Talk:List of countries with warships

Accuracy
Accuracy is going to be important for keeping this article useful. In created this article I am hoping to provide a ready reference for comparing the quantitative naval strength of countries.

Some key points:
 * In categories (of vessels) owned by few countries, working by category is easier. (e.g. A lot of zeros for countries without aircraft carriers).
 * It is going to be quite difficult track down all the patrol boats (aka "cutters") that countries have. I put the minimum size at 250 tonnes. Going down to 100 tonnes is tempting, but it might risk including "river patrol boats", such as swift boats, which are not really warships.
 * Putting numbers into a table is not very exciting, but it would good if we could make this table very accurate and keep it up-to-date. Navy buffs please help! Anthony717 (talk) 09:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Modifications needed
Surely there should be some sort of principle to the rankings (US has less boats than Russia, UK has more pink boats than Russia... why are the rankings as they are?). Tonnage might work. Incidently, putting a table about 'the real rank' rather than suggesting a metric for ranking is simply stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.227.70.209 (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure these comments go here. (Feel free do delete if not) 1: USA 2: Rusia 3: France 4: UK  5: China 6: Japan 7: Itally 8: Spain 9: South Korea 10:Germany 11:Netherland 12:Turkey 13:Canada 14:Grece 15:ROC * 16:Australia
 * Tonage is way more important than is seems. Tons = Survivability
 * Oficial clasifications do not correspond to reallity; I´ve seen you have done some changes in this point.
 * Only numbers, make no sence. Example: North Korean Air Force by number would be the second or third most powerfull in the world. But really only has a couple of dozens of planes that are combat worth in the 2010´s.
 * Not shure on how to focus these changes but, more or less the real rank would be:


 * I didnt forget the Indian Navy, for shure its in the ten best but it serves me as an example. How the hell can you rate an aircraftcarrier launched in 1953 (57 years old), Or frigates designed only for the purpose of fighting Pakistan´s submarines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elloza (talk • contribs) 23:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Worth pointing out that this is worth merging with this page: * Table of current naval strengths —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.163.229 (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Why are some navies shown to have 0 ships of a given class and other have - ship of the same class. Is there a difference and if so it should be pointed out in the guide to the table and if there is no difference then you should be consistent and only use 0 or - when you want to indicate that a country doesn't have any ships of that class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.121.108 (talk) 09:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

SPAIN
Hi. Spain have:


 * 11 Frigates:
 * 6 Santa María Class
 * 5 F-100 Class.


 * 16 Corbettes
 * 4 Clase Chilreu [2450 Tns.]
 * 4 Clase Descubierta [1.510 Tns.]
 * 4 Clase Serviola [1.200 Tns.]
 * 4 BAM (16 proyected to built as patrullero de altura, and 4 more for oceanografic and other purposes... and they are going to be reeplaced progressive...) [2500 Tns.]


 * Assault Ships:
 * 2 Galicia Class
 * 1 Newport (one more in reserve..)
 * 1 LHA Juan Carlos I (L-61)


 * Helicopters:
 * 50
 * 16 Harrier Matador + 1 TAV (for training)

--Hispania2 (talk) 11:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

http://www.armada.mde.es/ArmadaPortal/page/Portal/armadaEspannola/buques_superficie/

Rank and total numbers dont fit right now
Rank and total numbers dont fit right now09:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)09:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)09:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.5.184.243 (talk)

Have you ever seen the Russian cruise ship? Are there really any true 5 curisers?
I don't believe it, it is rumors just! That's why Russia only vetoed 8 times from 1991 after fall of Soviet Union! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.151.153.142 (talk) 07:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Amphibious Warfare ships.
i would like to expand the column currently titled Amphibious Transport Docks to all types of Amphibious warfare ships. LSD and LPD are only variants of this overall class of ships, and other Amphibious ships such as LST still play an active role in many navies. Not including the others seems like an arbitrary and an unfair representation, where only LSD and LPD play a vital role and the others dont.

i would like to highlight that even in relatively recent wars such as the Falklands conflict, the RN amphibious effort was put in mainly by the Round Table-class landing ship logistics (which some would categorize as an LST due to bow doors and beaching capability), which was cornerstone to wining the conflict by delivering boots on the ground.

while i agree that Amphibious assault ships deserve special mention as they can in effect function as light STOVL carriers, consolidating all other Amphibious Warfare Ships which are over 250 Tons and which are armed would portray a more accurate representation of the world's navies. The overall ranking based on tonnage would not vary by much since LSD and LPD still weigh far more than LST etc. Pvpoodle (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * An interesting proposal. But I would suggest adding a separate category for the small amphibious vessels like LSTs and LSMs etc, as they are distinctly inferior from the larger LSD and LPD types. It would be like consolidating the Cruiser and Corvette categories together, it just wouldn't be right! But yes, I see no reason why not to add them.


