, UK and US? Or do you want the Australian Navy pulled as well leaving just France, US and UK? John Smith&#39;s 22:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Australia's Navy should be pulled out as well since its not really considered a blue-water navy, nor is it actively seeking it. China, India, Russia, and some others can be put into a list of list of Potential blue-water navies. RevolverOcelotX


 * If there are two lists, they should be "Current Blue-water Navies" (France, US and UK) and "Potential Future Blue-water Navies". "Potential" by itself is too vague. The PLAN and Indian Navy could be included under the second list, as should the JMSDF (as they have a significant building programme on at the moment). However the Russian Navy should remain off any list, as they don't have the money to operate the ships they have at the moment. John Smith&#39;s 22:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thats seems good, we should also add citations for each of the navies on the list. RevolverOcelotX


 * Can I possibly rely on you to dig some up? I have some, but am too tired to do it now. Just find an article that mentions their plans/current status and put them in. I'll do something tomorrow if I have the time. John Smith&#39;s 22:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Potential?
I dont think you should say potential becauase any navy has the potential just a lot of building up you should say something like likely or canidate bluewater navies


 * I think it's a slightly difficult topic, as it's impossible to predict what will happen in the near future. If someone can think of a better title that expresses potential with the likelihood of it happening, please make some suggestions below. John Smith&#39;s 00:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree it is a difficult topic, and I was almost tempted to suggest that that section be dropped entirely. It's not as if we routinely add every future teller's prediction to the site after all. The wikipedia should contain facts rather than prophesy. I think in the case of the potential blue water navies, there should be some detailed commentary on where each navy is working towards that goal, and areas where it is currently lacking with no effort being made. Rhialto 01:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Lets erase the potential part.

Disputed entries in actual/potential blue water navies
This is of course a controversial issue. My stand from now on is that unless the editor has an established background in this field (from their history of edits on wikipedia), any change to the lists that lacks a specific justification will be reverted. This is especially the case for any navy moved to or from the potential list, as we have already established a convention on this page for writing a paragraph to justify teh presence of any navy in that section. This convention itself was an attempt to avoid some of the disputes, by allowing lesser navies a place to have their candidacy discussed.

Rhialto 13:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Disputed navies discussion
Please place any discussion of specific navies under this section, with the name of the country as a level 3 (ie 3 equals signs) header. Please keep each subsection to a discussion of that specific navy. Arguments along the lines of "X is in so Y should be in" tend to come across as rather jingoistic, especially when placed to derail discussion of a different fleet.

The general consensus of the people here seems to be that a blue water navy should compose of one or more major force projection units (usually aircraft carriers in 20th C navies), a suport group of smaller units, plus the logistics and political support to deploy that force in a distant ocean for an extended period in a situation where they expect to encounter significant and comparable opposition. It also seems to be generally agreed that a blue water navy should be reported as such by one or more major publications or websites that deal with this topic.

Rhialto 05:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Australia
"The navy's blue-water fleet lacks air cover and logistical support due to the lack of a carrier." 

Brazil
Brazil does have a navy that is theoretical capable of blue water operations (including a carrier), and apparently the navy makes purchase plans based on blue water rather than riverine/green water strategy. However, it demonstrates no political will to use this navy in blue water operations, nor is there any sign that it plans to do so. Brazilian Navy Rhialto 23:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Brazil cannot be in the list, since they have an old AC that will be decomissioned any time. A 50 year old ship. They don't have any plan to have an aircraft carrier and their Navy is a small one. Chanakyathegreat 14:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Completly wrong, they have an AC and it works. Wandalstouring 14:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Canada
"Like the Royal Navy, MARCOM has blue-water capability"

So, alongside the US and UK navies, it is clear these two and the Indian Navy can stay (see previous sources for Indian navy). Also the French Navy - no one would dispute they're blue-water either. Others should be removed until people can prove they are blue-water. John Smith&#39;s 21:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * First you can't use other Wikipedia articles as sources for the Canadian Navy. Depending on the exact criteria as stated in the intro, the PLAN can be considered a blue-water navy. These other navies on the list need sources as well or they should be removed, Italy, Netherlands, Spain. RevolverOcelotX


 * Fine, Canada can go to. But wikipedia can't re-define a word. As I have repeatedly said, no military authorities say that the PLAN is current blue-water. I am happy for the list to be revised (I actually said that Italy et al should go) so that it would only include Australia, France, India, US and UK. Please stop going on about how the PLAN is "comparable" to the Indian Navy. That does not mean the PLAN is blue-water. I have provided a source to say the Indian Navy is blue-water, so please tell me why that site also says the PLAN is no better than green-water. John Smith&#39;s 21:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed Canada from the main page, added by an anonymous user. Their largest units are 4 aging (apparently due to be retired by the end of the decade) mid-size destroyers. There doesn't appear to be any major construction projects for a carrier, let alone a replacement destroyer project. Even the original proposer noted that they only have blue water capability when working together with a foreign navy. By that standard, most navies could claim the same status. Nonetheless, I have opened up the discussion page for counter arguments. Rhialto 05:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Link Link


 * I would need to see a credible source that said Canada had a blue-water navy. I think that its decline over the years has meant it doesn't have the status any more. John Smith&#39;s 10:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The Current AOR's and the future JSS ships allow Canada to deploy and command a task force anywhere on the globe. Just recently in January 2002 six vessles were deployed at one time to the Persian Gulf as part of OP Apollo, including a DDH, an AOR, and several FFH's. Over the two years of the mission warships sailed 18 times from Canadian ports in support of that mission, while maintaining other obligations as well.

Re: the destroyers, they are not at the end of their service life yet, are in fact capable vessles having undergone several major modifications. Their current role is Area Air Defence. In anticipation of the time they do reach the end of their life, there are ongoing discussions regarding a possible transition to a single hulled fleet, modifying an already existing design to fit the role, etc. etc. Canada will maintain the ability to command and control the airspace over its taskforces. (anonymous - please consider registering and signing your posts)

For the sake of argument I'll take your word for it that those destroyers are still in top shape. They are only 34 years old. However, any fleet where the most significant unit is a destroyer cannot, in the modern age, be considered a blue water navy, because it will be usually outclassed and certainly outranged by any navy that does have a carrier. yes, those destroyers can provide defensive air cover. But without aircraft of their own, they cannot *project* power at any meaningful distance in modern naval terms. Rhialto 06:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with your insistance upon a carrier. The term blue water navy, as I have been expoused to it, referrs to the ability to sustain naval operations across the oceans - not whether or not you can deploy aircraft as part of that operation. I would ask that you provide references citing the need for aircraft in this regard. (anonymous - please consider registering and signing your posts)

"Heavily influenced by his exposure to top Russian naval experts during his studies in the Soviet Union as a young officer in the 1950s, Liu advocated that China should have aircraft carriers as the backbone of a "blue water" navy that could deploy beyond the country's coastal waters"

"Ideally, the country needs three carriers in order to realise its ambitions of being a 'blue water naval power'. "

"That raises the question of whether China will opt for an aircraft carrier - the centerpiece of a real blue-water navy. "

"Being a blue water navy envisages two. important concepts; sea control and sea denial... The continued relevance of aircraft carrier in China's strategic thinking lies in the fact that sea control and sea denial can only be achieved through air superiority."

"The best option would always be to have a blue water Navy that would not only protect Pakistan’s coast but also its sea-lanes so that trade and commerce would proceed unhindered. This would require a very strong Navy, a battle fleet capable of maneuvering deep into the Indian Ocean and threatening the entire Indian Coastline. Given the geographical considerations the air power for such a fleet would come from an aircraft carrier, which by itself would also require its own protection."

"Senior navy personnel warned without a carrier, Australia would be vulnerable to all types of threat. One ex-Chief of Navy went so far as to claim that we would no longer have a blue-water navy (one capable of operating away from friendly coasts). "

"The Chinese naval strategists and practitioners have long argued that an aircraft carrier is an important element of any blue water naval force structure. Without the carrier, any ocean going taskforce is limited in its area of operation, due to non-availability of air cover. "

OK, that's 7 different sources, all citing a carrier as an essential component of a blue water navy. If you want to continue to disagree, that's fine, but it then becomes the word of Mrs Hannigan from grade seven over cited sources. Rhialto 05:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Careful reading of your quotations shows that there are blue water navies like the Australian Navy in need of an aircraft carrier to continue being a blue water navy. So they are currently a blue water navy without a carrier. Wandalstouring 14:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Australian Navy seems to be a small Navy and it will take time for them to expand into a good force. At present their capability is limited in supporting U.S forces by being a small part of it. Even with Aircraft carriers their ability to project power on their own will be limited and hence will be a Navy with limited blue water capabability. Chanakyathegreat 06:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

France
The French Navy section need to be updated with the warships details. There can be seperate parts for present ships and future ships, then it will give a good understanding of the navy. For accurate edition the following link may help. http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/europe/france.htm --Chanakyathegreat 15:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Current French Navy ships shows the present navy, and makes mention of some of the planned classes. The future classes are noted in The French Navy in the 21st Century. Rhialto 15:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Germany
Discuss about German navy here. Chanakyathegreat 13:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason for Germany cannot be in the list is because, it is similar to the Spanish Navy argument that we had. The German seems to be a decent Navy with advanced ships and subs. When we look at the expansion programme ,there is not much to see. Not even plans for AC's. Hence cannot be even in the potential list. Chanakyathegreat 14:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There are plans for something differing from conventional aircraft carriers. transport ships with flat paved decks, that can be attached together like lego. It would be capable of serving as helicopter carrier at least. It was in the news some time ago. Currently the German navy guards Libanon waters, using helicopters which are based on their ships. Wandalstouring 14:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon is nothing. There will no intervention from the sea except it seems like a monitoring mission to find anyone violates the ceasefire and to prevent the smuggling of arms by Hizbollah by sea. I think it is under a UN coalition initiative (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) rather than an intervention by Germany. Helicopter carriers are of no much use as compared to an aircraft carrier. And Germany's contribution to this mission is two frigates and four fast attack crafts.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-08/18/content_4976682.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5342062.stm

Chanakyathegreat 07:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Had a bad day? I only said they have helis on board. Wandalstouring 07:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

India
You should either add the Indian navy to the list or remove the Spanish navy which even did not have destroyers from the list of blue water navy. When you compare the two navies you will come to the conclusion that Indian navy is far more formidable than the Spanish navy. Also if Indian naval doctrine says that they will be a blue water navy in the near future then no navy in the world except the U.S navy can be called blue water navy.

The U.S navy's Admiral Calls the Indian Navy a World class Navy. http://specials.rediff.com/news/2006/may/31sld01.htm

A world class navy is surely a Blue water Navy.


