Blue-water navy: Difference between revisions
revert undiscussed revert |
|||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
<!--please do not add further examples; this section is just an illustration, it is not meant to be a list. see the archives for flamewar details --> |
<!--please do not add further examples; this section is just an illustration, it is not meant to be a list. see the archives for flamewar details --> |
||
*The [[United States Navy]] maintains continuous readiness to deploy 6 [[Carrier Strike Group|carrier strike groups]] simultaneously as well as deploy an additional 2 within thirty days under the [[Fleet Response Plan]] (FRP) while maintaining a posture of [[Trident missile|Continuous At Sea Deterrence]] with its [[Ohio class submarine|Ballistic Missile]] submarine fleet. The US Navy also maintains a continuous deployment of [[Expeditionary Strike Group]]s that embark a [[Marine Expeditionary Unit]] with an [[Aviation Combat Element]] aboard a [[LHD]] or [[LHA]]. |
*The [[United States Navy]] maintains continuous readiness to deploy 6 [[Carrier Strike Group|carrier strike groups]] simultaneously as well as deploy an additional 2 within thirty days under the [[Fleet Response Plan]] (FRP) while maintaining a posture of [[Trident missile|Continuous At Sea Deterrence]] with its [[Ohio class submarine|Ballistic Missile]] submarine fleet. The US Navy also maintains a continuous deployment of [[Expeditionary Strike Group]]s that embark a [[Marine Expeditionary Unit]] with an [[Aviation Combat Element]] aboard a [[LHD]] or [[LHA]]. |
||
| ⚫ | * The [[Russian Navy]] maintains a carrier battle group around [[Soviet aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov|''Admiral Kuznetsov'']] and a posture of [[Continuous At Sea Deterrence]] (CASD) with its [[ballistic missile]] submarine fleet. They also have five large cruisers (two ''Kirov'' class and three ''Slava'' class) which could be used as the center of a [[surface action group]]. |
||
*The [[Royal Navy]] maintains two task forces concurrently (one based around an aircraft carrier and one based around an Amphibious Command Ship) and maintains a [[Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom|Continuous At Sea Deterrence]] policy. At least one task group is deployed at any one time. The UK also supports a number of standing commitments worldwide on a continuous basis. |
*The [[Royal Navy]] maintains two task forces concurrently (one based around an aircraft carrier and one based around an Amphibious Command Ship) and maintains a [[Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom|Continuous At Sea Deterrence]] policy. At least one task group is deployed at any one time. The UK also supports a number of standing commitments worldwide on a continuous basis. |
||
| Line 34: | Line 32: | ||
These are navies that operate in considerable numbers in blue water or could do so and are probably capable of projecting power into other nations' littoral waters out of the blue-water. |
These are navies that operate in considerable numbers in blue water or could do so and are probably capable of projecting power into other nations' littoral waters out of the blue-water. |
||
<!--please do not add further examples; this section is just an illustration, it is not meant to be a list. see the archives for flamewar details --> |
<!--please do not add further examples; this section is just an illustration, it is not meant to be a list. see the archives for flamewar details --> |
||
| ⚫ | * The [[Russian Navy]] maintains a carrier battle group around [[Soviet aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov|''Admiral Kuznetsov'']] and a posture of [[Continuous At Sea Deterrence]] (CASD) with its [[ballistic missile]] submarine fleet. They also have five large cruisers (two ''Kirov'' class and three ''Slava'' class) which could be used as the center of a [[surface action group]]. |
||
* The [[Indian Navy]] maintains a carrier battle group with [[INS Viraat]]. |
* The [[Indian Navy]] maintains a carrier battle group with [[INS Viraat]]. |
||
Revision as of 14:42, 2 June 2007
The term blue-water navy is a colloquialism used to describe a maritime force capable of operating across the deep waters of open oceans. [1] While what actually constitutes such a force remains undefined, there is a requirement for the ability to exercise sea control at wide ranges. The term used in the United Kingdom is expeditionary.
"Blue-water" (high seas) naval capability [2] means that a fleet is able to operate on the "high seas". While traditionally a distinction was made between the coastal brown-water navy, operating in the littoral zone to 200 nautical miles (370 km), and a seagoing blue-water navy, a new term has been created by the US Navy [3], green-water navy, which appears to be equivalent to a brown-water navy in older sources. The term brown-water navy appears to have been reduced, in USN parlance, to a riverine force.
In modern warfare blue-water navy implies self-contained force protection from sub-surface, surface and airborne threats and a sustainable logistic reach, allowing a persistent presence at range. In some maritime environments such a defence is given by natural obstacles, such as the Arctic ice shelf.