 * Regarding your reference to the Round Table-class during the Falklands war, the "amphibious effort" wasn't put in "mainly" by them, but rather, it was the Fearless-class landing platform docks. In fact the Round Table-class proved to be quite inadequate and sustained considerable losses. Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Took a while for me to get around to doing this but its done now. I have added a new section to include all other armed amphibious warfare ships above 250T . recalculated fleet tonnage and number of ships for all navies operating these ships. information of the PLAN amphibious ships and the North Korean Peoples Navy amphibious ships may need to be checked for accuracy as information regarding these is scarce due to their communist regimes being shrouded in secrecy. Pvpoodle (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Nice edits, although I have two issues. The colour red for Patrol boats and Mine warfare vessels is slightly too dark, I think we should use a lighter shade of red, what do you think? Also, I think we should probably keep the aircraft carrier column separate to the amphibious vessels (i.e different colour). I'll go ahead and make the change, let me know what you think. Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I made two edits to address those two small issues. Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * looks good thanks. patrol boat and mine warfare section might still be a little too dark and eye catching. perhaps we should swap the colors between that and the aircraft carrier section. Pvpoodle (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Royal Navy (UK) aircraft carriers
The stuff on UK aircraft carriers is inconsistent across WP. List of aircraft carriers in service reports 2 based on a 2010 source, except that since then two (R05 in 2010 and R07 in 2012) have been scrapped and another (R06) was downgraded to helicopter carriers after the retirement of the harrier, according to the main article list.

I think since the last edit was reverted, we should come to consensus whether R06 should be included as an AC, since its downgrade was only because the STOVL aircraft it supported were decommissioned, and I think R06 will be an AC again once the UK buys its JSFs.

You guys are the knowledgeable ones, so it's your call. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * illustrious (r06) will be decommissioned this year. or in early 2015. it is not going to support the JSF. the 2 carriers in question that keep popping up everywhere are the 2 new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier under construction. the first of those will not be commissioned till 2017 - 2018. the other QE class carrier may be sold or mothballed due to operating costs ,with no decision taken as of now. so therefore as of this moment U.K does not have any a/c in question, but may have either 1 or 2 in service by around 2020. so right now the number should be 0 on all articles listing uk carriers. but when they QE class enters service we will change it to either 1 or 2 depending on the MOD decision regarding budget. Pvpoodle (talk) 04:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * List of aircraft carriers in service has ongoing edit wars, and that article cannot be considered reliable at all. they are listing HMS ocean and HMS illustrious as a/c in UK service. ocean is an amphibious assault ship and not an A/C. they may resemble a/c and displace around the same, but the internal structure is completely different. amphibs carry a well deck and extensive storage facilities linking to it to transport men and material, which is their primary purpose. while in an a/c this space is devoted to aviation facilities like hangers and repair shops. additionally a/c has hardened flight decks that can resist the intense heat of jet engines, especially of vtol engines like on the harrier, landing such aircraft on ambphi ships will damage the flight deck. the U.S navy has the wasp and tarawa classes in service and these have a one or two hardened landing spots on the deck that are marked out for the USMC harriers to use. the rest of the deck can only be used by the helicopters. there is no evidence of this on hms ocean. illustrious will definitely have a hardened deck but as of now only operates helicopters and will retire before the JSF enters service. so in this article the 2 ships in question fall under the amphibious warfare ship category (i.e LPH/ LHD )and not under the a/c category. hope this clears things up, and sorry for the long post. regards, Pvpoodle (talk) 04:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The UK has no carriers in service. HMS Illustrious was re-designated as a LPH since the retirement of the Harrier GR9. Illustrious is expected to be decommissioned this month. Antiochus the Great (talk) 10:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Land. ship, other?
Makes no logical sense, and is not a term I am familiar of in naval literature. "tonn- age" and "Dest- royer" also make no sense. They are not compound words and do not require hyphens. @Anthony717, please explain your edits and please refrain from statements such as "i created article 5 years ago", see Ownership of articles. You do not 'own' the article. Antiochus the Great (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Headings
The correct term for a "landing ship" is an "amphibious support ship", in contrast to a "amphibious assault ship".

Dock landing ships and Amphibious transport dock are also "landing ships", so I'm not sure why they're listed separately?

It would make more sense to combine the headings into "Amphibious support ship".

Also LPH, LHA, LHD are all amphibious assault ships, so that heading could be used instead.

