What makes a Blue Water Navy?

[SASWanabe]

I have been doing some thinking and research.

Quote from wikipedia

As there is no clear definition of a blue-water navy, the status is disputed. Usually it is considered to be strongly linked to the maintenance of aircraft carriers capable of operating in the oceans.

From what i read there are 4

Russia - 1 carrier ~7 small amphibs(Landing ships 2200 ton)
US - 10? carriers 10+amphibs
France - 1 carrier (thats usualy broken) 2 mistrals
UK - 0 carriers (jet A/C) ocean and one of the invincibles still active? 2 albions and 3-4 Bays

heres my point:

The ROK Navy plan on being Blue Water by 2020 with

plans to deploy two or three rapid response fleets, each comprising of 1 LPD (Doko), 2 KDX-III (King_Sejong), 4 KDX-II(Chungmugong Yi Sun-shin) ,1 KDX(Gwanggaeto the Great) and possibly a number of FFX frigates and two or three SSX (214)submarines.

ok my questions, what do you think a Blue Water Navy is? how does the RN manage to stay Blue Water without Harriers? with that sort of fleet will SK be Blue water? and more interestingly (yes im biased) by 2020 will Australia be Blue Water with our LHD's and AWDs?

 

[Todjaeger]

The definition of a 'blue water' navy is somewhat fluid, depending on who is defining it. Generally there are three types/areas of naval operation, these are;

Blue Water: Generally thought of as deepwater/open ocean operations
Green Water: Operations in the littoral waters/continental shelf areas
Brown Water: Riverine and estuary operations.

Aside from a navy having several vessels capable of operating in the respective areas in combat situations, there is no other particular definition AFAIK that dictates having a carrier for a blue water navy. Then RAN for instance, is very much a blue water navy, given the operations in the Southern, Pacific and Indian Oceans. The RAN and Customs also operate green water patrols, in the form of the Armidale-class APCB, Bay-class patrol boat, and Huon-class MHC. Brown water ops are to my knownledge, largely the province of Army and State/local law enforcement, though some participation from the RAN and other areas of Government are likely in crucial areas (Jervis Bay, Sydney Harbour) or in the event of a crisis.

-Cheers

 

[JoeMcFriday]

"The definition of a 'blue water' navy is somewhat fluid"
Intended or not, the pun is brilliant!

Seriously, though, I agree with everything Todjaeger says plus a little--

In the absence of a strict definition as pointed out, I would suggest [simplistically] that:-

A Navy that has warships designed and intended for extended fleet operations on the open ocean, while maintaining a significant war-fighting capability and regularly uses them in such a manner [doctrine/training] would be considered a "blue-water" Navy IMO.

Implied in this definition but essential to it, are the possession of fleet support vessels and their capabilities/capacities to free the fleet from land bases for an extended period,

Less implied but essential, is that the warships involved in this fleet do actually project military power and aren't just grey painted cruise-liners or lightly armed floating targets.

Having said that, the RAN fleet, for example, doesn't project as much offensive power as a USN fleet, [a ridiculous comparison which some may try to make] but in real terms it's not insignificant and shouldn't be a limiting factor as much as say doctrine is on other navies.

Not denigrating the FFHs or FFGs capabilities but the commissioning of our DDGs [by whatever PC name] the LHDs and replacing various old support ships, will remove any doubts others may have about the RAN being capable of projecting significant power not only on but over oceans. That to me is a blue water capability.

Because of its capabilities [even now], usual operational areas, incumbent logistics support, history and doctrine I would say the RAN is a blue water Navy [albeit temporarily hampered] and one of the best at that, so numbers at the top end [ie Cvs, CGs, CVLs] shouldn't proscribe membership of the rather exclusive "Blue Water Club".

I use the RAN as an example of a smaller Nation's ability to have an effective blue water navy more defined by doctrine and practice than sheer size.

Cheers,
Mac

 

[gf0012-aust]

actually the term has changed since the cold war ended.

initially blue water navies were those that had a permanent tactical fleet presence in every major ocean of the world. ie literally a 7 seas philosophy. That made it the province of the major powers of USSR, USA, UK and France

it has however changed since the end of the cold war and is basically as follows:

Blue Water: Generally regarded as deep water/ open ocean transit operations outside of the 200mile EEZ
Green Water: Maritime Operations in the littoral waters/continental shelf areas - ie 12mile limit to 200mile EEZ boundary - includes coastguard roles, coastal protection capabilities
Brown Water: Freshwater, River/Riverine, estuary operations. out to 12 mile limit to supplement coastguard coastal protection assets.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Brown water ops are to my knownledge, largely the province of Army and State/local law enforcement

The term Brownwater Navy was created by the USN for riverine operations up the Mekong in Vietnam.