 * No, it is not. Besides I have already quoted an article saying that India is SEEKING a blue-water navy. John Smith&#39;s 14:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the composition of the two (Spain and India) navies, I note that the Indian flagship carrier is over 20 years older than the Spanish one. Both navies have plans to get a replacement in the near future, but Spain's will be new construction while India's will be a refitted older ship. Regarding the smaller ships and Spain's lack of 'destroyer' classes, it should be borne in mind that the modern concepts of frigate and destroyer are very blurred. Quite often, the classification reflects politics and procurement policies rather than actual performance. Spain's frigates are certainly good enough to function in fleet actions. For what it's worth, if/when India comissions a carrier hull less than 45 years old, I'd happily place it as a blue water navy. Rhialto 22:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The Indian Navy is well performing in fleet actions as seen in the recent Indo-US coperation in the war against terror. Indian Navy operates from the tip of South Africa to the Malacca straits. Also they visit various ports that are very far away even the U.S. The recent one I read is about the Indian navies port call in Greece.

Also the argument that the Aircraft carrier must be new then only it can be called a blue water navy is wrong. The AC must be able to function its role in present environment. The Indian AC is modified and carries the upgraded Sea Harriers along with the AEW Ka-31 helis. The Indian Carrier carries more aircrafts and helis than the Spanish Ship and the displacement of the Spanish ship is 17,190t full load where as the IN AC is 28,700 tons (full). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Viraat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_aircraft_carrier_Principe_de_Asturias

The Gorshkov or the INS Vikramaditya will be commissioned in the year 2007-08 and the ADS in the year 2012.

Also if the Spanish Navy can be considered as the Blue water navy with small number of offensive platform, the Indian Navy with AC, Destroyers and Frigates is surely a Blue water navy. (unsigned)

Hi. First, please, please, please, sign your posts (use four tilde (~) marks). It makes it very hard to follow the dialogue without that.

Regarding the co-operative action with the US navy, I personally would not count any such co-operative action as evidence of blue water navy status for any navy. A key point is that the navy should have all the necessary elements to perform these missions *independantly*. Any co-operative action is at best proof that the two navies combined have such status, but is not evidence that either independantly has such status. Canada has been discounted for the same reason.

You mention that the navy has made a port of call in Greece. Can you give a cite for this?

Second, you said the Indian aircraft carrier carries more warships. Perhaps you meant aircraft? The Viraat carries 28 compared to 24 on the Principe de Asturias. That's not a huge difference really. I could point out that the Principe has superior AA defences. I'm not going to get into a pishing contest on that.

My point is that any ship hull inevitably gets weaker as it ages, regardless of how many refits are done. At 45 years, the Viraat is far older than almost any active fleet unit in any modern navy, and so unless India has access to some secret technology, that hull will not be as strong structurally as an equivalent newer hull. Significantly, from the INS Viraat page here, I note that the ship has spent approximately 5 years total in refit or repair since the Indian navy acquired the hull 10 years ago. A ship that spends almost half it's life in port for maintenance isn't really that reliable.

Finally, the INS Vikramaditya is utterly irrelevant on the question of India's status as a blue water navy, as it has not yet been comissioned. I do however consider it's planned purchase and comissioning as evidence of India's status as a *potential* blue water navy.

Rhialto 06:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your argument that joining the U.S task force an patrolling and carrying out mission will not make a navy Blue water but will solely depend on the navies capability to do so. Indian navy is doing it for many year and it has done it in Mozambique providing protection during the African Union meet there. Also Indian navy is visiting most of the nations as part of the Naval diplomacy. This are the latet news on port calls by Indian Navy. And Indian Navy was the first navy to respond during the Asian Tsunami crisis.

Greece

http://www.ana.gr/anaweb/user/showprel?service=3&maindoc=4411524

Australia

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK0607/S00022.htm

Thailand

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/06/18/headlines/headlines_30006712.php

Indonesia and New Zealand

http://english.people.com.cn/200607/03/eng20060703_279491.html

Tonga

http://www.matangitonga.to/article/tonganews/defence/navy110706.shtml

Ships ready to evacuate Indians from Lebanon

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2006/20060719/main3.htm

I had mentioned that being old is not a problem till it is capable of doing it job properly. In Anti-Aircraft arena the INS Viraat is armed with the Israeli built Barak Missiles. http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/sea_missiles/barak/Barak.html

Compared to the Spanish navies 10 main warships the IN has 21 warships.

Also the Spanish Navy has only 4 submarines compared to the Indian Navy's 14(+2).

--Chanakyathegreat 07:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You haven't answered the most critical point. India's sole major force projection unit is out of service for repair or refit as often as not. Under those circumstances, it cannot sincerely claim to have a reliable major force projection unit at all. Rhialto 08:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The refit was carried out to modernise the AC to the present standard. It was an extensive refit that will help the AC to function smoothly till 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Viraat --Chanakyathegreat 12:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

According to that page, there were a number of refits, not just one, with purposes varying from conversion to Indian military standards, to upgrades, and even actual repairs. Regardless of the exact purpose, the critical point is that during those 5 years of refit, the ship was effectively out of service. To summarise the data on that page:

Apr 1986 - May 1987 (initial conversion refit) (13 months) Sep 1993 - ??? 1995 (damage repairs) (assume Jan, so 17 months) Jul 1999 - Apr 2001 (refit) (22 months) mid 2003 - Nov 2004 (damage repairs) (assume July start, so 17 months)

Add it all up - 5 years and 9 months. That's over half the time the ship is out of commission. Even if you only consider the actual *repair* time when the ship systems failed in some way, that's still 1/3 of the time out of commission. It seems reasonable to suppose that *something*, probably the age of the hull, has had a significant effect on its usefulness.

Rhialto 12:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ships are taken out for refits either due problems or due to installation of new system. In the case of INS Viraat both has happened. First was the Damage repairs and all later it was the installation of new communications sytems, new radars and then again for Installation of Barak AA missile system. At present the INS Viraat is working fine. And till the INS Viraat is out of service can we conclude that Indian Navy is a blue water navy. --Chanakyathegreat 13:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As I've said repeatedly, all relevant articles and documents say that Indian is working towards gaining a blue-water navy - or perhaps it would be more accurate to say regaining one. Unless you can come up with credible, accessible information that says it has a blue-water navy, please drop this point and let the page stay as it is. John Smith&#39;s 20:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The Indian navies Vision document did not specify of any blue water. I cannot find it there. Can you tell me the page number of the document. I had posted a link to project Seabird. Let's discuss the blue water status of IN after the Vision document details are provided.

--Chanakyathegreat 06:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles that say that Indian Navy is a blue water navy

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030813/main5.htm Stating that there had been a change in the operating philosophy of the Indian Navy, the Admiral remarked: “We are a blue water navy and we operate like a blue water navy.”

http://indiannavy.nic.in/cns_add6.htm 6. Whenever an Indian-built warship sails into a foreign port today, it receives looks of admiration, not unmixed with surprise that a third world industry is capable of such sophistication. We are fortunate that the seeds of a self-reliant blue-water Navy were laid by our far sighted predecessors when they embarked on the brave venture of undertaking modern warship construction in this country four decades ago. We certainly need to acknowledge that our shipyards have done us proud by delivering 85 warships to the navy in this period.

http://community.middlebury.edu/~scs/docs/Indian%20Navy%20deploys%20warships%20in%20South%20China%20Sea.doc To further project its blue water capability, the Indian Navy has deployed five of its frontline warships in the South China Sea.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GJ19Df03.html

If anyone has any objections please report it here.

--Chanakyathegreat 08:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Way I see it, India lacks a viable aircraft carrier, or any equivalent major force projection unit, for the time being. The debate pretty much ends there. Rhialto 12:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Your statement is based on pure imagination that India is lacking a viable aircraft carrier. The Aircraft carriers performance is solely based on its present form. The following link gives the proof of INS Viraat exercising with the U.S Navy during the Malabar Exercise. The latest news on INS Viraat operating was on May 6 2006. http://www.indianembassy.org/Navy1/1.htm

Also the latest news on IN being a Blue-Water Navy http://in.news.yahoo.com/060506/139/641yt.html

--Chanakyathegreat 03:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You did not look into what Admiral has said. Just pinpointing a single word is not enough. Provided below is what Admiral has said. "India is a growing economy and the Navy has the onerous task of safeguarding such a vast maritime boundary. The Navy is said to be a true Blue Water Navy when it can operate for long hours at the sea, We are a Blue Water Navy and have to monitor a vast stretch from Africa to the Straits of Malacca," said Admiral Prakash.

From the above comments made we can conclude that Indian navy is a blue water navy because India has vast maritime boundary and IN safeguards it by operating for long hours at sea and the IN operates from Africa to the Malacca straight.

If you are unconvinced, I will add another link http://www.defenceindia.com/08-mar-2k4/news34.html

Also before removing a link strong evidence must be provided.

--Chanakyathegreat 11:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Since no one has any claims I am adding Indian Navy to the list of Blue water navies. If any claims exists it must be discussed. --Chanakyathegreat 14:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

That defenceindia.com article makes no mention of India being a blue water navy, except to quote an Indian admiral. Anyone commenting on their employer is not in a position to give an unbiased opinion.

The tribuneindia article contains nothing to suggest that they are operating at any meaningful distance away from a friendly port. They aren't expending any significant amount of ammunition in that operation, and other supplies can be easily obtained from any port not directly involved in hostilities in that conflict.

The matangitonga article notes that the last goodwill visit was 46 years earlier. In any case, goodwill visits by warships are a standard operation done by green water navies too. If there were regular visits by a significant fleet enforcing Indian foreign policy via gunboat diplomacy, that would be different. Solo destroyers prove nothing about blue water navy status. A ship is not a navy.

The yahoo.com article regarding the Indian admiral's statement that India has a blue water navy, I don't think he can really be considered an impartial source of information on the topic of India's navy. No sensible person, and admirals are no exception, is going to go on public record criticising their employer.

Rhialto 06:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What about this. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3454.htm The Indian Navy is by far the most capable navy in the region. They currently operate one aircraft carrier with two on order, 14 submarines, and 15 major surface combatants. The navy is capable of projecting power within the Indian Ocean basin and occasionally operates in the South China Sea, the Mediterranean Sea and the Arabian Gulf. Fleet introduction of the Brahmos cruise missiles and the possible lease of nuclear submarines from Russia will add significantly to the Indian Navy’s flexibility and striking power. The Navy’s primary missions are the defense of India and of India’s vital sea lines of communication. India relies on the sea for 90% of its oil and natural gas and over 90% of its foreign trade.

