U.S. Maritime Institute

[Odinson]

The United States Maritime Institute (USMI) is a private organization that serves as an independent forum for the American Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, and Merchant Marine. The Institute was founded on May 7, 2007 with the mission of advancing the understanding of modern sea power and global security, as well as maritime history, by publishing a magazine and books. The USMI does not take money from any government or military branch and is funded entirely by membership dues, magazine and book sales, and donations. Contributors to regular USNI publications include active-duty personnel, veterans, and civilians.​

 

[Odinson]

June 7, 2004​

---

NAVAL POWER PROJECTION SURVEY​

---

CONTEXT​

Naval power projection is the ability of a country to utilize its naval forces to influence the outcome of events in places outside of its sovereign control. For centuries, countries have used naval power projection to influence the outcome of wars from the ancient Egyptian invasion of Cyprus in 570 B.C., to the Battle of Gallipoli during World War One, to the Swedish invasion of South Africa in 1999. More peaceful examples would include a recent deployment of the battleship USS Wisconsin and her escorts to Australia in Operation Blue Coral. While all of the details of this operation remain classified, the deployment of the battleship battle group was widely believed to be done to deter foreign naval intimidation in Australia and to affirm American support for Australia.

Using the example of Operation Blue Coral, battleships are an excellent example of how a weaker warship (by modern technological standards) has the ability to project more power that a guided-missile destroyer that would likely defeat it in a one-on-one conflict. In that scenario, the phycological impact of a battleship (and her escorts) carrying thousands of sailors and marines, visiting Australian ports, and circumnavigating the country close to shore likely outweighed the psychological impact of a carrier strike group positioned 300 miles off the Australian coast. However, power projection is not always about posturing.

An important distinction is that naval power projection is not the same as naval strength, however they are often correlated. A measure of naval strength could be the hypothetical deployment of two different navies in a vast ocean where they battle each other in a kinetic conflict. Assuming that both navies are using the same technologies and have leadership and personnel with the same level of skill, the stronger navy is almost guaranteed to be victorious. However, a technically stronger green water navy composed of a hundreds of small missile boats (capable of firing a thousand anti-ship missiles) is less likely to be able to project more power than a technically weaker blue water naval force that consists of a range of vessels, including: replenishment ships, reconnaissance ships, cruisers, destroyers, frigates, smaller vessels, as well as warships that are capable of launching aircraft for reconnaissance, troop transport, or air/sea/ground strikes. While an argument could be made that the green water navy could still project a large amount of power on a neighboring country, it is undeniable that the blue water navy would be able to project more power on countries further away and would undoubtedly be able to project more power a thousand miles away.

In essence, naval power projection includes a combination of the following (with varying degrees of importance depending on if the scenario is posturing or warfare focused): naval strength, self-reliance (through fuel and food replenishment capabilities), the psychological factor, and technological capabilities (such as being able to navigate long distances and poor weather conditions, having long-distance radar and sonar, and the ability to use naval air forces). What this should underscore is that there is no one, sure-fire way to perfectly measure naval power projection. However, the writers and researchers and the U.S. Maritime Institute have developed a methodology for a common person to visualize and understand the measure of the power projection of naval forces around the world. The following section covers the rational of that methodology.

---

METHODOLOGY​

A traditional, and arguably outdated, method of measuring naval strength is using ship tonnage. In turn, ship tonnage has also been used to represent a navy's ability to project power. Ship tonnage is an inaccurate representation of naval strength because, for example, an outdated 20th century cruiser would be severely outmatched by a modern guided missile frigate. For similar reasons, ship tonnage is not a good representation of naval power projection. A raw measure of tonnage between navies could yield disproportionate results, especially if certain navies focus on large quantities of specific classifications of vessels.

In lieu of ship tonnage, the Institute decided to take the aforementioned variables of naval power projection (naval strength, self-reliance, the psychological factor, and technological capabilities) into account. It was also decided that all naval forces under a country would be considered for this survey, including a nation's: navy, coast guard, and reserve fleets.