They had flotillas of small naval gunships and fires support boats that were used to either patrol the river system, or were used to provide co-ordinated fire support from the river for land operations (ie cross fire and flanking support)


one could argue that the HMS Amethyst undertook a brown water role even though the mission set had not been defined as such...

 

[rip]

I have been doing some thinking and research.

Quote from wikipedia


From what i read there are 4

Russia - 1 carrier ~7 small amphibs(Landing ships 2200 ton)
US - 10? carriers 10+amphibs
France - 1 carrier (thats usualy broken) 2 mistrals
UK - 0 carriers (jet A/C) ocean and one of the invincibles still active? 2 albions and 3-4 Bays

heres my point:

The ROK Navy plan on being Blue Water by 2020 with

ok my questions, what do you think a Blue Water Navy is? how does the RN manage to stay Blue Water without Harriers? with that sort of fleet will SK be Blue water? and more interestingly (yes im biased) by 2020 will Australia be Blue Water with our LHD's and AWDs?

A Blue Water Navy is, in my humble opinion, not just one that can operate upon the open ocean but one that often normally operates far from their home shores and is intended to act in some way as a sea controlling ship or to suport one. A ship that is designed to promote the control of and to dominate the major lines of ocean going commerce. Why, because ocean going commerce is one of the fundamental controlling factors in creating the wealth of the world and the power of most nations. Thus insuring the oceans continued use for your country and denying its use to any potential enemy in time of war.

A Blue water ship must have good endurance, longer ranges, better sea keeping abilities, great communications, and enhance crew comfort over that of a similarly armed and weaponed vessel that is used for costal defense. So these ships a generally larger and more complicated for the same amount of fire power.

During the Cold War the Russian Navy was composed of two thirds of submarines. Since the Soviet Union was primarily a land power, submarines made since to them to use as a sea denial weapons not a Sea Control one, but it was definitely a Blue Water fleet.

But the hardest part of making a Blue Water Navy is the time it tacks to build up the skills within its people, skills needed in dealing with all the moods and circumstances found in the various Oceans, Seas and often unique weather conditions of the world and creating the instructional memory within the ranks so as to deal with and take advantage of the Blue Water environment that cannot be learned any other way but by sailing the seas. Something that can only be done by sailing the far flung sea’sof the world for long stretches of time. A fleet that does not spend a good amount of time upon the water is not a Blue Water Navy regardless of what type or kind of ships it has or the technology those ships.

 

[Todjaeger]

"The definition of a 'blue water' navy is somewhat fluid"
Intended or not, the pun is brilliant!

Glad you liked it. People sometimes accuse me of having a dry sense of humour, so it seemed apropos...

The term Brownwater Navy was created by the USN for riverine operations up the Mekong in Vietnam.

They had flotillas of small naval gunships and fires support boats that were used to either patrol the river system, or were used to provide co-ordinated fire support from the river for land operations (ie cross fire and flanking support)


one could argue that the HMS Amethyst undertook a brown water role even though the mission set had not been defined as such...

When I posted re: largely being an Army or local law enforcement area, that was from the perspective of the ADF. At the same time, I was very much thinking of some of the photos I have of USN monitors patrolling in the Mekong.

-Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

A Blue Water Navy is, in my humble opinion, not just one that can operate upon the open ocean but one that often normally operates far from their home shores and is intended to act in some way as a sea controlling ship or to suport one.

Its about a fleet that can take the tactical initiative and project and fight without supplementary assistance.

the reference to Deep Blue is also because it means that the fleet can fight, dicate contempt of engagement condition and fight with confidence outside the umbrella of sustained and persistent land based support air.

 

[rip]

Its about a fleet that can take the tactical initiative and project and fight without supplementary assistance.

the reference to Deep Blue is also because it means that the fleet can fight, dicate contempt of engagement conditions and fight with confidence outside the umbrella of sustained and persistent land based support air.

Yes I agree, having the mastery of the sea and having mastered the staying power to stay upon it under all condistions gives the fleet the choice of engaging or not engaging on its own terms and under what conditions it thinks are most favorable to it.

 

[Ananda]

Is it still a blue water Navy without a carrier or large AAW Destroyers that can provide significant defensive buble in the ocean ?

For Instances like Indonesian Navy..It's definetely still a Green Water Navy, eventhough they ocassionally have mid-range operations on the Indies using Van Speijk frigates and supported by ocean going tankers/support (ex RN Rover class).