--Chanakyathegreat 05:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Being the best in the region is not the same as being blue water. Israel is a good example that demonstrates that difference.

On a slightly different topic, can we get a better picture to illustrate the Indian navy? The current one is a night photo, and I must admit it is utterly impossible to identify any particular shape as being a ship. I'm sure we have better pictures somewhere. Rhialto 10:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Area can be wider also. Israeli navy is best in and around Mediteranean sea and the Black sea but Indian Navy's operation is in the Indian ocean and it has started operating in the South China sea and Persian Gulf.

Regarding the image, I think it is a beautiful image. Let me try to find a better one.

Chanakyathegreat 14:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Italy
I added Italy to the list, since Italy does have a functioning aircraft carrier. If Canada is on the list, Italy should be too. V. Joe 05:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Japan
For those that do not think it will be a blue-water navy in the future, please read this. Also this page has an interesting comment - "The JMSDF may be called a self-defense force but in capabilities, warships and power projection assets, it is a true blue water navy." John Smith&#39;s 14:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

In terms of current capability, the Japanese Navy has no aircraft carriers, which are generally considered essential for naval superiority today. They also have no plans to build such a ship. That first link you provided appears to lead to a model making website, and its relvance seems somewhat distant. There is a programme for a new destroyer class, the Atago, to be built. And while they are certainly superb examples of the destroyer concept, they are still only destroyers, and notably lack the Tomahawk missile system. I'd want to see a much more ambitious construction programme before I could consider Japan to have ambitions to a true blue water navy. Aircraft carriers (or capital class submarines) are an essential component of a blue water navy in my opinion.

Now, Japan is demonstrably capable of supporting a fleet in extended operations in distant waters. However, it is worth bearing in mind that it is operating exclusively in either a non-combat role, or at most, a police role. It is certainly not engaging in active combat operations against anything that could plausibly be described even as a 4th rate navy. The ships it is facing up against are, at most, armed smugglers, not military ships. This action does not fit the standard for active sustained *combat* operation. If we allow police actions as sufficient to count a navy as blue water, then even Chile and Denmark should be counted.

Executive summary: It has not yet demonstrably performed as a true blue water navy should be expected to. The construction programme, while impressive, lacks the capital ships and certain key armaments that would be needed for it to be considered a blue water navy given the modern fleets around today.

Rhialto 02:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I had a look at the article you referenced as a cite source, and while interesting, it proves the opposite case, that Japan is NOT a blue water navy. The headline in itself is not important, as headlines are almost always written for maximum dramatic impact. Reading through the body, I found this line, "For the blue water interdiction ambitions of the MSDF, four years of practical experience in the Indian Ocean is invaluable." So clearly, they are said to have ambitions to be a blue water navy, which certainly implies they are not currently seen as one. The Indian Ocean exercises are certainly an adequate test of the logistics of extended operations, but I still maintain that without a carrier program, any ambitions to be a true blue water navy are dead in the water.

Executive sumamry: The article demonstrates that Japan is working towards the blue water navy goal on the logistics front, but does not show any attempt to move towards that goal on the procurement front.

Rhialto 15:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I never said the JMSDF was currently blue-water (given I listed it on the other list), only that some might argue that.
 * The Atago is irrelevant, because the JMSDF already has world-class ships. More importantly you've ignored the new DDH class, which I did actually point out on your talk page. Now if you think you know enough about the MSDF to say it isn't blue-water, you can tell me quite easily what the significance of that project is.
 * The secondary list has been changed to reflect what may happen (within reason), given that no one has a crystal ball to predict the future and say what will happen. Not only has Japan embarked on an impressive naval rearmament programme, it has also passed or is passing legislation to make it a lot easier to deploy its naval forces.
 * Now, given that wikipedia is not about personal research, can you find me some articles from credible sources that say Japan won't have a blue-water navy in the future? John Smith&#39;s 15:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the ship profile. I'd long known about the DDH project, but that's the first time I'd seen any drawings or details of the specification. It almost looks like it was officially called a DDH instead of a CVL to hide it from the bureaucratic axe. You don't have a landing deck that big for just 4 helicopters. I'm satisfied that it's on its way to being a true blue water navy. Rhialto 12:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, glad I was able to bring you up to speed. Those girls will be pretty useful - I can't wait to see them completed. But the Atago-class isn't in service yet, so for now I'd like to keep those destroyers listed as "future". John Smith&#39;s 13:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is an artilce about Japanese Navy being blue water http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/political_science/MIIIE/chinaInternal.htm

Japan has a large "blue water navy" with more and better ships, planes.

--Chanakyathegreat 08:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Way I see it, Japan lacks a viable aircraft carrier, or any equivalent major force projection unit, for the time being. The debate pretty much ends there. Rhialto 12:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

O.K. If Aircraft carriers are the criteria, we can add Japan into the list of blue water navy, is they start operating the Helicopter carrier and they purchase the F-35's or anyother VTOL aircrafts.

--Chanakyathegreat 05:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Does the japanese navy has enought oceanic logistic ships to suport his battle group far from Japan? moreover, does Japan intends to operate his battlegroups far from Japan (like in the IIWW)?

--Marneus 17:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Korea, South
Koreas government has the official policy of having a blue water navy by 2020: President Kim said, ``We will soon have a strategic mobile fleet that protects state interests in the five big oceans and play a role of keeping peace in the world.''

To reach this goal the Korean Navy is on its biggest expansion ever and has ordered or recently commissioned:

3 KDX-I destroyers commissioned (1998, 1999, 2000) 7 KDX-II destroyers 3 commissioned (2003, 2004, 2005) 2 launched (2005, 2006) 2 are under construction and a further 6 are planned to be commissioned before 2020. 6 KDX-III Aegis destroyers (first to be commissioned 2010) 3 ‘’Dodko’’ class Amphibious assault ships (first commissioned 2007- last one to be commissioned in 2017). globalsecurity.org lists this ship as an aircraft carrier By 2020, the ROK Navy plans to deploy at least 2 rapid response fleets, each comprising of 1 Dokdo amphibious assault ship, 3 KDX-III, 6 KDX-II and possibly a number of FFX frigates and two or three SSX submarines. Further a program to develop new frigates has been begun and also the Korean Navy has plans to built its first aircraft carrier:

I my opinion this all makes the Korean Navy very well a potential blue water navy.


 * Ok, now that you have given the appropriate information it looks so much better. But remember personal opinion isn't enough in these sorts of things. John Smith&#39;s 22:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I notice that a new category has been created, future blue water navies, and South Korea is teh sole entry there. Since there is no useful semantic difference between potential and future for teh purposes of this list (that I can see anyway), I propose that either someone give a good justification for teh two and a set of rules for decising which category a navy should appear in, or that the two categories (potential and future) be merged. Rhialto 18:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Both categories are not verified. Want to add more unverified claims? Wandalstouring 14:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Malta
I would liek to submit Malta for inclusion in the list of true blue water navies. Whiel we have in teh past created our own definition of a blue water navy, |this article shows that the proper definition of a blue water nvy is, in the words of Admiral Prakash, "The Navy is said to be a true Blue Water Navy when it can operate for long hours at the sea". malta's trio of converted minesweepers purchased from East Germany in 1969 are quie capable of operating for many hours at a time. they match perfectly with the definition that that admiral (a presumed expert on the subject) of a blue water navy, and as such, Malta must be included. Rhialto 05:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The above is only half-serious of course, but it does highlight an issue with taking the views of pundits and experts on this matter. It's also worth considering that many authorities on teh matter are members of teh navies concerned, and as such their opinions are subject to bias. There really isn't any consensus among experts about the exact (or even vague) definition of a blue water navy. By the definition the Indian admiral gave, only the Swiss and Bolivian navies would not count. Other experts no doubt have their own, more stringent definitions.

Really, we have two real choices. Either we need to adopt a definition that one authority has created and publicised, and then compare each navy on a case by case basis to that definition. Or we should add some kind of disclaimer, such as


 * The following navies either have significant force projection assets, or have been identified as blue water by an media source.

Rhialto 05:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You are going out of the Discussion without fully analyzing the facts. Let's add the Bhutanese, Nepalese, Vatican and Mangolian navies into the list. --Chanakyathegreat 17:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop being so silly. You know as well as I do that those countries you named do not, in fact, actually have any ships in their military. Rhialto 20:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I know prettey well that this nations even don't have a sea or access to it. They are land locked nations. I compare the Maltese navy with these nations because Malta did not have a proper navy and has small patrol crafts and their navy can be even compared to the coast guards of many nations.

--Chanakyathegreat 14:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Malta does have armed ships controlled by the government, which is as good a definition as any for a proper navy, a claim which almost every nation can make and which i recognise has little real worth. And yes, the Maltese navy is comparable to the coast guards of most navies in the world. But it is also true to say that the Maltese ships are capable of operating for many hours at a time out at sea. This is the defintion of a blue water navy that the good admiral from India gave us. And by that standard, Malta certainly qualifies.

On the other hand, I don't seriously want Malta to be listed, nor do I want that Indian admiral's definition to be used, because it devalues the whole concept of a blue water navy to be meaningless. Rhialto 06:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Detailed explanation is given in the India sub-section of this page. If you have objectios raise it there. --Chanakyathegreat 06:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Russia
I disagree on the removal of "potential" section. I won't argue on the removal of Russia from the blue-water fleet category, but the Russian navy is definately a potential blue-water fleet. If anyone disagree, consider why China and Japan are included in "potential" category when they don't have functional carriers w/fixed wing aircraft, while the Russians operate the Admiral Flota Sovetskogo Soyuza Kuznetsov with a wing of Su-33s? -- Adeptitus 03:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd consider Russia to be a former blue water navy. Yes, they have a carrier. But it lacks logistics support for any serious kind of extended operations, let alone operating the supporting ships to make a fleet at the same time. yes, it could become a blue water navy if it invests decent funds in it, but so could any navy. The key point with those navies that are listed as potential is that they have established plans towards that goal which are already works in progress, as opposed to pipe dreams or on paper only plans. I have removed the section on Russia, but would be interested if there is any current plans to restore the navy to its former strength. Rhialto 08:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Russia neither has a blue-water capability because of the poor state of the fleet, nor has the realistic potential to get one in the foreseeable future. John Smith&#39;s 13:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Since no one has an objection to put Russia into the Potential blue water list, I will be adding Russia into the list. Chanakyathegreat 16:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have REPEATEDLY objected to it. If you add it, I will remove it as I have on every other separate occasion. John Smith&#39;s 17:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah I have worries about Russia too. They have the technical competence to operate a blue-water navy, but they lack financial resources. Russia basically has a big, bad navy that it can't use.UberCryxic 21:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Russian Navy, we must find out whether it will be a blue water navy by 2020 and if it does add it into the list or not. The following are some of the articles that I found that will be helpful in determining whether Russia will be a blue water navy or not.

http://www.janes.com/defence/naval_forces/news/sentinel/sent000815_1_n.shtml

http://www.webcom.com/~amraam/build.html#surdev

http://www.webcom.com/~amraam/rnav.html

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/row/rus/index.html Even though tremendous decline has happened, the stabilisation is happening with the inclusion of new ships and subs. RN is capable to be called a potential blue water navy.

