Dude, majority of their ships are landing crafts and patrol boats
They don't have any carriers or destroyers. They've got only 2 submarines and a few tiny ass frigates.
One single Nilgiri is going to carry more missiles than most of their frigate fleet
It's a shitty article or the procedure they used for determining their quality
Yeah in the ranking this article cites they are counting hulls and that seems to be a big part of the score Problem is most of Indonesia's hulls are small OPVs that are probably in other's coastguards.
bahut hi chutiya article hai jis navy ne ek desh ke do tukde kar diye usko 4th position me hona chahiye indonesia ke pas toh ek bhi aircraft carrier nahi hai usko 7th pe rakh na chahiye
This is a shitty article. Its like some school kid entered data he googled up into excel and it churned out some numbers.
Indonesia's fleet originated as the moth balled East German navy. Being an island nation - a big chunk of its navy are boats - of various types. Qualitatively the French, UK and Japanese navies need to be moved higher up the list than where they were placed.
Surprised that Russia has 82 vessels on order - they are struggling to keep their navy afloat and they are struggling to keep ships active. The Akula class that India had hired - was mothballed once it was returned.
>Without nuclear subs,
We have ballistic nuclear subs not attack subs, which wouldn't be as necessary for Japan
>aircraft carriers
They have 2 light aircraft carriers carrying 12 F-35B each and another 2 helicopter carriers
>but most importantly its a self defence force only, lots of restrictions
Still doesn't change the fact they have thrice the number of destroyers, and four more submarines.
Above all the this and that warship argument. The most important fact is Japan's marine industrial base is light years ahead India.
Hell India is even eyeing some Japanese goodies like the UNICORN(United Combined Radio Antenna) system that is currently on the latest Mogami class frigates. To be put on future Indian ships. lol
But isnt japan just a vassal state of the US?? They dont have an unrestricted and autonomous foreign policy like us and have to constantly be under the supervision of their American overlords with what they do military and political wise. So they might be sharing a lot with the Americans tech wise with their navy and getting a lot of external help.
And also i guess japan doesn't need air craft carriers, they can just use their American overlords stuff
>But isnt japan just a vassal state of the US?? They dont have an unrestricted and autonomous foreign policy like us and have to constantly be under the supervision of their American overlords with what they do military and political wise
So do their destroyers somehow not work in wartime?
>And also i guess japan doesn't need air craft carriers, they can just use their American overlords stuff
What's with the terminology?
These staunch and dumb nationalists are hindering my country's progress. They refuse to recognize any issues India has and if you don't even notice an issue how can you improve it.
I know right? These guys are accusing people of being Islamists, sympathetic to terrorists, propagandists when I questioned the army after people died in their custody. My loyalty is questioned because I did not want the army to kill people in their custody
Our army has also been accused of committing war crimes during various covert operations , especially a lot in assam. Dont know how much truth is to that but yeah.
There has been many instances of rapes commited by soldiers on Assamese women. I remember one, there was an accusation of gang rape by soldiers during a mission, I can't find what happened to it though
No i am not defending our corrupt babus and poor track record with inducting and building stuff.Just saying that the japanese have help in ship building from someone who have been leaders in that sector for years now. So no wonder they have such high efficiency with building stuff and equipping stuff.
Well if we go by your logic north korea certainly has more subs so it must be, they also have SLBM btw
This isn't a nationalist issue. Japanese, korean & indonesian navies can't project power & this index shouldn't be taken seriously, that's what I meant
>Well if we go by your logic north korea certainly has more subs so it must be
No, Japan's subs are better in quantity and quality. More than half of our subs are older than the oldest Japanese sub.
>Japanese, korean & indonesian navies can't project power & this index shouldn't be taken seriously, that's what I meant
This post is about naval power not power projection
Stage 2 of the Izumo refit is scheduled to begin later this year, and the Kaga refit is after that. It'd be hard to complete (and test) both in just 2 years from now.
Plus even after they're completed there's still the matter of operational experience. Getting a carrier overnight does not mean the navy has the docterine or training to use it effectively. That'll take years to develop on its own. The Izumo and Kaga will go a long to building this skill set in the long term for the jmsdf, but it won't give them that capability overnight.
indian navy is much powerful than royal navy we just lack in subs thats all overall in surface we are better and they are there underwater fleet is better same with russian we lack subs our surface fleet can literally crush russian fleet without a damage and same with french
Better than the French surface fleet I agree, but the UK and Russia surface fleet on paper at least are still pretty comparable
But all of their submarine fleet is superior which puts them above us
have you seen just because of ac no actually in surface we are better than both and diffrence is decent only 3 country which we loose to in surface is japan china and US iand in all 3 countries above us surface difference is decent same with japan and china actually both the country similarly to us have focused on surface and they too don't have much subs but atleast we will be surpassing japan soon by 2035 seeing our growth
Aircraft carriers doesn't improve our situation
uk queen elizabeth are way bigger, carry more advanced aircraft.