In sense having capabilities on operating in large ocean for considerable time..does not immediately fall to Blue Water catagory, if you do not have sufficient flotillas that can provide significant power projections and defensive bubble long range from your inland bases. Back to Indonesian cases, eventhough TNI AL have abbility to operated in large ocean like the Indies for mid-range time period, however can not be catagorise as blue water since Van Speijks frigates are not sufficients assets for power projections or abble to provide significant defensive bubble in the ocean.

Therefore it's imparative for any Navy that can be catagorise as having 'true' blue water capabilities to have sufficient Carrier cover or AAW and ASW flotilas that can provide up to date anti air capabilities plus serious underwater protections, thus provide significant defensive bubble in the middle of the ocean. Not just having ships or flotillas that capable operating in large Ocean.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Is it still a blue water Navy without a carrier or large AAW Destroyers that can provide significant defensive buble in the ocean ?

you don't need to have a carrier as a capital ship to be a blue water force

In sense having capabilities on operating in large ocean for considerable time..does not immediately fall to Blue Water catagory, if you do not have sufficient flotillas that can provide significant power projections and defensive bubble long range from your inland bases.

Yes it does. It's a blue water fleet if it can deploy, sustain and fight a complex enemy on its own terms independant of land based air.... That effectively means a task force as it has a logistics and support arm to enable it to stay sustained independant of a port call.

Its not just about duration. its about capability, projection, power, penetration of that force, persistence etc.....

look at the SAG or CV based task forces. They have air warfare defence, asw defence, a strike capability, concurrent fleet protection while prosecuting against the enemy, a logistics arm etc....

if you can't provide these roles within the fleet and independant of ground based air, then you are tourist in those waters unable to dictate terms and maintain your presence. its a without fear or favour condition.

 

[Ananda]

if you can't provide these roles within the fleet and independant of ground based air, then you are tourist in those waters unable to dictate terms and maintain your presence. its a without fear or favour condition.

Yes I agree on that. I think I already mentioned in my post, that you either have a functional CVG 'or' capable AAW and ASW flotilas that can provide substantial 'independent' defensive bubble deep in the ocean.

I just stated what I said in my posts, since some people believe that by having capabilities to venture deep in the ocean is already enough to be called 'blue water' navy. Indonesian Navy I put as example to show that even TNI AL have capabilities to venture deep in the ocean for considerable time, but can not be said having blue water capabilities since they can't provide sufficient indpendent defensive (and ovensive) bubble in the ocean.

Back to Carrier questions, eventhough it's not necessary for 'blue water' capabilities on having CVG, however do you think it's 'feasible' on hostile environment (facing with adversaries that have sufficient air power), a blue water Navy can venture independently without having a CVG ? In such if that happen, can really (say RN) be called a true blue water Navy before their new carrier and air wing is available ?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Yes I agree on that. I think I already mentioned in my post, that you either have a functional CVG 'or' capable AAW and ASW flotilas that can provide substantial 'independent' defensive bubble deep in the ocean.

yep, if you're not able to fight off the bear in the woods, then the bear will eventually eat you...

I just stated what I said in my posts, since some people believe that by having capabilities to venture deep in the ocean is already enough to be called 'blue water' navy. Indonesian Navy I put as example to show that even TNI AL have capabilities to venture deep in the ocean for considerable time, but can not be said having blue water capabilities since they can't provide sufficient independent defensive (and offensive) bubble in the ocean.

yep, you and I are in total agreement. being able to go into the middle of the pacific and have guns on board puts you in the same class as a P&O liner with an armed purser. anyone can stick their vessels in the middle of the pacific, indian or atlantic ocean - but being able to fight your way out, dicate the fight, or more importantly make the other side pick another waypoint to avoid engagement is where its at.....

Back to Carrier questions, eventhough it's not necessary for 'blue water' capabilities on having CVG, however do you think it's 'feasible' on hostile environment (facing with adversaries that have sufficient air power), a blue water Navy can venture independently without having a CVG ? In such if that happen, can really (say RN) be called a true blue water Navy before their new carrier and air wing is available ?