Try to find articles that are latest and not linked to that after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Chanakyathegreat 03:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Spain
Added the spanish navy, which has

(fleet list for Spain cut; please see main article on Spanish navy)

If Spain is not on the list, then remove France wich has a smaller navy and less oceanic logistic ships, only has a aircraft carrier wich is barely able to navigate and has less oceanic escorts.

--81.202.212.4 10:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not to do with size, it is to do with referencing. The PLAN has a huge fleet but is not blue water. So far I have found comments that the French Navy is blue water. If you want the Spanish Navy in there, you must also come up with comments from a credible source that say it is blue water. I have already had an edit war with one member and it was agreed that references are required. That applies to everyone. John Smith&#39;s 11:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * However the US and UK navies are undisputably blue-water, so it isn't necessary for getting references for that. Though if they could be found it would be nice. John Smith&#39;s 11:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If you feel the Spanish Navy should be on there, I suggest you raise the matter with RevolverOcelotX, as he was the one that objected strongly to the PLAN not being on there when other navies were. John Smith&#39;s 11:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

From the | Spanish Navy Web, about the F-100 Aegis ship

''"La Fragata F-100 es un buque multipropósito, en el que se han cuidado fundamentalmente los siguientes aspectos:


 * ''Escolta oceánico de tamaño medio.


 * ''Optimizado para actuar como buque de mando y control en un escenario de conflicto, capaz de operar integrado en una flota aliada y de proporcionar cobertura a fuerzas expedicionarias.


 * ''Capaz de operar tanto en zonas costeras y como en alta mar de una forma flexible, según las demandas de cada situación de conflicto.


 * Elevada capacidad antiaérea."

Translating in english the bold letters: Blue Water Scort; Control & Command Ship; able to operate in Blue Waters.

Same web about the new Aircraft carrier (wich will be the 2nd in use at the same time):

"En los organismos internacionales en los que España participa, la potenciación de la capacidad de proyección estratégica se identifica como acción prioritaria en el proceso de planeamiento de la Defensa Militar, reflejándose en el documento de Revisión Estratégica de la Defensa, dentro de las misiones de las Fuerzas Armadas, que los ejércitos creados para la defensa nacional pasan a desempeñar la proyección de la estabilidad como una de las tareas principales."

The whole new aircraft carrier program is called "Strategic projection", the name that the spanish navy uses for Blue Water operations.

So you either should remove the French Navy, wich is smaller and less capable, or add the spanish navy.

--81.202.212.4 16:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, that sounds more credible - thanks. John Smith&#39;s 18:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The Spanish navy's AC is under refit and out of order. Till it is back into service the Spanish Navy will cease to be a Blue water navy http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3738/is_200410/ai_n9426227


 * The list can't be updated simply due to refits - that's ridiculous. John Smith&#39;s 20:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Before anyone raises the issue of India's refits vs Spain's, my view on the matter is that Spain's carrier does not have (at least to my knowledge) any history of reliability problems. Every refit it has had has been purely to update technology. A significant number of refits on the Viraat were started due to mechanical failure of some kind. The difference to me is general reliability rather than whether it is in service at this precise moment. otoh, if Spain's carrier developed a recurring habit of being out of service for refits, that would change my assessment of Spain's navy. Rhialto 00:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've read the article http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3738/is_200410/ai_n9426227 and it says clearly UPGRADE, not refit. That suports even more the candidature of the spanish navy, as there is a spend in upgradings and old ships get decomissioned and remplaced by new ships. And in the spanish navy a old ships is a 30 years old ship and not a 60 years old ship. Moreover, as said in the article, a second aircraft carrier is being constructed and will enter service the next year. And in the Spanish Navy article you can read that the spanish navy has 6 ocanic in combat replenishment ships, wich is what you really need for oceanic/blue water operations. A shore or green waters navy does NOT need replenishment ships, as it is close to base. By the way, that article is from 2004.

You can read this article http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4442/is_200410/ai_n16065430 where it clearly calls the Spanish Navy a blue water navy (is in eglish)

--81.202.142.27 12:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The French Navy seems like a tiny navy with most ships old and need to be decommissioned. Regarding the Spanish Navy, forget the IN let's look into the Spanish navies power projection capability. It is the single aircraft carrier. If this aircraft carrier is operational how can Spain project power. The spanish navy did not have proper underwater capability. It is limited by only 4 subs. Operating in Blue water navy will not make a navy a blue-water navy. They may be able to sustain the operation over a long period of time and must have the capability of power projection (using aircraft carriers or modern nuclear subs). At present the Spanish navy lacks both these capabilities.

--Chanakyathegreat 06:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Submarines are not an essential component for a blue water navy. No one has said they are. The essential units are a major force projection unit, which in modern naval terms is usually an aircraft carrier, although it is conceivable that new classes of submarine or cruiser could fit, plus sufficient supporting units to defend it against most likely attack vectors. None of that requires a submarine fleet at all. Please stop making strawman arguments. Rhialto 12:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The Spanish Navy is not a blue water navy. All the artilces provided by you did not mention the blue water or power projection capabilites of the Spanish Navy

''"La Fragata F-100 es un buque multipropósito, en el que se han cuidado fundamentalmente los siguientes aspectos:


 * ''Escolta oceánico de tamaño medio.


 * ''Optimizado para actuar como buque de mando y control en un escenario de conflicto, capaz de operar integrado en una flota aliada y de proporcionar cobertura a fuerzas expedicionarias.


 * ''Capaz de operar tanto en zonas costeras y como en alta mar de una forma flexible, según las demandas de cada situación de conflicto.


 * Elevada capacidad antiaérea."

Means "the F-100 Frigate is a ship multipurpose, in which the following aspects have been taken care of fundamentally: * Means ocean-going convoy escort so large. * Optimized to act like ship of control and control in a scene of conflict, able to operate integrated in a allied fleet and to provide cover to expeditionary forces. * Able to operate as much in coastal zones and as on the high seas of a flexible form, according to the demands of each situation of conflict. * High antiaircraft capacity."

Talk of the F-100 being a control ship. Also the ability to operate with allied forces. Operating in high seas is not a blue water navy and also note that the Spanish navy is not operating alone. As you mentioned a ship cannot make a navy a blue water force.

Also "En los organismos internacionales en los que España participa, la potenciación de la capacidad de proyección estratégica se identifica como acción prioritaria en el proceso de planeamiento de la Defensa Militar, reflejándose en el documento de Revisión Estratégica de la Defensa, dentro de las misiones de las Fuerzas Armadas, que los ejércitos creados para la defensa nacional pasan a desempeñar la proyección de la estabilidad como una de las tareas principales."

means

"In the international organisms in which Spain participates, ' ' ' the involution of the capacity of strategic projection identifies like action prioritariá '' in the process of planning of the Military Defense, being reflected in the document of Strategic Revision of the Defense, within the missions of the Armed Forces, that the armies created for the national defense happen to carry out the projection of the stability like one of the main tasks."

The explanation is about participating in International peace keeping operations or Missions. The power projection can also be meant for the Army. No where the navy taking part alone in power projection is mentioned. There is no detail of the Spanish navy operating alone.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4442/is_200410/ai_n16065430 This article mentions

"The Spanish Navy is becoming a well rounded and modern seagoing fighting force in both blue water and the littoral. One of Spain's greatest advantages is its desire to regain stature in the world community, and the country has the shipyards and Naval savvy to do so."

That means the Spanish navy is becoming a modern navy.(So can be added in the potential blue water navies) Also the desire to regain stature in the world.

--Chanakyathegreat 10:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Spanish does not use a literal translation of "blue water" for the concept meant by that idiomatic English phrase. As another poster noted above, the idiomatic Spanish phrase would literally translate into English as "strategic projection", a phrase which is used in the sources cited earlier. otoh, I can only find that term used in reference to the as yet uncomissioned new carrier, and not with regard to the Principe de Asturias.

So now we are in the situation of a navy having no clear cites saying it is a blue water navy presently. However, Spain does have a carrier (reliable, albeit apparently in refit now), and another due to be comissioned in 2008. By hardware standards, there isn't any clear reason why it should not be included. Rhialto 12:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I had clearly explained that the links provided did not state that the Spanish Navy has blue water capability or Strategic projection. The artilce describes about the capabilities of the Spanish Military to project power. What is this strategic projection. Is it the deployment of troops in Iraq. Is this the capability of the navy to operate with the U.S navy. Nothing is clearly mentioned. The Spanish Navy specifically is not mentioned at all. So all the links are not enough proof to put the Spanish Navy as a blue water force or Strategic Projection force that can project power on its own, until and unless we find articles that explains it clearly.

The second factor is having an aircraft carrier can make the navy a blue water navy. If the Aircraft carrier is under refit or under modernisation it cannot be calculated as it is out of order and the navy lacks the main component for a blue water navy. If this is the case we must have added the Indian navy long before since the Admiral Gorshkov is under refit. For Any navy to retain its postion as a blue water navy it must have one Aircraft carrier operating at any given time. Now the Spanish Navy is left without an aircraft carrier till the year 2008. So till 2008 Spanish Navy will not join the list of Blue water navies. Since the Spanish navy has got the aircraft carrier (under refit and one under constuction) it will be there in the potential Blue water navy list.

Until and unless there is credible evidence to suggest that the Spanish navy is capable of projecting power on its own without the support of its allies, the Spanish navy cannot be called a a blue water navy or a navy that projects power. --Chanakyathegreat 16:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

For the last time (I hope)

The Viraat isn't being counted because it has a history of unreliability. Purely counting out of service repairs due to breakdowns and not out of service time due to actual conversions or upgrades, that's still almost a third of its entire service history with India.

The Gorshkov isn't being counted for India because it has not yet *ever* been comissioned under the Indian navy.

The Principe de Asturias is being counted because it has previously been in service and comissioned, and, even though currently under refit, it does not have a history of going out of service unpredictably.

