"The Five Most-Powerful Navies on the Planet" Topic

"It's a universal truth handed down since antiquity: a country with a coastline has a navy. Big or small, navies worldwide have the same basic mission—to project military might into neighboring waters and beyond.

The peacetime role of navies has been more or less the same for thousands of years. Navies protect the homeland, keep shipping routes and lines of communication open, show the flag and deter adversaries. In wartime, a navy projects naval power in order to deny the enemy the ability to do the same. This is achieved by attacking enemy naval forces, conducting amphibious landings, and seizing control of strategic bodies of water and landmasses.

The role of navies worldwide has expanded in the past several decades to include new missions and challenges. Navies are now responsible for a nation's strategic nuclear deterrent, defense against ballistic missiles, space operations, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. With that in mind, here are the five most powerful navies in the world…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Funny comment on that site:

Nonsense, everyone knows the European Union, the world's largest economy, has the best navy in the world. It's called the US Navy and American tax payers foot the bill while Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, etc., etc. etc. reap the benefits. You can't argue with that system. Advantage Europe

Quite right. Europe has no ships apart from:

'The combined component strength of the European Naval Forces is some 544 commissioned warships. Of those in service, 4 are aircraft carriers, the largest of which is the 42,000 tonne Charles de Gaulle. However British plans will see two 70,600 tonne Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers enter service starting 2018. Of the EU's 58 submarines, 21 are nuclear-powered submarines (11 UK and 10 French) while 37 are conventional attack submarines. Many European Navies do not classify destroyer sized vessels as destroyers, and instead classify them as frigates regardless of size and role. This would explain the relatively large difference between the number of destroyers and frigates in service.'

link

Same with total military budget – a mere pittance:

'The following table presents the military expenditure of the European Union in euros (€). The combined military expenditure of the European Union Member States amounts to just over is €192.50 EUR billion.[2] This represents 1.55% of European Union GDP and is second only to the €503.00 EUR billion military expenditure of the United States.'

Same source.

I'm not sure the wiki page is right, but the European nations have a number of effective ships within their fleets.

Just because we don't have super powerful aircraft carriers at the present time, does not mean we could not build more.

I seem to remember that the UK has some additional vessels that are not royal navy, but are part of our reserve that are vital and important vessels.

Quite right: link

We also have submarines armed with nuclear missiles, which makes them rather more powerful than pretty well any country who doesn't have nukes or the means to deliver them globally.

Given the level of EU military expenditure, one does wonder where all our airforces and armoured divisions have gone though.

Japan has a pretty tiny 'military', too, and spends just under 1% of their GDP on the military.

No offense, but Europe has exactly the level of military that you'd expect based on the % of GDP!

As that wag comments, the US has effectively been subsidizing the European militaries for the last 70 years.

Realistically, China is not a European problem. It's a US/Japanese/Asian problem. Most European countries are concerned about Russia and spends €192,535,000,000.00 EUR a year.

Russia has just overtaken the UK as third biggest spender: link

However, to say that the US is subsidising Europe is pushing it a bit in terms of European defence. Europe outspends Russia by a considerable margin.

Not sure what form this subsidising is supposed to take. The UK only finished paying for lend lease in 2005.

Not sure what form this subsidising is supposed to take. The UK only finished paying for lend lease in 2005.

And just how much stuff did the US send to the UK under lend-lease?

$31.4 USD billion dollars worth. In 1941 dollars, at that, the equivalent of $490 USD *trillion* today.

Not to mention the UK was given a few years of forbearance to rebuild their economy so that they could afford to repay Lend-Lease.

$490 USD TRILLION?!? We should own the country for that price.

Man, I oughta at least get a castle or something.

I might even get to move in and stay for a week before the Chinese update me on the ledgers.

Five largest navies.

1. USN
2. Everyone else combined.

This fantasy about the US subsidising European defense again?

Yes, the US spends a huge amount on defense – this was a policy decision of the Regan era and was funded by national debt, a policy that has continued to this day. This policy gives the US awesome military and therefore foreign policy clout. Clout that is used in US interests.

The EU spends an awful lot on defense as well, second to the US. This spending is done in the context and planning of NATO. The command and control of NATO is US dominated as well as its policy making. Because of this European nations can not even seriously consider going to war without American approval and support. European armed forces are there to support the US military.

Therefore Europe subsidises the US worldwide military effort to the tune of almost 200 billion euro a year. This is done because European governments believe that US policies and actions will usually be broadly in Europe's interest as well. This may or may not be a good deal for Europe, such is political debate and political debates are always good, or well, better than the alternative. But as the United States undoubted worldwide military dominance is subsidised to a large degree by the European taxpayer I would please ask any people on these boards to at least stop whining about how much Europe spends on defense.

And as for lend lease, you want to quibble about how much was sent and claim forbearance in repayment? Lend Lease started at a time when it looked possible that the world could fall to Nazism. It was vital that Britain hold the ring against Nazism and lend lease was one part of how that could happen. Interest was paid by the British with burning cities in 1940 and 1941 when they stood alone. To be honest, in the 1930s no democracy covered themselves with glory in opposing the rise of hate and darkness. But at least honour the British for sustaining the fight alone when things seemed hopeless, complaining about the dollar cost of lend lease considering the circumstances of when it was arranged seems somewhat churlish, to be honest.

Five largest navies.
1. USN
2. Everyone else combined.

Actually, that's:
1. US Army's fleet of amphibious assault ships
2. USN
3. everyone else combined.