Rob984 (talk) 11:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅. Rob984 (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Russian Navy Active Ships
This section is to debate the current ships available to the Russian Navy and subsequent tonnage.

As of March 2015 we have:

1 X Kuznetsov-class Aircraft Carrier

1 X Kirov-class Heavy missile Cruiser

3 X Slava-class Cruisers

1 X Kashin-class Destroyer 7 X Udaloy I Destroyers 1 X Udaloy II Destroyer 3 X Sovremenny Destroyers

3 X Delta III Ballistic missile submarines 1 X Typhoon Ballistic missile submarine 6 X Delta IV Ballistic missile submarines 3 X Borei Ballistic missile submarines

7 X Oscar II Cruise missile submarines

2 X Sierra II Nuclear attack submarines 4 X Victor III Nuclear attack submarines 9 X Akula Nuclear attack submarines 1 X Yasen-class Nuclear attack submarine

16 X Kilo Conventional attack submarines 2 X Improved Kilo Conventional attack submarines 1 X Lada-class Conventional attack submarine

2 X Burevestnik Frigates 2 X Neustrashimyy Frigates

20 X Grisha Corvettes 13 X Nanuchka Corvettes 26 X Tarantul Corvettes 7 X Parchim Corvettes 2 X Gepard Corvettes 3 X Buyan Corvettes 4 X Steregushchy Corvettes 3 X Buyan M Corvettes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyrover (talk • contribs) 09:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Current Chinese ships and tonnage
Subs

4 X Type 94 = 46,000 5 x Type 093 = 35,000 1 X type 092 = 8,000 3 x type 091 = 16,500 13 x type039a = 46,800 13 x type 039 = 29,250 12 x kilo = 48,000 17 x type 035 = 35,870 1 x type 032 = 6,600 = 272,020

Aircraft carrier

1 x kuznetsov class = 67,500

Amphibious

3 x type 071 = 60,000 9 x type 072a = 63,000 10 x 072III = 70,000 4 x 072II = 19,200 3 x 072 = 12,300 10 x 073a = 20,000 1 x 073III = 1,850 2 x 073IIy = 2,200 6 x 074A = 4,800 12 x 074 = 9,600 = 262,950

Destroyers

1 x 052d = 7,500 6 x 052c = 42,000 2 x 051c = 14,200 2 x 052b = 13,000 4 x sovremenny = 31,600 1 x 051b = 6,100 2 x 052 = 9,600 6 x 051 = 22,020 = 146,020

Frigates

18 x 054a = 72,900 2 x 054 = 8,600 10 x 053h3 = 24,000 4 x 053h2g = 9,600 13 x 053 = 26,000 = 141,100

Corvettes

20 x 056 = 28,800

Missile boats

6 x 037II = 3,120 20 x 037Ig = 9,560 = 12,680

Sub Chaser

27 x 037I = 12,906 67 x 037 = 28,810 = 41,716

Mine Warfare

10 x 081 = 12,000 2 x 082II = 1,150 16 x 092 = 6,400 = 19,550

total = 992,363

Argument over term for landing ships (Compare lph-lha-lhd versus lpd-lsd, what are they?) (Please help!)
I created this article years ago (this gives no rights, but maybe a little consideration). My more recent attempt to try to apply "user friendly" terms to the various landing ship types was shot down as very foolish and uninformed.

This is about "lph-lha-lhd versus lpd-lsd, what are they?" (Technically.)

A compromise would be good. Maybe someone with navy experience could supply the generic terms. Remember, Wikipedia is for everyone, and jargon and initialisms are not cool. Anthony717 (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Does China have 61 troop landing ships? Anthony717 (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Update: I gave article more thought, which, I hope, shows in the last few edits. Defining vehicle carriers as plane, copter, boat, and troop (incl. tank) seems cool. I hope jives with Jane's.


 * Sorry, I didn't see you comment until today. I have applied the correct terminology. Regards, Rob984 (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, I don't think "user friendly" terms are necessarily helpful. Amphibious assault ships are helicopter carriers, but this is not there only role. Many also carry fixed-wing aircraft or landing craft. I think a better option would be to briefly explain what an amphibious assault ship and amphibious support ship is. Essentially, they are employed to land and support ground forces, unlike surface combat ships which are for naval warfare. Rob984 (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Is this article necessary?
Is this article necessary when we already have List of countries by level of military equipment? Unlike this article, it actually has contains reliable sources. Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, merge/delete definitely, I didn't even know that article existed. *sigh* Rob984 (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * How would we proceed in doing so? An area I have little experience in. Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)