We don't track specific situations of ships being taken out of service (except in order to track general patterns) because to provide an accurate picture would then require very intense tracking of individual ships. In most navies, the exact location and even whether a ship is under refit, are considered military secrets, and so that level of information isn't necessarily even obtainable for us. Rhialto 02:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

For the last time (I hope)

You look backward into the past rather than the present when it comes to Viraat. I had explained to you that the INS Viraat is operating at present without any problem. Let's not add Indian Navy into the blue water navy by going by your comments for INS Vikrant being an old warship.

Now Where is the power projection capability of the Spanish Navy? It is under refit and hence Spanish Navy lacks the ability to project power on its own.

Also as I explained earlier the article provided by you did not mention the Spanish navy being a Power projection navy. Until clear evidence is present we cannot consider the Spanish Navy as a blue water navy.

--Chanakyathegreat 04:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

We are not tracking the specific moment to moment comissioned-or-not status of individual ships in determining blue water navy status because for many navies, that information is classified and impossible to obtain except after the event. If you can propose a meythod to incorporate military secrets from all navies into wikipedia in a timely fashion, then it would be realistic to take this into account. Rhialto 04:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I've submitted this page to for comment from others. Until then, let's agree to leave off editing the pages for India and Spain, so that others can see the discussion as it stands without undue confusion from more edits. 05:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I will suggest that at Present the Spanish Navy be put in the Potential blue water navy till others validate it being a blue water navy. I will be making small changes to the Indian Navy section to reflect the present realities.

--Chanakyathegreat 05:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the spanish navy is reinforcing the French Navy carrier group with a F-100 Aegis frigate as France still does not has a aegis capable ship:

http://actualidad.terra.es/internacional/articulo/armada_grupo_combate_charles_gaulle_948175.htm

--81.202.142.27 21:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

FALSE statements about the Principe de Asturias by Chanakyathegreat
It is FALSE that the Principe de Asturias is out of service. It went to a 3 months UPGRADE but that was in 2005 and now is sailing well and nice as you can see here http://www.diariodecadiz.com/diariodecadiz/articulo.asp?idart=3092406&idcat=824 where it says it will sail to the NATO base in Rota for some estrategic conferences. (23 of July 2006).

Also it went to the NATO manouvers out in Cape Verde in June 2006:

http://www.canarias7.es/impresa/articulo.cfm?Id=1452568

--81.202.142.27 21:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not providing any false information. The information came from this article which I had posted earlier. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3738/is_200410/ai_n9426227

Also the following artilce is also telling about the upgrade. http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/asturias/

Since the above proofs provided are enough to make out that the Spanish Navies carrier has not been upgraded at the moment and is still active.

--Chanakyathegreat 05:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk about false statements
Wow this Spanish guy has been making some odd comments, and I'm surprised nobody has corrected him on it. Or if you have, I apologize. These piqued my interest...

-"If Spain is not on the list, then remove France wich has a smaller navy and less oceanic logistic ships.."

-"So you either should remove the French Navy, wich is smaller and less capable, or add the spanish navy."

Ummm....no. These claims are so bogus and ridiculous that they confound logic itself. In terms of gross tonnage, the French Navy is far bigger than the Spanish Navy and way more capable. In 2001, the French sent a task force to support the Afghanistan invasion in the Indian Ocean and it stayed in the region for seven months. I think the only place where Spain could even dream of doing something like that is in their dreams. The Royal Navy is the largest European navy in gross tonnage and the Marine Nationale second (I'm leaving out Russia). I'm not too qualified on the matter, by which I mean I'm not an expert, but from what I know Spain does not seem like a blue-water navy as it has no serious force projection capabilities. These comments are so strange in light of the fact that Spain has only 4 submarines while France has 10 (better ones too) and Spain has 12 major surface combatants while France has 23. And I don't think anyone would doubt that the Charles de Gaulle is far better than the Asturias.

Furthermore, even the Italian Navy is better than that of the Spanish, so why are they not listed as blue-water? I wouldn't, of course, but logically you'd have to, considering what you've done with Spain.UberCryxic 20:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"The French Navy seems like a tiny navy with most ships old and need to be decommissioned."

Again, per above, a false statement. Many ships in the navy are new (Charles de Gaulle, Mistral class amphibious assault helicopter carriers, Triomphant class submarines, La Fayette frigates, and so on). I also don't think the claim that the French have a blue water navy should be sourced; it is well known and not really contended by anyone.UberCryxic 19:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The French navy has asked the spanish one to lend them a AEGIS ship, because they lack that kind of ship

And please, do not change the article just because you don't like it. The discussion page is here for something, thanks.

--Marneus 13:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest Marneus stop from bringing in his nationalism into an article that clearly doesn't show proper english sources. read the only english source and it says "becoming" not "is" a blue water navy. there is a lot of difference between the two words. Spain might be a potential blue water navy but currently I'm afraid not. --Idleguy 13:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note that Marneus has accused me twice of not discussing the changes I've made to the main article, when clearly as everyone can see, I did discuss my changes and the problems I had.

Marneus, you bring up an isolated incident that really has no bearing on the general facts. What are you trying to suggest with that transfer? That the Spanish Navy is somehow better or comparable to the French? Sorry, but I think those points are ludicrous. Either way though, this argument detracts from the points I was replying to: the claim that Spain had a larger navy than France is plainly false. Furthermore, if you do include Spain as a blue-water navy, why not Italy? Hmmm? The Italians have a better (and larger) navy than the Spanish. Makes no sense. The only nations with true blue-water navy capabilities, who have the power to conduct operations across every ocean for extended periods of time, are America, Britain, and France. Spain simply does not have the necessary funds to carry out the types of operations that these nations do.UberCryxic 13:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

1st of all, please, try to be more polite. If you have strong arguments you do not need to resort to insults.

2nd, you have not discussed it, you've just changed it. Please, read again the definition of blue water navy and the talk page and why it has been agreed to include it. Besides, no place in the wikipedia says that only english sources are allowed. And also, there is a reasoning behind including spain, that belongs to his oceanic AEGIS ships, to his oceanic, up to date and big logistic combat fleet and the willingness to do that kind of operations.

Besides, you do not defend your statement that the italian navy is better than the spanish one, we just must belive your word. In my knowledge, the italian navy has no aegis ships, does not plan to have anaerobic submarines, his aircraft carriers are smaller and is planed mainly for helicopter operations and finally, their planed area of operations is the Mediterranean sea.

That's my reasons. Please, instead of coming to this article and changing it because you don't like it, try to convince the people who has been working on it. Thanks.

please look at:


 * Citing sources "foreign-language sources are acceptable in terms of verifiability, subject to the same criteria as English-language sources."
 * Neutral point of view
 * Consensus "Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of policies and guidelines such as Neutral point of view."
 * Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point "Discussion, rather than unilateral action, is the preferred means of changing policies, and the preferred mechanism for demonstrating the problem with policies"
 * No personal attacks "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor."

thanks

anyway, that's my last revert. If the article is changed again, i will follow the Edit war procedure, requesting the blocking of this article.

--Marneus 17:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * May I suggest that you kindly look up WP:3RR which you have already violated and likely to be banned for sometime. Let me point out Citing sources says "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal calibre." and "If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given"


 * You should fully read policies and your own references before trying to jump the gun. The English source you provided clearly states "Spanish Navy is becoming a well rounded and modern seagoing fighting force in both blue water and the littoral". That is the only reference to a blue water navy and it clearly contradicts your claim that Spanish Navy is already a Blue Water Navy. Also claims by Spain (read Spanish websites) hardly matters. Multiple independent sources that explicity state Spanish Navy's blue capability would be most welcome. Until then your reverts would do nothing but damage the credibility of yourself and your claims. Idleguy 17:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've already reported UberCryxic into the 3RR violation page, thanks. Now if you want, we can start a discussion about the spanish navy with facts instead of beliefs, like it has been done before.

That article is about 2004 and talked about the comission of the first of the F-100 AEGIS ships. As 2006, 4 F-100 AEGIS ships are already comisioned and sailing, while a 5th is being constructed. They laid the hulk this February. My claims and those done before me state that:


 * 1) The spanish navy has a big enought, up to date, able, logistic fleet. That means oilers and replenishment ships
 * 2) The spanish navy has a big enought, up to date, able, infantry transport and assault fleet. That means LDS and LDH, etc...
 * 3) The spanish navy has an air cover like that of the UK, another blue water navy as his only carrier can carry more harrier jets and another 2 times bigger is under construction and planed to enter comission in 2 years.
 * 4) The spanish navy has the will to conduct that kind of operations as cited in the source
 * 5) The spanish navy is being used to suport the french navy, wich lacks AEGIS cover, that means, has something another blue navy does not have.

Now please, your reassons to change an article that had a consensus before you edited it.

--Marneus 17:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Aren't you equally guilty of violating the WP:3RR? You still haven't provided an updated English language source that confirms that Spanish Navy is now a blue water navy. That article was written in 2004, as you said, and merely stated that Spain was on its way to a blue water navy. If you want people to believe that it is now truly one, then you should have no problems with providing updated sources for the same instead of quoting an old article which merely predicted/suggest/postulated about the future. It's like quoting an old scientific article that states that Robots would be ruling the world in 2006 and telling readers that since the article predicted that in the past we should assume it is already the case. Pure fantasy and fact have to be separated. Provide nonspanish independent sources that clearly show that Spain Navy is now a blue water navy and there shouldnt' be any problem. As simple as that. Idleguy 18:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This is somewhat amazing and...odd. First of all Marneus, I did not violate 3RR and have mentioned this in your accusation. I only reverted twice. The five edits that you posted were my overall edits to the article, but not all of them were reverts, something you conveniently left out.

Second, I do not see any insulting statements from me. Please mention these clearly if I am missing something. If you go back and review my statements, I was attacking the arguments made, not the presenter of the arguments.

Third, I discussed it in the sense that I talked about the impending changes I was going to make. I mentioned where this article went astray and fixed it, as I will do shortly again.

You keep bringing up the AEGIS system. This is very important, no doubt, but there are many navies that have it that were not included as blue-water navies. The Taiwanese navy has AEGIS systems; are they blue-water?

Your assertions about the Italian Navy are filled with inaccuracies and falsehoods. The Asturias is 13,400 tons whereas the Garibaldi is about 13,800 tons. The new aircraft carriers that are coming out for both navies are of equivalent size. Spain holds no edge here at all. Italy on the other hand has a fleet with greater tonnage than the Spanish, which includes 7 subs as opposed to the 4 that Spain has. Furthermore, the Italian Navy is better financed. Just look at the two defense budgets. Italy spends $27 billion annually according to SIPRI whereas Spain spends about $10 billion.

