Minimal requirements of a "Blue-water Navy"

follow-up on this drunk thread:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=354458

For reference, this is the wikipage of 'blue-water navy'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue-water_navy

In terms of personal preference I'd choose submarines over battleships(my head even tries to justify not having coastal defence ships with lotsa anti-ship missiles) everyday. So I ask this question: what kind of ships would a "blue-water navy" need? Battlecruisers? Destroyers? Maybe even an Aircraft Carrier?

Critique and comment, as always.
Relevant submarine pic:
WHD9vVg.jpg

(sploosh)
 
Some method of underway replenishment and a carrier are, to my mind, the absolute minimal requirements, with amphibious landing capabilities being an optional (but preferred) extra.
 
As usual, the answer boils down to logistics. Kind of boring really, but there you have it.

The term blue-water is a question of range and sustainability more than anything, so you know what you need? Underway replenishment and Oilers.

Nuclear power gives you more flexibility in options though...
 
As usual, the answer boils down to logistics. Kind of boring really, but there you have it.

The term blue-water is a question of range and sustainability more than anything, so you know what you need? Underway replenishment and Oilers.

Nuclear power gives you more flexibility in options though...

Okay, so let's say my country(Dutch-land) had strong nuclear capabilities, both as an energy source and as weapons. We could design small, portable nuclear power plants and "efficient" nuclear bombs with almost no radiation.
What would be an example of a minimal requirement of ships, etc?
 
Okay, so let's say my country(Dutch-land) had strong nuclear capabilities, both as an energy source and as weapons. We could design small, portable nuclear power plants and "efficient" nuclear bombs with almost no radiation.
What would be an example of a minimal requirement of ships, etc?
Well, once again, blue-water is still defined only in terms of range and capacity for sustained operations. Beyond that everything is defined by what mission and strategic doctrine is.

Dutch-land could have a navy consisting entirely of nuclear destroyers (a large amount of them, perhaps 60 or so to match the USN), and it could count as a blue-water navy. It wouldn't be very effective for power projection or expeditionary warfare, but you could send that fleet of nuclear destroyers anywhere in the world, and they'll damn well keep that patch of ocean safe from submarines. Which might actually work fine for them since Dutch-land's plan has always been to keep the sealanes of the... Indian Ocean, open until their allies in for example... Australia can send in the convoys and cavalry.

Still counts, since what blue-water defines is the ability operate far from home in sustained operations.

I mean, I get that that's might not be what you were going for with the question, but that's what blue-water means. It can't really be helped. :p
 
Last edited:

Delta Force

Banned
In terms of personal preference I'd choose submarines over battleships(my head even tries to justify not having coastal defence ships with lotsa anti-ship missiles) everyday. So I ask this question: what kind of ships would a "blue-water navy" need? Battlecruisers? Destroyers? Maybe even an Aircraft Carrier?

Blue water navies carry connotations of a surface fleet capable of controlling areas of the high seas, likely involving aircraft carriers or some other platform capable of controlling a large area of the ocean. Submarines are sea denial weapons, not sea control ships.

Okay, so let's say my country(Dutch-land) had strong nuclear capabilities, both as an energy source and as weapons. We could design small, portable nuclear power plants and "efficient" nuclear bombs with almost no radiation.
What would be an example of a minimal requirement of ships, etc?

This 1998 study could provide some pointers.

Also, depending on the era, something akin to Vulcain could be used as both a small power reactor and a maritime reactor.
 
Logistic support alone isn't enough to make a blue water navy, although it is crucial. I'd say that the ability to form a balanced task group/force is also a prerequisite, having a well supported TG/F with a glaring deficiency in one or more aspects of naval warfare falls short of a blue water navy in my book.

The RAN is a case in point, it has 11-12 surface combatants so can form task groups of several surface ships which can cover Area Air warfare, long range Surface warfare and robust Anti-submarine warfare as well as secondary duties such as naval gunfire and special forces deployment. What's more it could sustain such a Task Group on deployment over oceanic distances for months at a time.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Didn't Mahan lay out theories on what constituted a blue water navy/high seas forces in his theories? They might not be perfectly applicable today, but they certainly played a major role during the days of the big gun ships.
 
I would think that the qualifications for what constitutes a blue water navy have changed, considerably and repeatedly, over time, except for the logistical concerns. A blue water navy should be able to control and patrol open ocean for an extended period of time, and be able to deny and defeat an enemy attempting the same. How said fleet would be made up in 1912, 1938, 1946 and 1968 would all be very different, but the goal would be pretty similar, at least in the broadest of outlines.
 
Its been a while but IIRC Mahan laid out the requirements for sea power as two things: fleet and geography. He basically believed that winning major fleet battles would result in all other benefits of sea power falling into place, a bit like Clausewitz with land battles. The arbiter of battles was the battleship in Mahan's day, later it became the aircraft carrier and with some kudos being taken by the nuclear submarine the carrier still is the arbiter of sea battles.
 
Well, once again, blue-water is still defined only in terms of range and capacity for sustained operations. Beyond that everything is defined by what mission and strategic doctrine is.

Dutch-land could have a navy consisting entirely of nuclear destroyers (a large amount of them, perhaps 60 or so to match the USN), and it could count as a blue-water navy. It wouldn't be very effective for power projection or expeditionary warfare, but you could send that fleet of nuclear destroyers anywhere in the world, and they'll damn well keep that patch of ocean safe from submarines. Which might actually work fine for them since Dutch-land's plan has always been to keep the sealanes of the... Indian Ocean, open until their allies in for example... Australia can send in the convoys and cavalry.

