Thread by @EngageStrategy1

So yesterday @D__Mitch asked this question:

Here's an answer (and some graphs, because I know you really only come here for the sweet graphics).

https://twitter.com/D__Mitch/status/1081277056162426882

Our first metric, and most basic starting point, is a flat comparison of the number of ships and submarines of various types in-service with the four navies.

From this we can see a pretty clear hierarchy with the Russians leading by a substantial margin in 4 of the 6 fields.

However, anyone looking carefully should pretty rapidly see the shortfalls of this metric.

For example, in the 'patrol vessels' category a 30 ton patrol boat and a 2,000 ton OPV both count as 1.

Which brings us to our next graph, a comparison of fleet units by category measured in tonnage rather than number of hulls.

The striking features of this graph are the marked shrinkage of the the gap in surface combatant tonnage between the JMSDF and Russian Navies, as well as the RN moving into the lead position for aviation ships, amphibious vessels & auxiliaries. France now leads in Patrol tonnage.

What do these changes tell us?

Russia has a great many small ships, which inflate the number of hulls in the surface combatants and patrol categories.

However, they also possess a large number of large submarines, with their lead in that category increasing dramatically.

The Royal Navy operates a smaller number of large ships and submarines, overtaking the MN when surface combatants are measured in tonnage.

The RN also comes in second behind Russia in tonnage of submarines and second, behind France, in tonnage of patrol vessels.

The JMSDF, whilst having roughly half the Russians' number of surface combatants, have ~85% of their tonnage.

They do, however, lose their lead in aviation ships, amphibious units and submarines to the RN, and in some cases also the MN, when tonnage is used as the yardstick.

By tonnage compared to hulls France improves its position over the JMSDF to take the clear third position in amphibious shipping.

It also pulls well ahead in terms of patrol shipping, with twice the tonnage of its nearest competitor.

Next, here are some pie charts looking at each navy's fleet composition (measured in number of hulls).

What is apparent here is that the Russian Navy and JMSDF prioritise surface combatants and submarines, with these ships comprising roughly 3/4s of both fleets, significantly more than the RN or MN. The defensive orientation of both navies is apparent here.

The RN have the lowest proportion of surface combatants and submarines, at around half the overall force, but a much larger fleet auxiliary and a more balanced overall force, than any of the others. This structure points to a more offensive expeditionary role.

The Marine Nationale, on the other hand, appear to prioritise patrol ships and surface combatants over other areas. Given France's extensive EEZ and overseas territories this focus on presence and patrol, backed by a modest expeditionary capability, makes a great deal of sense.

The next graph examines the average age of the ships in each category for each navy.

As we can see, the Russians have the oldest ships on average in every category except patrol vessels.

The RN have the newest aviation ships, the French the youngest amphibious fleet and the JMSDF the youngest submarine force.

It is also of interest that the RN have both the largest and the newest auxiliary fleet of the navies in question, further highlighting this as a priority.

Next, into a detailed breakdown of the ship types in each category. First, aviation and amphibious shipping.

As we can see the JMSDF possess more aviation ships, at 4, albeit smaller vessels mainly configured for the ASW role. France has the only conventional carrier.

Russia leads in the number of amphibious vessels, although these are entirely smaller tank landing ship types.

France and Japan share parity with three LHD-type amphibious ships apiece while the British field two classes of large dock landing ship.

Next, a breakdown of submarines and surface combatants shows the Russian preference for a large mass of smaller surface combatants below 2000 tonnes displacement along with a handful of larger, more capable ships, up to 10,000+t surface combatants. They also lead in submarines.

We also see the broadly similar mix of deterrent and nuclear attack submarines in the RN and MN, albeit that the RN attack boats are presently larger and more capable.

The MN's patrol and presence focus is also evident in their greater number of light frigates.

The JMSDF, remain unique amongst the navies under consideration in their eschewing of nuclear submarines altogether in favour of open-ocean capable diesel and AIP submarines as well as their very high numbers of first-rate surface combatants, including cruiser-sized vessels.

Finally, the patrol vessels and auxiliaries graph shows the Russian naval patrol forces comprising a large number of vessels under 500 tonnes, with the French and British favouring the larger types.

Due to the existence of the Japan Coast Guard the JMSDF's patrol role is limited

In the area of auxiliaries we see the RN leading or at parity in most fields, with the most diverse range of large support ships.

We can also see that most of Russia's, ostensibly similar number, of support ships are in fact smaller light tankers.

So, where does all this information leave us in the final assessment?

Fundamentally these are navies designed around divergent roles, for Russia operations in enclosed waters approaching its territory and its SSBN bastions appear paramount.

For the JMSDF, constitutionally confined to a defensive role, ASW in the deep water approaches to the islands of Japan is preeminent.

The MN prioritise presence and patrol of the extensive French EEZ, backed by a powerful but short-legged expeditionary striking force.

The Royal Navy couples a potent and much more self-sustainable expeditionary striking force with Atlantic patrol and a more modest area ASW component.

In sum:

If you want to defend Russia then you want the Russian Navy.
If you want to defend SLOCs around the Japanese Islands, you want the JMSDF.
If you want to go a long way and be able to hit hard, you want the RN.
If you want to secure France's EEZ and more, you want the MN.

I suppose this is now a thread, so Engaging Strategy, out.