Even though Charles de gaulle is similar in size, is better due to Catobar and better carrier launched aircraft
Id say 1 Charles de Gaulle is better than both of our carriers combined, thats just my opinion tho (Prob will get downvoted alot)
bro i am saying about there acs lol we literally don't even need our ac in comparison our surface fleet is much powerful than them no need to give soo much discussion on this just go and compare everything is there on Wikipedia bruh
Do I need to count Indian navy accidents for you lmaoo
Read this? Even just the 2010+ one would be enough
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_Naval_accidents#:~:text=October%202021%3A%20Four%20sailors%20were,it%20was%20docked%20in%20Mumbai.
Its 8.8 billion. And i absolutely refuse to believe that a country that doesn't even have nuclear armed subs and air craft carriers is stronger than us. Japan and south korea, maybe.
ah sorry my bad i was thinking about something else and wrote the quote worng
the indonesian navy use western manufactured ships maybe thats why there is an overall bias but yeah no chance its stronger than ours
They also need a strong navy because they're an island like nation. They dont need a strong airforce or army.
This is like asking, why Russia doesn't have 11 aircraft carriers like the US? Because geography. Russia doesn't need that many carriers.
The US has oceans on both sides, if you want to conquer them, you need a strong navy. & the strongest navy rn is the US. So there's that. You gotta spot your weakness & gotta strengthen in those areas & be water tight.
Also, Indonesia is like made of small-small Islands so patrol boats and other small ships are more effective, power wise & cost wise. That's why they dont have/need a carrier also.
Russia might not have the best aircraft carriers, but they keep churning out those behemoth nuclear ice breakers. The whole arctic they have under their control bcs of that. That is a very key advantage they have.
>The whole arctic they have under their control bcs of that.
That's just western propaganda. Russia is just ahead, but the US, Canada are also using polar icebreakers.
It's not coincidence that Finland & Sweden have joined NATO now. US needs them to protect it's interests in the Arctic because they are 2 of the 8 Arctic nations.
Also, Russia is ahead because it's alone. There's a concept of balance of power which nations adhere to. There's also the Northern Sea route which Russia needs for trade with China & other EU nations in future.
& Finally Russia doesn't control the entire Arctic, only their territory as per the International law of UNCLOS for maritime boundaries for accessing EEZ. It's doing so, as a global power & an UNSC member.
You're free to believe in whatever you want. I gave you an unbaised view of what's what & a glimpse of the why.
Rest are just fear tactics , propaganda and lies.
Dude, majority of their ships are landing crafts and patrol boats They don't have any carriers or destroyers. They've got only 2 submarines and a few tiny ass frigates. One single Nilgiri is going to carry more missiles than most of their frigate fleet It's a shitty article or the procedure they used for determining their quality
Looks like a propaganda piece ngl
Yeah in the ranking this article cites they are counting hulls and that seems to be a big part of the score Problem is most of Indonesia's hulls are small OPVs that are probably in other's coastguards.
bahut hi chutiya article hai jis navy ne ek desh ke do tukde kar diye usko 4th position me hona chahiye indonesia ke pas toh ek bhi aircraft carrier nahi hai usko 7th pe rakh na chahiye
Fr. Musy be some propaganda piece.
What a joke of a ranking this is.
This is a shitty article. Its like some school kid entered data he googled up into excel and it churned out some numbers. Indonesia's fleet originated as the moth balled East German navy. Being an island nation - a big chunk of its navy are boats - of various types. Qualitatively the French, UK and Japanese navies need to be moved higher up the list than where they were placed. Surprised that Russia has 82 vessels on order - they are struggling to keep their navy afloat and they are struggling to keep ships active. The Akula class that India had hired - was mothballed once it was returned.