Few navies can operate as blue-water navies, but "many States are converting green-water navies to blue-water navies and this will increase military use of foreign EEZs" (littoral zone to 200 nautical miles (370 km)), "with possible repercussions for the EEZ regime." [4]
An example for the difference between a blue-water navy and a green-water navy: "(...) The first should be a 'green-water active defense' that would enable the People's Liberation Army Navy to protect China's territorial waters and enforce its sovereignty claims in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea. The second phase would be to develop a blue-water navy capable of projecting power into the western Pacific. (...) Liu" (commander in chief of the PLAN 1982-88 and vice chairman of the Central Military Commission 1989-97) "believed that in order to fulfill a blue-water capability, the PLAN had to obtain aircraft carriers. (...)" [5] Aircraft carriers are deployed with other specialized vessels in carrier battle groups, providing protection against sub-surface, surface and airborne threats.
As there is no clear definition of a blue-water navy, the status is not undisputed. Usually it is considered to be strongly linked to the maintenance of aircraft carriers capable of operating in the oceans. "In the early 80s there was a bitter and very public battle fought over whether or not to replace Australia's last aircraft carrier, HMAS Melbourne. 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" (the Australians) "would no longer have a blue-water navy (one capable of operating away from friendly coasts)." [6]
The term blue-water navy should not be mixed up with brown, green and blue water capability or ship. USN CNO Admiral Mullen pointed out in an interview with KQV RADIO (Pittsburgh): "CNO: We are looking at, in addition to the blue-water ships which I would characterize and describe as our aircraft carriers and other ships that support that kind of capability, we're also looking to develop capability in what I call the green-water and the brown-water, and the brown-water is really the rivers. (...) These are challenges we all have, and we need to work together to ensure that the sea lanes are secure." [7] The capability for blue, green or brown water depends on the vessels specifications. The vessels of a green-water navy can often operate in blue-water for example. A number of nations have extensive maritime assets but lack the capability to maintain the required sustainable logistic reach. Some of them join coalition task groups in blue-water deployments.
While a blue-water navy can project sea control power into another nation's littoral, it remains susceptible to threats from less capable forces. Sustainment and logistics at range yield high costs and there may be a saturation advantage over a deployed force through the use of land-based air or Surface to Surface Missile assets, diesel-electric submarines, or asymmetric tactics such as Fast Inshore Attack Craft. An example of this vulnerability is the attack on the USS Cole in Aden in 2000.[citation needed]
These are navies that have successfully used the capabilities of their blue-water navies to exercise control at high seas and from these have projected power into other nations' littoral waters.
- The United States Navy maintains continuous readiness to deploy 6 carrier strike groups simultaneously as well as deploy an additional 2 within thirty days under the Fleet Response Plan (FRP) while maintaining a posture of Continuous At Sea Deterrence with its Ballistic Missile submarine fleet. The US Navy also maintains a continuous deployment of Expeditionary Strike Groups that embark a Marine Expeditionary Unit with an Aviation Combat Element aboard a LHD or LHA.
- The Royal Navy maintains two task forces concurrently (one based around an aircraft carrier and one based around an Amphibious Command Ship) and maintains a Continuous At Sea Deterrence policy. At least one task group is deployed at any one time. The UK also supports a number of standing commitments worldwide on a continuous basis.
- The French Marine Nationale has the ability to deploy an aircraft-carrier-based task group and maintains a Continuous At Sea Deterrence included in the Force Océanique Stratégique (Strategic Oceanic Force). France also has a wide range of naval deployments throughout the world.
These are navies that operate in considerable numbers in blue water or could do so and are probably capable of projecting power into other nations' littoral waters out of the blue-water.
- The Russian Navy maintains a carrier battle group around Admiral Kuznetsov and a posture of Continuous At Sea Deterrence (CASD) with its ballistic missile submarine fleet. They also have five large cruisers (two Kirov class and three Slava class) which could be used as the center of a surface action group.
- The Indian Navy maintains a carrier battle group with INS Viraat.
- The Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force has a large fleet dominated by destroyers which operates in blue-water, however, in defense of the Japanese islands.
References
- ^ British Maritime Doctrine, BR 1806, Third Edition, dated 2004
- ^ China's aircraft carrier ambitions: seeking truth from rumors Naval War College Review, Wntr, 2004 by Ian Storey, You Jiinfers
- ^ Q&A with Adm. Michael G. Mullen 2006 CNO's Guidance Release Media Roundtable Pentagon, Washington, DC 13 October 2005
- ^ Naval activity in the foreign EEZ—the role of terminology in law regime Alexander S. Skaridov, St. Petersburg Association of the Law of the Sea, 7 Kazanskaya St., St. Petersburg 191186, Russia, Available online 11 November 2004
- ^ China's aircraft carrier ambitions: seeking truth from rumors Naval War College Review, Wntr, 2004 by Ian Storey, You Ji
- ^ Why buy Abrams Tanks? We need to look at more appropriate options By Gary Brown - posted Wednesday, 31 March 2004
- ^ KQV RADIO (PITTSBURGH) INTERVIEW WITH JOE FENN MAY 19, 2006