Talk:Blue-water navy/Archive 1

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

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

message: 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's 00:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Potential? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Disputed entries in actual/potential blue water navies 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Brazil 

message: 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)
thread_title:  France 

message: Discuss about German navy here.
Chanakyathegreat 13:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Had a bad day? I only said they have helis on board. Wandalstouring 07:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germany 

message: 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's 14:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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's 20:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  India 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Italy 

message: 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's 22:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korea, South 

message: 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,  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Malta 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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's 13:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Russia 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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's 11:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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's 11:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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's 11:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, that sounds more credible - thanks. John Smith's 18:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Spain 

message: 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)
thread_title: FALSE statements about the Principe de Asturias by Chanakyathegreat

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Talk about false statements

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sources! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Change the section labels? 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Dutch navy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Potential blue water navies 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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's 17:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future blue water navies 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This article is a joke 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Historical Blue Water navies 

message: 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)
replies: text: Maybe you should lock the page and then discuss image problems. Good friend100 14:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image problem 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Korea picture 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  India Section Length - Cruft?