I don't deny that the Spanish Navy has many of the capabilities that you suggest, because they do, but they are not capable of conducting long-term operations like the French have been doing in the Indian Ocean over the past five years (where the Charles de Gaulle has had a jolly old time). Spain cannot undertake those sorts of operations; if they deploy significant naval forces, it is only for short periods of time due to lack of resources and funds. There are other factors here beyond the operational ones that impede Spain from being labelled a "blue-water navy," and frankly you have not taken them into consideration at all.UberCryxic 19:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources!
We need reliable sources here—particularly English-language ones. I would advise anyone engaged in edit-warring over the text to instead find some good sources for the statements to appear in the article. We need to source both the definition of a "blue-water navy" and the description of particular national forces as such to experts on the subject; the reasoning of Wikipedians, while highly interesting, does not really qualify in this regard. Kirill Lokshin 19:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Kirill is absolutely right, so I have undertaken an extensive online expedition to find reliable English-language sources that document which navies are blue-water, which are not, and to give an overall feel for whether some navies receive more mentions of being stronger than others. Quite unfortunately, I do not have any books on the matter, but if anyone does then please do not hesitate to promptly bring them to our attention. Before I begin on the major source spree, let me correct Marneus with the source he was probably using to say the Spanish Navy is larger than the French one. This source, Spanish Navy (Armada), states that "The Spanish navy (Armada) is relatively large, ranking second in total tonnage, after the British navy, among European NATO nations in the late 1980s." The key phrase there is in the late 1980s. This is what has partly sparked the confusion. Hopefully everything regarding this matter is resolved now. The United States: Paul H. Marx Barbarians at the Gate U.S. Naval Institute, Retrieved August 10, 2006. ''Global U.S. military dominance is uncontested today in large part because of our omnipresent naval might. The U.S. Navy is a first-class blue-water arsenal with supremacy over the air, surface, subsurface, and electromagnetic spectrum.'' Rest-of-World Naval Forces Globalsecurity.org, Retrieved August 10, 2006. ''Rank 1: Major Global Force Projection Navy (Complete) – This is a navy capable of carrying out all the military roles of naval forces on a global scale. It possesses the full range of carrier and amphibious capabilities, sea control forces, and nuclear attack and ballistic missile submarines, and all in sufficient numbers to undertake major operations independently. E.g., United States.'' Britain and France: Rest-of-World Naval Forces Globalsecurity.org, Retrieved August 10, 2006. ''Rank 2: Major Global Force Projection Navy (Partial) – These are navies that possess most if not all of the force projection capabilities of a "complete" global navy, but only in sufficient numbers to undertake one major "out of area" operation. E.g., Britain, France.'' Russia: The Russian Navy's Future Role and Relative Importance Defensejournal.com, Retrieved August 10, 2006. ''There are two schools of thought regarding the future role of the Russian Navy. The first proposes a relatively large 'blue water' Navy capable of dealing with any or all threats; the other advocates a much smaller Navy designed solely to defend Russia's territory against likely local or regional threats''.

''If Russia can not restore finances, material resources, fuel and shipyards, in the 21st century then she will have no more than 6-8 ready SSBNs, which represents only 25 - 30 percent of the 1750 naval nuclear warhead limit established under the START II treaty and 3-4 times fewer warheads than carried by the US Navy. Nuclear parity will therefore be broken. The Navy will also be reduced to 20-25 relatively modern multipurpose SSNs and about 10 diesel submarine (SSKs). For surface ships, she will have not more than one aircraft carrier, 2-3 guided missile cruisers, 7-10 guided missile destroyers, 10-12 guided missile frigates, and 30 minesweepers and 30-40 guided missile boats. These ships will be spread over five isolated sea and ocean theatres, with no possibility of manoeuvring between these theatres11.'' Note: This implies the Russian Navy is not a blue water one. See above how is there implied the Russian Navy is not a blue water one? The France would be happy to have a fleet of that size... Wandalstouring 16:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC) India: India, China, the U.S. and the Balance of Power in the Indian Ocean Zmag.org, Retrieved August 10, 2006. The Russian Federation will no doubt assume greater importance for India as a major source of military hardware that is currently fueling India's drive for a blue water navy. Note: This implies the Indian Navy is not a blue water one.

Spain:

SPANISH NAVY AEGIS FRIGATES - THE BEGINNING OF A EUROPEAN NAVAL SUPER-POWER Findarticles.com, Retrieved August 10, 2006.

The Spanish Navy is becoming a well rounded and modern seagoing fighting force in both blue water and the littoral.

Note: This article is partly what has caused so much strife and confusion. Languages are quite tricky tools, but non-axiomatic languages like English are particularly difficult to deal with, and the interpretation of this particular comment by one or two people has ruined an entire Wikipedia entry. Let's parse this statement carefully. It clearly states that the Spanish Navy is becoming a great fighting force in both blue water and littoral operations. It does not say, as some have claimed, that the Spanish Navy is a blue-water navy. See the difference?

Some final comments

The desire to include the Spanish Navy has been largely pushed by one person that appears to have attachments which outweigh impartial logic and thought. As demonstrated above, the user misunderstood the statement in the article that he or she was referencing. Chanakyathegreat actually noticed this, but amazingly no one acted on his obviously astute and correct recommendations.

There is a deeper and more disturbing problem, however. Much of the attention and focus in the discussion here has been geared towards procurement and operational capabalities, but there has been a critical lack of analysis on equally, if not more, important factors like political will and financial resources. Blue navies depend on that just as much as they do on large ships or advanced technological systems. The Spanish Navy lacks some of these external support features enough to claim that it is not truly a blue water navy. For example, the inclusion of the Spanish Navy at the expense of its Italian counterpart is puzzling because Italy spends more on defense than Spain does. The following figures for 2005 can be found here. SIPRI says that Italy spent about $27 billion whereas Spain spent about $10 billion. Moreover, the Spanish Navy has never had a major and individual operation in recent memory comparable to the British-American involvement in Iraq or French involvement in the Ivory Coast. It therefore lacks crucial combat experience to label itself a blue water navy. In light of this overwhelming evidence, I make an appeal to the concerned and honest members of Wikipedia to exclude Spain from the blue water navy list. Thank you!UberCryxic 02:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Change the section labels?
Currently, we have actual and potential blue water navies listed. This has caused controversy on a number of issues.


 * Based on hardware/assets definition, there is some dispute over what assets are actually needed. The most common view (see cites under the canada discussion) is that a modern blue water navy requires a carrier plus supporting units to protect it.
 * Potentially there are disputes over logistics units available to supply that fleet, and over whether the nation's economy can support those supply requirements economically.
 * There is some dispute over whether a blue water navy needs to be able to travel beyond home waters, or actual control a body of water against potential hostile action, and if so, what level of threat it would have to be good against.
 * In some cases, there is possibly room for debate over whether a nation can provide the political support for extended operations abroad.
 * Based on cited sources, there are three types of sources we are likely to find. These are the site of the navy itself (including high ranking members of that navy), specialist publications (including one navy website commenting on another navy), and general newspaper articles (including books and articles aimed at non-specialist audiences).
 * All cites regarding blue water navy status are subject to various personal (to the cited source) definitions, which in some cases can vary wildly. In many cases (such as a navy commenting on itself), there is also an obvious case of nationalism, and they may also be playing up or down their blue water status for political gain.
 * In some cases, the reliablity or objectivity of various classes of certain sources when commenting on this topic may be called into question.

The above is, I hope, a summary of the areas where there is room for dispute in the list. The list differs fundamentally from most other wikipedia lists in that the criteria for inclusion is not particularly well-defined anywhere. Even "famous Belgians" is reasonably well-defined, as it only allows for dispute on a single axis.

The USA and the UK need no discussion, as they can be counted on the basis of "They actually conducted blue water operations in a distant ocean against a mobilised national military force with little or no assistance from an allied navy".

Based on the limited number of publications, I'm not sure we can count cites in any useful way. A navy commenting on itself is not a reliable source on something so inherently opinion-based. Equally, general news articles are can be considered unreliable as they are usually written for a particular national audience, or ultimately sourced from a politically motivated "news service". I do consider specialist publications to be generally reliable, but these also tend to be very shy about giving an official view on what navies are blue water.

While we can give our opinion all day on what constitutes a blue water navy, that constitutes original research. However, there are relatively more citeable sources for what is required for a navy to be considered blue water.

The criteria I have been working on is a functional aircraft carrier (or capital ship with equivalent force projection ability) with sufficient support from combat units (protection), logistics support (supply), political support, able to operate for an extended period (at least 2 months on station) in a "hot" combat zone against a mobilised national force, or force equivalent to a medium-rank regional power.

I have a feeling that, rather than look for cites saying navy X is blue water, we should be looking for cites defining a blue water navy, then comparing actual navies to a consensually chosen amalgam of those cited definitions. I am concerned over whether or not that would be considered original research though.

Anyone have any thoughts on this matter? Rhialto 04:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The best manner to solve the problem is to bring in the globalsecurity  defenition of power projection and listing the navies by providing them ranks. Since Rank 1 and 2 navies are capable of projecting power on their own they can be called as blue water navies. To gain the second rank the navy's capability need to be assessed as defined in the definition. This will be a more simple, easier and more correct way to define a blue water navy. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/links-navy.htm

Rank 1: Major Global Force Projection Navy (Complete) – This is a navy capable of carrying out all the military roles of naval forces on a global scale. It possesses the full range of carrier and amphibious capabilities, sea control forces, and nuclear attack and ballistic missile submarines, and all in sufficient numbers to undertake major operations independently. E.g., United States.

Rank 2: Major Global Force Projection Navy (Partial) – These are navies that possess most if not all of the force projection capabilities of a "complete" global navy, but only in sufficient numbers to undertake one major "out of area" operation. E.g., Britain, France

So we can simplify the blue water navy as a navy that has force projection capability.

Force projection capability requires


 * Aircraft carrier


 * Amphibious capabilities


 * Sea control forces (Need correct definition to be provided)


 * Nuclear Attack Submarine


 * Ballistic Missile Submarines


 * Sufficent numbers (How much is this sufficent numbers?)


 * major independent operations (A must)


 * "Out of area operation" Capability to operate over large distance.(also a Must)

or a navy that have all the capabilities stated above except one.

--Chanakyathegreat 12:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If we don't check the major independent operation capability of a navy the ability of the navies power projection capability cannot be assessed. It may remain as a token navy with Aircraft carriers like the Thailand Navy and the Brazil navy with Sao paulo. Any operations can be considered and need not be at present but when the navies capability is not diminished at present from the past by lack of ships (ex: Indian Navy long considered a blue water navy. Even though independent operations are carried out, With the decomissioning of the INS Viraat it is not called as blue water navy. So both Aircraft carriers and Independent Naval operation is a must. It may not be an offensive operation. Any credible operation. Any comments?