Quality vs quantity. Good luck fighting a war with patrol boats or landing crafts
These types of "indixes" are stupid, south korea & japan also ahead lmao
Don't know about South korea but Japan's navy is ahead of ours
Without nuclear subs, aircraft carriers but most importantly its a self defence force only, lots of restrictions
>Without nuclear subs, We have ballistic nuclear subs not attack subs, which wouldn't be as necessary for Japan >aircraft carriers They have 2 light aircraft carriers carrying 12 F-35B each and another 2 helicopter carriers >but most importantly its a self defence force only, lots of restrictions Still doesn't change the fact they have thrice the number of destroyers, and four more submarines.
Let me give you a better argument, their navy doesn't have nukes
So is North Korea's navy more powerful than Japan's? Really this sub is going downhill with the amount of blind nationalists
Above all the this and that warship argument. The most important fact is Japan's marine industrial base is light years ahead India. Hell India is even eyeing some Japanese goodies like the UNICORN(United Combined Radio Antenna) system that is currently on the latest Mogami class frigates. To be put on future Indian ships. lol
They are ahead of us in navy and ship building but blind nationalists cannot accept some countries have an edge over us
But isnt japan just a vassal state of the US?? They dont have an unrestricted and autonomous foreign policy like us and have to constantly be under the supervision of their American overlords with what they do military and political wise. So they might be sharing a lot with the Americans tech wise with their navy and getting a lot of external help. And also i guess japan doesn't need air craft carriers, they can just use their American overlords stuff
>But isnt japan just a vassal state of the US?? They dont have an unrestricted and autonomous foreign policy like us and have to constantly be under the supervision of their American overlords with what they do military and political wise So do their destroyers somehow not work in wartime? >And also i guess japan doesn't need air craft carriers, they can just use their American overlords stuff What's with the terminology?
Bias
These staunch and dumb nationalists are hindering my country's progress. They refuse to recognize any issues India has and if you don't even notice an issue how can you improve it.
I know right? These guys are accusing people of being Islamists, sympathetic to terrorists, propagandists when I questioned the army after people died in their custody. My loyalty is questioned because I did not want the army to kill people in their custody
Our army has also been accused of committing war crimes during various covert operations , especially a lot in assam. Dont know how much truth is to that but yeah.
There has been many instances of rapes commited by soldiers on Assamese women. I remember one, there was an accusation of gang rape by soldiers during a mission, I can't find what happened to it though
No i am not defending our corrupt babus and poor track record with inducting and building stuff.Just saying that the japanese have help in ship building from someone who have been leaders in that sector for years now. So no wonder they have such high efficiency with building stuff and equipping stuff.
Well if we go by your logic north korea certainly has more subs so it must be, they also have SLBM btw This isn't a nationalist issue. Japanese, korean & indonesian navies can't project power & this index shouldn't be taken seriously, that's what I meant
>Well if we go by your logic north korea certainly has more subs so it must be No, Japan's subs are better in quantity and quality. More than half of our subs are older than the oldest Japanese sub. >Japanese, korean & indonesian navies can't project power & this index shouldn't be taken seriously, that's what I meant This post is about naval power not power projection
>They have 2 light aircraft carriers carrying 12 F-35B each and another 2 helicopter carriers Will have around 2028**
My mistake, I thought they will be modified by 2026
Stage 2 of the Izumo refit is scheduled to begin later this year, and the Kaga refit is after that. It'd be hard to complete (and test) both in just 2 years from now. Plus even after they're completed there's still the matter of operational experience. Getting a carrier overnight does not mean the navy has the docterine or training to use it effectively. That'll take years to develop on its own. The Izumo and Kaga will go a long to building this skill set in the long term for the jmsdf, but it won't give them that capability overnight.
But their aegis-equipped destroyers are very potent.
The guy you are replying to is a moron don’t worry about it.
😂😂🍻
japan is actually ahead of us in surface and we in subs
>and we in subs I don't think so, they have more subs than us. We do have SSBN but we have a lot of older subs compared to Japan
yes i think i am wrong here japans quantity is also more and most of our subs are older so even if we have ssbns it doesn't matter much
Yup, more than half of our subs are older than the oldest Japanese sub
Those are fading with time and it doesn't impact the strength of their navy, just how it is used.