It gets down to the threat contender.. eg which enemy is going to want to take on a UK task force that has an unknown load out and that is able to take on a saturated attack?. the enemy has to have persistence as the first attack is likely to be beaten off (reloads should be able to deal with any likely threat - even the soviets were not confident of being able to take on US carriers - and that was using compression attacks with multiple Bear and Blackjack regiments converging (tactically referred to as "beating the bushes" eg, similar to flushing grouse ....

even without a carrier, navies like the UK and Japan are more than able to contain the fight and still be in a condition to visit some violence back on the aggressor.

its also not just about the warloads and reloads in the fleet, its about the co-operative capability within the fleet. CEC makes a modern fleet a formidable force, hence why the chinese have been so keen to emulate USN Aegis based force development doctrine into their own restructuring.

of course a carrier improves the capability, but a carrierless task force is not rendered blind deaf, dumb just because it does not have air running CAP or extending the cruise missile harvest layer. the lead vessels are still getting feeds from atmospheric/non-atmo based assets and can still respond accordingly.

also don't forget that the advanced navies that own capable nukes (and the emphasis is on "capable nukes") are likely to have a nuke riding shotgun somewhere off in the distance. subs are formidable INT assets (eg they do extraordinary work in the ME Gulf)

its about force balance in the end - relative to the threat.

 

[riksavage]

I was under the impression 'blue water' referred to the ability to sustain assets at sea without the need to return to port for victualing. The RN during the Napoleonic era was considered a blue water Navy because it maintained the ability to blockade French/Spanish ports without the need to return to port (victualing vessels came out to the picket-line). One Frigate Captain never left his ship for five years, even in port he refused because he believed it was bad luck!

Under the post-war constitution Japan was specifically deprived of a blue water capability and was banned from building vessels designed to sustain a fleet out of home waters (RAS capabilities).

A Navy may have Carriers, but if it can't conduct RAS operations at sea then it can't be considered blue water capable.

 

[Feanor]

What does victualing mean?

 

[Todjaeger]

What does victualing mean?

Replacement of foodstores generally, though the term can also be used for the replacement of non fuel/munitions consumables as well.

-Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

A Navy may have Carriers, but if it can't conduct RAS operations at sea then it can't be considered blue water capable.

Just because you have RAS does not mean that you are blue water.. Its about autonomy of force, independance of land based air coverage, independance of support, the capacity to dictate contempt. Its the old training mantra of the 5P's - ie projection, power, precision, persistence and political leverage.

if you look at the navies that were covered in the original definition during the cold war, they all had fleet replenishment attached to the battlegroups and task forces.

eg china did her own version of the great white fleet tour a while back - they had RAS,. but that fleet by any shape or flavour did not constitute a blue water strength.

fleets in being are not necessarily blue water . or a better example are subs, what determines a subs length of operation assuming that fuel is not containing and or constraining ops and op tempo is food. At 70-90 days, irrespective of whats left in sea capability, whats left in the pantry dictates when to come home.

In wartime they'd RAS, but in peacetime people come home less they also get cabin fever....

 

[Feanor]

Replacement of foodstores generally, though the term can also be used for the replacement of non fuel/munitions consumables as well.

-Cheers

A fancy word for "re-supply"?

 

[HKP]

I have been doing some thinking and research.

Quote from wikipedia


From what i read there are 4

Russia - 1 carrier ~7 small amphibs(Landing ships 2200 ton)
US - 10? carriers 10+amphibs
France - 1 carrier (thats usualy broken) 2 mistrals
UK - 0 carriers (jet A/C) ocean and one of the invincibles still active? 2 albions and 3-4 Bays

heres my point:

The ROK Navy plan on being Blue Water by 2020 with



ok my questions, what do you think a Blue Water Navy is? how does the RN manage to stay Blue Water without Harriers? with that sort of fleet will SK be Blue water? and more interestingly (yes im biased) by 2020 will Australia be Blue Water with our LHD's and AWDs?

i think a blue water navy is a navy that can operate in a sustainable way in the high seas at long distances and most blue water navy are a battle group

 

[STURM]

Just because you have RAS does not mean that you are blue water.. Its about autonomy of force, independance of land based air coverage, independance of support, the capacity to dictate contempt. Its the old training mantra of the 5P's - ie projection, power, precision, persistence and political leverage.

Vey true. Many navies practice RAS but may lack a fleet support capability like the USN and the RN.

The most common definition of a blue water navy, for most people,would be a navy that has ships of destroyers size and above, that can operate in the roughest sea conditions with a decent range and endurance. The Japanese and Indian navies have ships of destroyer size with decent range and endurance but I wouldn't I refer to them as a blue water navy as both can't operate way from friendly ports for long periods on account of not having a large fleet support capability. My personal definition of a blue water navy has always been that of a navy that can conduct operations for extended periods away from landbases due to a having a support/replenishment fleet and pre-positioning capability.