--Chanakyathegreat 15:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I want to hold off on this debate to let others give their opinion first. I do feel that an aircraft carrier is essential, and I provided 7 cites in the canada section to back up this view. I also feel a squadron of destroyers or frigates is esential. I don't want to put numbers on that, as most navies already have far more than I'd consider essential by the time they are considering a carrier, and so much depends on the actual technology and weapons on board. The key point with these support warships is to provide adequate defence from all likely avenues of attack against the carrier, most notably anti-sub and anti-air/missile defence systems. They also need the means to supply the fleet while it is engaged in active operations at a significant distance from friendly harbours. Rhialto 23:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think there are no others and we are the only one's discussing it here. I agree with you that aircraft carriers must be a part of the so called criteria. What about the list. Is that O.K to make a navy a blue water navy based on that list. Also what about the other aspects like economic capability of the nation and the ability to sustain the navy. It's all a very big trouble in determining the exact criteria for a blue water navy. Even if we search the Internet information is not available on the blue water navies of today. May be this is the reason.

--Chanakyathegreat 05:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

To main points to be considered a blue water navy are:


 * Have enought logistic ships able to suport a big enought battle group
 * Have the required ships to self-defend and to atack the enemy without help from other sources, that means, to have a a battlegroup self-capable of offense an defense.
 * Have the political willing to do so.

--Marneus 17:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It's impossible to measure political will. We cannot use a scale and measure the political will. Even by looking at the past one cannot be sure how the leadership will respond to an event taking place at present. Hence the criteria must limit with the Navy's capability.

Chanakyathegreat 05:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

well, if for example, the UK had failed or have just not tried to fight the Falkland War, maybe it would have been not considered a blue water navy anymore.

The Soviet Navy was a blue water navy because the USSR had the willing to be, but now Russia, altought capable of having a blue water navy, does not will to have one, because needs the money for other things.

The spanish navy needs a blue water navy because his NATO duties (protect Atlantic shiping lines) and the need to protect the canary islands and also the need to menace the atlantic coast of moroccoo in order to prevent it for invanding spanish cities in north africa or even the iberian peninsula (it's a defense plan, not the reality).

One of the sources i cited from the spanish defense department states the will to be a blue water navy, thus the expense in anaerobic ships, logistic ships, aegis ships and aircraft carriers.

--Marneus 17:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Dutch navy

 * A blue-water navy is a naval force which has deep ocean power projection capabilities. Such a navy can operate effectively beyond their national shores for extended periods of time. A clear way of distinguishing this power is through their ability to deploy a credible force overseas, aka a Task force.

Well, the Dutch navy clearly has this potential, and apart from that has one of the advance weaponry in the world. Seems to me they should be added, in fact the pictures in the article show Dutch ships among others. Rex 12:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The Dutch lack an aircraft carrier or a significant power projection platform. As of right now, they only have one ship that can be sort of classified as a "helicopter carrier," though it is officially listed as an amphibious transport ship. The Dutch can participate in task forces led by other nations, but generally they cannot do anything significant on their own. But like Kirill said, our opinions don't matter, so here's what Globalsecurity.org says about it:

''Rank 1: Major Global Force Projection Navy (Complete) – This is a navy capable of carrying out all the military roles of naval forces on a global scale. It possesses the full range of carrier and amphibious capabilities, sea control forces, and nuclear attack and ballistic missile submarines, and all in sufficient numbers to undertake major operations independently. E.g., United States.''

''Rank 2: Major Global Force Projection Navy (Partial) – These are navies that possess most if not all of the force projection capabilities of a "complete" global navy, but only in sufficient numbers to undertake one major "out of area" operation. E.g., Britain, France.''

''Rank 3: Medium Global Force Projection Navy – These are navies that may not possess the full range of capabilities, but have a credible capacity in certain of them and consistently demonstrate a determination to exercise them at some distance from home waters, in cooperation with other Force Projection Navies. E.g., Canada, Netherlands, Australia.''

The capabilities of the Dutch Navy are clearly differentiated from those of the American, British, and French navies. As such, they don't deserve blue-water status.

Furthermore, you keep including the Spanish Navy, but you need a reliable source for this. You cannot include the Spanish Navy simply because you think it meets the criteria. Most of us here don't, given the evidence that speaks of the Spanish trying to become a blue-water navy, but not actually being there yet.UberCryxic 15:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes Rex, you need to learn to argument your points with sources. UberCryxic has proven his superior knowledge on the matter, rendering your naked protests futile. Ulritz 00:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Potential blue water navies
Potential blue water navies list is getting bigger and bigger every day with the addition of all green water navies. It is better to limit the potential blue water navies list to those navies that surely will be a blue water navy in the near future and put all the other navies that have advance warships and technology to be in the Green water navy rather than the potential blue water navy list. Chanakyathegreat 03:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Please let's separate nations that have really powerful capacities (India, China, Japan, etc) from those that don't (Spain, South Korea, Netherlands, etc).UberCryxic 04:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I have restored Russia as a potential blue water navy - weather it develops into one or should develop into one is another matter. Russian defence spending is increasing and so are its capabilities

Future blue water navies
A future blue water navies list has been started to put all those navies that will be a blue water navy in the far future. For this, the government commitment as well as dedicated, continous effort from the navy must be shown as proof. Chanakyathegreat 02:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Russian navy can be in the Future blue water navy list at present and within some months of observations on the future course of Russian navy, we can put it in the potential Blue water navy list. Chanakyathegreat 02:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

South Korea has been removed from the list of potential blue water navy since it will take a long time for them to be called a blue water navy(2020). Until that time it will be there in the Green water navy list and the same words are addded there. Chanakyathegreat 03:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

How does "government commitment" plus a "dedicated, continous effort from the navy" significantly distinguish future blue water navies from potential blue water navies? Except for the planned timescale for the nations in that category, I can't see any meaninbgful reason for this separate list. Rhialto 05:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Rhialto. If the South Korean government said that it would achieve reunification by 2020, by your logic that would mean it would happen. However, in reality it would be far from certain. South Korea must stay in the "potential" section. John Smith&#39;s 17:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The "government commitment is required because if they stop funding for the projects then it will not be possible for the South Korean navy to have a blue water fleet in 2020. The navy's effort must be to plan in such a manner that they provide the best plan to the government and make sure that the work is progressing according to the plan and any changes they require to the emerging challenges are well included in the plan.

The seperate list is because of two different situations that has emerged. One is the potential fleet that can be called a blue water or almost blue water and these Navy's will be attaining the blue water status within a few years time. For South Korea they have to wait until 2020, if all goes well the South Korean Navy will be a blue water Navy in the year 2020.

Reunification must not be the criteria for the blue water navy. Else we have to add both the North Korean and South Korean navy into the list.

The South Korean Navy's inclusion must be cemented with good explanation of the projected plan. The Dokodo Amphibious ships are not enough explanation, so things need to be added in the brief explanation.

Chanakyathegreat 03:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, Russian Navy can be in the list of future blue water navy and since it is merged with Potential blue water navy, it must be in the potential navy list. Atleast when we compare Russian Navy and South Korean Navy, the Russian Navy seems to be better than the other.

Chanakyathegreat 04:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You point out that government commitment is a necessary factor for "future blue water navies". But my point is that it is EQUALLY true to say that government commitment is a necessary factor for "potential blue water navies". That criterion does not differentiate between teh twogroups in any way.

fwiw, I don't think the South Korean navy should be counted, based on teh evidence presented on the page so far. The dokdo class, with 7 helicopters, cannot guarantee air superiority against any modern full size aircraft carrier. And without portable air superiority, its landing capabilities are easy to counter. If South Korea were to present evidence of a significant aircraft carrier, that would change my overall analysis, but a landing craft, no matter how capable of doing a contested shore assault, can't control airspace. Rhialto 06:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is a joke
After the vandalization of some indian wikipedians this article has become a joke and the proof of why the wikipedia is not a serious source. This article does not even mention the 6th and 7th world navies. It's just a penis contest. -anon

The article is not a joke, it is simply the result of constant work and endless arguement. I still maintain, for my part, that only the United States, Britain, France, Japan, Italy and India can really claim blue-water status, with only Russia and Germany making realistic attempts to gain or maintain that. Still, I enjoy the debate. Cheers 23:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC) -anon

Thank you. Now, if you'd sign your comments, we could maybe take your opinions more seriously. I'm tempted to request that the page be made editable only by registered logged in users. That at least would stop anonymous graffito. Thoughts? Rhialto 00:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by Indian wikipedians

Interesting. Which part did I vandalise. Please clarify, so that I can correct my mistake.

Chanakyathegreat 03:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Historical Blue Water navies
Just an idea for an extra section. We should list nations and approximate dates. As an incomplete undeveloped list, I'd nominate:

Soviet Union England (British Empire navy has a significant historical contribution worth noting) France Spain China Netherlands

As a rough criteria, I'd consider anything that was blue water before 1800, and anything that has ceased to be blue water since that date. Rhialto 00:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Historical list is a good thing. But there must not be restrictions like before 1800 or so on. If needed can be divided into two groups like history and modern history or something of that sort. I nominate two empires. One is the Chola and the other Mauryan empire. I did not have any details of the Mauryan empire's Navy, so need to dwell more into historical facts.

Chanakyathegreat 03:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

ok, scratch that 1800 note. Given the second half of the item (anything that has ceased to be a blue water navy), its covered anyway.

As for Chola and Maurya...

The Chola article makes no mention of their military navy power at all. It's certainly true from the map that they had an empire that covered blue water areas, but no reason to suppose their ships were sailing blue water (as opposed to coast hugging and therefore being green water), and no evidence in the article to suppose they had a military navy capable of competing with a contemporary major power (I don't count fighting against pirates). I welcome more evidence on this one, as it certainly could be, depending on further data.

The Maurya article gives nothing to indicate the empire had any meaningful navy at all. It appears to be a powerful land based one. Much as it was certainly a great empire, but doesn't appear to have had any meaningful blue water ability.