Still counts, since what blue-water defines is the ability operate far from home in sustained operations.

I mean, I get that that's might not be what you were going for with the question, but that's what blue-water means. It can't really be helped. :p

Eh, my guts say the USN aren't going to be happy with a navy that matches them in size, at least in one category - even if they're friendlies.
But anyway, I get what you mean. The bare minimum would be being able to sustain naval warfare for an extended period of time.

Blue water navies carry connotations of a surface fleet capable of controlling areas of the high seas, likely involving aircraft carriers or some other platform capable of controlling a large area of the ocean. Submarines are sea denial weapons, not sea control ships.

This 1998 study could provide some pointers.

Also, depending on the era, something akin to Vulcain could be used as both a small power reactor and a maritime reactor.

Great sources. I'll read those studies soon.

Its been a while but IIRC Mahan laid out the requirements for sea power as two things: fleet and geography. He basically believed that winning major fleet battles would result in all other benefits of sea power falling into place, a bit like Clausewitz with land battles. The arbiter of battles was the battleship in Mahan's day, later it became the aircraft carrier and with some kudos being taken by the nuclear submarine the carrier still is the arbiter of sea battles.
This brings up the question I'd like to ask. Is it possible to have a blue-water navy with nuclear submarines, instead of aircraft carriers, playing the central role? What would a submarine need to become a "sea controller", as DF mentioned, instead of a "sea denier"?
 
This brings up the question I'd like to ask. Is it possible to have a blue-water navy with nuclear submarines, instead of aircraft carriers, playing the central role? What would a submarine need to become a "sea controller", as DF mentioned, instead of a "sea denier"?

The ability to surface in order to put inspection parties aboard suspect shipping without completely derailing its mission. The ability to go to the aid of another vessel in distress in a high sea state.

Thanks to their abilities to act as helicopter platforms carriers and properly equipped surface vessels of other kinds have enormous potential in coping with natural disasters as well as amphibious operations. Further the greater ability to transport enhanced landing parties for a variety of roles gives surface a huge advantage in deployable options at the present time.

Yet further still submarines at present lack the ability to perform air defence operations...hence while they can deny the sea lanes to an opponent they cannot keep it open for their own side.

Basically they are lacking in both hard and soft power options vital to being able claim 'control' of a given sea region.

In other eras the exact mix of requirements varies but carriers tend to be seen as more central than submarines once they are in the picture due to the massively broader mission spectrum they can perform.
 
- power projection

- technological advancement

- size

imho, the US Navy, Royal Navy, Marine Nationale (France), the Chinese Navy and Russian Navy all count. Soon perhaps the Indian Navy.
 

GarethC

Donor
This brings up the question I'd like to ask. Is it possible to have a blue-water navy with nuclear submarines, instead of aircraft carriers, playing the central role? What would a submarine need to become a "sea controller", as DF mentioned, instead of a "sea denier"?
A non-submarine reconnaissance capability - maybe from land-based drones, long-endurance airships, or satellite observation. Carriers are potent because of the E-2 (or Ka-31 or Sea King ASaC or whatever), not just because their strike pilots can put iron on target.

Consider that a carrier's ability to see does not end at the water's edge, unlike a towed array sonar's. How does a submarine see targets inshore, even if its SLCMs can engage them?
 
Last edited:

NothingNow

Banned
Didn't Mahan lay out theories on what constituted a blue water navy/high seas forces in his theories? They might not be perfectly applicable today, but they certainly played a major role during the days of the big gun ships.

Mahanian doctrine while useful to some degree, doesn't really pan out in practice. Especially since you're usually facing people who can't afford a fleet in being, and tend to prefer smaller warships and raiding because of financial considerations.

That said, a Blue Water Navy absolutely has to have the logistical capabilities and experience to operate an effective force in contested areas well away from it's home waters. At a minimum that's a Destroyer or Frigate squadron, and at the top end of practicality, it's something the size of the Fast Carrier Task Force.

The Current Blue water navies in terms of established potency are probably:
1)USN
2)Marine Nationale
3)RN
4)PLAN
5)Indian Navy
6)Russian Navy (although they do kinda switch places regularly with China and India depending on funding levels.)
7) JMSDF (which could honestly be one in a week given the political will,)

And that's before getting to some of the lesser NATO members (Spain, and Italy really,) and the Brazilian Navy, who are all on paper theoretically capable of operating independently, but all lack the logistical capabilities to do so practically.

Consider that a carrier's ability to see does not end at the water's edge, unlike a towed array sonar's. How does a submarine see targets inshore, even if it's SLCMs can engage them?

Yeah, Submarines are strategic weapons platforms, specialist vessels or area-denial systems.

Even SSGNs need to have some sort of external target input to be effective against land targets.
 
I think that practically speaking there should be made a distinction between blue-water capability and a blue-water navy. If your navy has just a few long-range ships and that fits the kind of missions you want them to perform, then sure, that fits the bill. But if you're a big nation like Russia or China and your navy is mostly confined to coastal areas, you can only say that parts of the navy are blue-water; the rest is green or brown. Only the USN counts as a major blue-water navy nowadays.
 
Top