For this survey, points were assigned to vessel types. The designated points, and a brief explanation of their values, are below:

100 - Supercarrier (Nuclear)
90 - Supercarrier (Conventional)
45 - Aircraft Carrier (Nuclear)
40 - Aircraft Carrier (Conventional)
15 - Amphibious Assault Ship
13 - Amphibious Transport Dock

*Helicopter carriers are under this designation as well.​

11 - Ballistic Missile Submarine (Nuclear)
11 - Cruise Missile Submarine (Nuclear)
10 - Battleship

*Even though battleships have a limited role in modern warfare, they still can play a significant role in marine land invasions and their presence provides a significant psychological influence.​

10 - Guided Missile Cruiser
10 - Attack Submarine (Nuclear)

*Submarines that exist for intelligence purposes are included under this distinction.​

10 - Replenishment Ship

*Replenishment ships allow navies to operate globally.​

9 - Guided Missile Destroyer
8 - Guided Missile Frigate
7 - Diesel Submarine
7 - Cruiser
6 - Destroyer
5 - Frigate

*Ice breakers are included under this designation. While most icebreakers are not armed, they can provide a strategic advantage to navies and access to places that other navies would not normally traverse.​

4 - Intelligence Ship
4 - Transport Ship

*Large, unarmed transport ships are included under this designation.​

3 - Minehunter

*Minelayers and minehunters are included under this designation.​

2 - Missile Boat

*Cigarette boats and corvettes capable of launching missiles are included under this designation.​

1 - Corvette
0.25 - Landing Craft

*Small landing craft for troops or just a few vehicles are included under this designation.​

An important point of note is that certain "benefit of the doubt" assumptions were made when assigning points. First, it is assumed that if a navy has an aircraft carrier (of any distinction), said navy also has the necessary naval air force to operate from that carrier. Also, it is assumed that the aforementioned navy has the appropriate escorts for that carrier so that it can operate at effective distances. Similarly, it is assumed that if a navy has an amphibious assault ship, said navy also has the necessary aircraft and marines to make that vessel effective in a power projection scenario.

---

DATA​

The vessels from each nation's navy was assigned points in accordance with the Methodology section. In order to represent what the power projection of each nation is, charts were created so that visuals were available. In order to serve as a clearer representation, categories from the Methodology section were simplified; for example, all nuclear submarines are grouped together, and all surface vessels below the designate of "frigate" are grouped together.

Full Image​

Full Image​

Full Image​

Full Image​

---

NATIONAL POWER PROJECTION RATING​

The following ratings are assigned to the naval forces of countries based off of their Naval Power Projection, as determined by this survey, as well as known naval deployments:

GLOBAL - The naval forces of these nations are capable of sustained and meaningful naval power projection around the world, even when opposed by enemy forces:

-Sweden
-Thailand
-United Kingdom
-United States​

REGIONAL - The naval forces of these nations are capable of sustained and meaningful naval power projection throughout their region, even when opposed by enemy forces:

-China
-Korea
-Myanmar
-Portugal
-Turkey​

LOCAL - The naval forces of these nations are capable of sustained and meaningful operations within their territorial waters and naval power projection in neighboring countries, even when opposed by enemy forces:

-Australia
-Canada
-Egypt
-Ethiopia
-India
-Poland
-Spain
-Ukraine​

FLEDGLING - The naval forces of these nations would struggle to defend their own territorial waters if they were challenged by enemy forces:

-France
-Germany
-Russia​

---

CONCLUSION​

Four countries (Sweden, Thailand, the United Kingdom, the United States) were granted the Global rating in the National Power Projection Rating section. The United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Thailand have all demonstrated that they are capable of meeting the requirements for the Global Rating on numerous occasions. Regardless of motive, these countries have repeatedly demonstrated that their navies can operate anywhere in the world, regardless of the mission.

It must be noted that three countries - China, Portugal, and Korea - were heavily considered for the Global rating and that consideration was made for a rating between Global and Regional to accommodate them. Ultimately, however, these three countries were set in the Regional rating because their navies have not demonstrated in the past 15 years that they are capable of meeting the criteria for the Global rating.

Myanmar and Turkey both operate navies which make their respective countries significant regional powers. With further additions and additional operations, these navies could one day have the ability to obtain the Global rating. Also, all of the navies that were granted the Local rating were determined to be clearly deserving of it considering their abilities, the size of their respective countries, and past known military operations. Finally, the countries that were given the Fledgling rating will need more assets before they can be considered navies that are fully capable of defending their respective countries.

In conclusion, the Institue notes that Sweden and Thailand have an exceptional amount of naval power projection for their size and respective populations while France, Germany, and Russia are proportionately lacking in naval power projection.​