Note that the requirement to be able to project force on distant blue waters stands. The Romans absolutely dominated their mediterranean sea, but they couldnt hope to support ships beyond their waters. I wouldnt count the polynesians either, a those ocean going vessels of theirs werent able to fight at sea. I wont even count Malta, which had teh biggest navy in the mediterranean towards the mid-18th century, as there was no distant projection ability. I am highly suspect of any claim to blue water status for any navy that has not invented a means to measure longitude.Rhialto 06:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I just read up on China's Zheng He. There's nothing to suggest he didn't hug the coast in his voyages (except maps of questionable authenticity). I withdraw that proposal, but I'd like to add Portugal. Rhialto 06:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You did not ask me proof on Mauryan Navy's aircraft carrier to put it in the Blue water navy section. After doing some study I found that it will not be logical to list the age old Navy's in this article as the defenition of Blue water navy at present and the past varies by a large extent. During historical times, it was impossible to project power through the seas over long distances but they used to sail over a particular sea or oceans. The trade ships can travel to another nation and back but when we look at Navy's it is an impossible task, since they will not get any support and logistic wise it will be a big failure for them to attack a very far off nation from the sea. Do you have any source of Historical navy that has taken the sea route to attack another nation that is far off.

Since already a list exists in Wikipedia about Historical Navy's it is better to add all those navies into that list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_navies

Regarding you second question on the Mauryan and Chola empires having Navy and powerful Navy, they did have powerful Navy. While searching I found certain interesting articles.

http://indiannavy.nic.in/history.htm

This article provides link to not just two but many powerful navy's of India including Vijayanagara, Kalinga, Maratha, Chola, Maurya.

Another one http://indiannavy.nic.in/cns_add2.htm

http://orissagov.nic.in/e-magazine/Orissareview/Sept2004/englishPdf/maritime.pdf

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ENG/cha.htm

Chanakyathegreat 08:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh ffs. The reason I go on about aircraft carriers in a modern navy is because in amodern context, any fleet that lacks control of their local airspace is a sitting duck. In my original definition, I note that teh essential requirement is for capital ships, and I noted that in a modern context this would refer explicitly to aircraft carriers. I can't help but think you are trolling me by asking why I didn't question them for their obvious lack of aircraft carriers.

Now, regardless of how powerful a *green* water navy they may have had, without a means of measuring longitude and thus actually knowing where on Earth they are, they have no way of exerting any meaningful control out of sight of land, and thuis can't be considered blue water.

"Do you have any source of Historical navy that has taken the sea route to attack another nation that is far off."

Off hand, Spanish treasure Fleets and the English privateers intercepting it in the Caribean, Spanish Armada invading England a few dozen years earlier, England invading the newly formed USA, Mongols attacking feudal Japan (but demonstrably not even sea worthy, let alone blue water), USA declaring war on Spain and conquering Cuba, and England conquering India. And that's all just off the top of my head. I'd probably find a dozen more if I looked.

I'll start taking you a bit more seriously when you stop trolling. Rhialto 09:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

What ever you have mentioned here is after the arrival of the Steam engines and also after the trade and colonisation has started.

Some more information on various powerful Navies that existed in India. In the historical section. http://pfr2006.nic.in/

From my point it is better to have all the navies in the historical navies list. Even the blue water navies concept is a new one.

Chanakyathegreat 13:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the concept of a blue water navy as being all that modern. The essential criteria is that a military fleet be seaworthy even through storms, navigate (I didn't mention this item before because its a given for modern technology and GPS), and have a reasonable chance to beat any 1st or 2nd rank naval power of the day in open or at least neutral uncontrolled waters. Because of the widely varying technology levels involved, the concept of a capital ship is awkward to use and objectively state in a definition.

That navigation requirement is the critical factor which removes ancient and medieval navies from consideration. While latitude was and is fairly easy to measure from solar/stellar observation, longitude could not be measured at sea until the invention of portable clocks that were not dependant on gravity or orientation (ie no pendulums or sundials). This was sometime in the late 17th century. If the examples I gave you were all after the invention of the steam engine, that is most because it wasn't until quite late in history that a reliable method to determine longitude was invented. When you consider exactly what a blue water navy is, it should come as no surprise at all that teh advent of blue water navies corresponded almost precisely with the period of European empires and colonisation. Those empires literally weren't possible without blue water navies, and once blue water navies were possible, empires that would use them were inevitable.

This isn't a concerted effort specifically to remove medieval India from the listings; there are plenty of other medieval powers (and earlier) that I don't count too.

Prior to that date (invention of longitude measurements at sea), shipss relied on dead reckoning to determine longitude, measuring speed and bearing to estimate where they would be. This was risky at the best of times, due to simple errors in estimating current and wind strength, but if a ship was hit by a storm, all bets were off. Until the discovery of a reliable way to measure longitude, shisp rarely ventured far from the coast except 1) making high stakes voyages of discovery, or 2) travelling across a known short strait. The first isn't the sort of action that any sensible commander would expose a battle fleet to, and the second isn't really a true blue water operation.

To be considered for this list, I'd want to see some details of specific combat ships and their armaments, how they navigated blue waters, and example actions to show how that navy was a military power (technological superiority or examples of successful military action or the like) in its day. I see many examples of places that Indian merchants traded with, but trade has little to do with military might. And I see a few assertions that various kingdoms had powerful, or strong navies, but no specifics. There just isn't enough detail in any of the articles you've cited to cover any of the criteria that I consider essential.

And to say that every historical navy should be included in a list of historical blue water navies is silly. That's exactly like saying that every modern navy should be in a list of modern blue water navies. Rhialto 15:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

When the Historical blue water navy list is created there need to be two sections, one for the navy after the invention of engines and one that used sail (very historical times). Another is that the criteria for the two need to be found by finding articles, defining historical blue water navies. Regarding Historical Indian empires let us concentrate only on the powerful Navy's aspect and forget the maritime trade. I will also suggest that Russian navy be added in the Potential list since they seem to be a revival of russian economy and its navy. The list seem to be incomplete.

Chanakyathegreat 14:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

My point doesn't really have much to do with engines vs sails. It has much more to do with navigation, a technology which is completely independant of propulsion technologies. I recognise that there were some extremely powerful green water navies in ancient and medieval times. But without proper longitude measurements, they had no way to confidently sail into wide blue waters, which leaves them firmly in the big green water camp. Perhaps we could make a list of historical green water navies...

I agree that Russia is a candidate navy for possible inclusion. Rhialto 15:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Need exact definition to be provided. So there is a requirement for sources that we can study and discuss it here. Regarding your opinion on Russian Navy I will add it into the potential Navy list. Chanakyathegreat 16:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, by Russian navy, I was referring to the pre-Soviet Imperial navy, NOT teh modern navy of Russia.

Regarding exact definitions, while I recognise that the defintion I have provided above is incomplete nd could do with some refinement, the navigation requirement (able to accurately measure longitude while at sea without resorting to dead reckoning or equivalent concepts) is an essential requirement for blue water operations. Rhialto 21:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

We have to be very careful with this. I foresee many of the same problems that we've had with the current sections. To Chanakya: the sources you mentioned give no indication whatsoever that those nations had blue-water navies. Powerful navies maybe, but certainly not blue-water ones. Blue-water navies must be capable of operating across the entire globe. This section, if it is made, will necessarily be very Euro-centric since before the modern era European nations were pretty much the only ones that had truly blue-water navies (England, France, Spain, Netherlands, Portugal). China during the Ming is a maybe.UberCryxic 21:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

No sources will provide information on historical blue water navy's, since it is only associated with the present navy's. The only mention is that they are a powerful navy and it is the blue water capability of that period.

Chanakyathegreat 03:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. there is plenty of historical information on many navies. Perhaps not on those navies from what is now India, but there is nothing to stop an interested scholar from researching that information. That's exactly what happened with some other historical blue water navies - an interested scholar did the research. Just because you claim the research has not been done on the former navies within India, is that a reason to completely cancel the article? Rhialto 07:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Why don't you just keep it simple with the definition of the blue water navy in historical times? Since the capabilities were limited, include navies that had a large navy, like Spain, had the potential to, or discovered a certain place or area (like Cape Hope), or sailed around the world, or controlled the sea with the navy. Good friend100 14:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Historical information on many such Navy's may exist even that from India. The problem here is there exist no such thing as historical blue water Navy, since the concept itself is a new one. This cannot be applied to various periods from the evolution of man kind. During each phase there used to be variations and the criteria varies for powerful Navies. During the last century(+1more century back) we can consider and even debate about which Navy to be placed as blue water or not, since it was somewhat similar to the present criteria. But how to consider which Navies to be called as blue water beyond this period. Can anyone provide any such research on Historical blue water navies. There may be research on powerful navies, but I suspect anyone had ever called the Roman navy a blue water navy, but as a powerful navy. Hence there can be a Historical powerful navies list(the list already exist in Navy) based on information collected from the internet. Chanakyathegreat 02:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It is extremely easy to find examples of historical blue water navies. The Soviet navy was one such example, as was the Imperial Japanese Navy. While both of these have successor states that could be recognisable as teh same country, there is a definite divide between the USSR/Japanese empire and their modern successor states, not to mention a break in contuity in their naval traditions. Just because ancient and medieval navies lack full documentation, that does not mean more recent historical navies don't exist. And if historical information on a particular navy doesn't exist, that is a very good reason not to mention it at all in this kind of article, given wikipedia's policy on verifiability. Rhialto 04:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

So a list of almost modern or a navy that was a blue water navy in a century or -1(-1) century. Chanakyathegreat 15:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Image problem
A lot of images has been removed from Wikipedia. I did not understand what is the need to remove images in one strike without any warning of any sort.

Wikipeida is for doomed. If Wikipedia cannot accept images even from Government websites. I think the days of Wikipedia are numbered.

Chanakyathegreat 14:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should lock the page and then discuss image problems. Good friend100 14:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Korea picture
Why the change to the two destroyers? The Korean Yi Sun-sin destroyer gives a clearer and broader look at the battleship. Good friend100 14:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

There are two destroyers in this image. The article is about blue water navy and hence if you can find an image in which a fleet of ships that will look good for this article. You can insert the old image also if you wish to do so.

Chanakyathegreat 16:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

India Section Length - Cruft?
The paragraph on India is now longer than any two other nation-specific paragraphs put together, and is very nearly as long as all the other nation-paragraphs put together. It is beginning to look like listcruft. Perhaps it needs to be trimmed down a little, or the other nation-paragraphs enlarged to similar proportions? Ideally, it should be strictly a discussion of its present blue water status, plus a summary of what work is being done to remedy the specific weaknesses that prevent its inclusion as an actual blue water navy.Rhialto 22:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah that's a problem, but it goes beyond that. The potential blue-water navies have descriptions, but what about the actual blue-water navies? Should we create separate sections for the American, British, and French navies, or we should cut down on the material allowed for potential navies?UberCryxic 16:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Same with images. Potential navies have their own images, but the blue-water ones don't. We need to institute some standards here.UberCryxic 16:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)