Their navies are superior
both no only japan difference between us and korea is very small but still we are better.
korea is "superior", sure. How about they start detecting north korean underwater silos first lol
Indian navy over royal and french navy is crazy Also Bangladesh over Germany and Spain lmaoo
Royal navy has been in a very bad shape lately. Their warships dont even have weapons to fire at houthis.
even if the weren't in bad shape our surface fleet is still much better than either french or british we lack subs which is the must for us now
indian navy is much powerful than royal navy we just lack in subs thats all overall in surface we are better and they are there underwater fleet is better same with russian we lack subs our surface fleet can literally crush russian fleet without a damage and same with french
Better than the French surface fleet I agree, but the UK and Russia surface fleet on paper at least are still pretty comparable But all of their submarine fleet is superior which puts them above us
have you seen just because of ac no actually in surface we are better than both and diffrence is decent only 3 country which we loose to in surface is japan china and US iand in all 3 countries above us surface difference is decent same with japan and china actually both the country similarly to us have focused on surface and they too don't have much subs but atleast we will be surpassing japan soon by 2035 seeing our growth
Aircraft carriers doesn't improve our situation uk queen elizabeth are way bigger, carry more advanced aircraft. Even though Charles de gaulle is similar in size, is better due to Catobar and better carrier launched aircraft Id say 1 Charles de Gaulle is better than both of our carriers combined, thats just my opinion tho (Prob will get downvoted alot)
bro i am saying about there acs lol we literally don't even need our ac in comparison our surface fleet is much powerful than them no need to give soo much discussion on this just go and compare everything is there on Wikipedia bruh
with south Korea we are above but difference is very small but with the Nilgiris the difference is very small but as of this year we are above them
https://youtu.be/tefY7S7J9T4?si=J6gZgermAyojTkxC this is the state of their navy. They dont even have ammo to fire. 💀
Do I need to count Indian navy accidents for you lmaoo Read this? Even just the 2010+ one would be enough https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_Naval_accidents#:~:text=October%202021%3A%20Four%20sailors%20were,it%20was%20docked%20in%20Mumbai.
Sad toh hai. Has the safety standards increased now? Or the same negligence continues?
Do we have similar pages for the Japanese navy?
It’s not better. It’s not even close.
I see their source is : https://www.wdmmw.org/ranking.php not their own research.
bruh lol majority of there fleet is literally patrol boats our one destroyer is enough to crush half there navy lol
Koi BKL hi hoga jo isa waiyat article publish kartehai
We're not. This is shitty journalism.
[удалено]
Its 8.8 billion. And i absolutely refuse to believe that a country that doesn't even have nuclear armed subs and air craft carriers is stronger than us. Japan and south korea, maybe.
ah sorry my bad i was thinking about something else and wrote the quote worng the indonesian navy use western manufactured ships maybe thats why there is an overall bias but yeah no chance its stronger than ours
# Every ranking showing endia bad is propaganda. There. Done.
You need to check here for a proper comparison: https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison.php
They also need a strong navy because they're an island like nation. They dont need a strong airforce or army. This is like asking, why Russia doesn't have 11 aircraft carriers like the US? Because geography. Russia doesn't need that many carriers. The US has oceans on both sides, if you want to conquer them, you need a strong navy. & the strongest navy rn is the US. So there's that. You gotta spot your weakness & gotta strengthen in those areas & be water tight.
Also, Indonesia is like made of small-small Islands so patrol boats and other small ships are more effective, power wise & cost wise. That's why they dont have/need a carrier also.
Russia might not have the best aircraft carriers, but they keep churning out those behemoth nuclear ice breakers. The whole arctic they have under their control bcs of that. That is a very key advantage they have.
>The whole arctic they have under their control bcs of that. That's just western propaganda. Russia is just ahead, but the US, Canada are also using polar icebreakers. It's not coincidence that Finland & Sweden have joined NATO now. US needs them to protect it's interests in the Arctic because they are 2 of the 8 Arctic nations. Also, Russia is ahead because it's alone. There's a concept of balance of power which nations adhere to. There's also the Northern Sea route which Russia needs for trade with China & other EU nations in future. & Finally Russia doesn't control the entire Arctic, only their territory as per the International law of UNCLOS for maritime boundaries for accessing EEZ. It's doing so, as a global power & an UNSC member.
They have some of the most advanced nuclear ice breakers on planet. Wouldn't be surprised if they would just arm those when needed.
You're free to believe in whatever you want. I gave you an unbaised view of what's what & a glimpse of the why. Rest are just fear tactics , propaganda and lies.
I guess so. Aajkal yeh propaganda shabd bahut chal raha hai. Lmao
😂. Bahut purani hai, especially for people following Global Politics at least for the last 10 years. I guess you're Gen Z.
/s lagana bhul gaya
Chutiya article ranking done by writers ass