Talk:Green-water navy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Green-water navy[edit]

Removed the ((disputed)) tag as there was nothing on the talk page whatsoever...

Where is PLAN?[edit]

I guess I'll add them.

List of navies[edit]

Is there any point in having a list of green water navies? By the articles definition, the list should be a list of all the navies in the world, sans the blue water ones (which is 3 navies).

The list instead contains only navies that have at least some form of aircraft carrier. All this does is confuse the reader as to what the definition of green water navy is.

On that note, I've decided to remove it, feel free to add it back in if you feel the article needs it.

Beaver225 (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

As stated the list is highly suspect. I don't see alot of references stating that any of those countries are green water and dozens of other countries are completely ignored. The definition of blue water is the ability to project a naval force for a significant amount of time due to logistical abilities, technically that makes Canada a blue water, at least until our Protecteur class is decommissioned. The whole list and colour coded map smells heavilyof OR.

== OR? ==108.161.117.228 (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

There are virtually no references proving the existence of this term. The article looks a lot like OR especially the grouping of aircraft-carrier equipped navies as "green-water". Please improve this article with suitable, else it will be considered for deletion. AshLin (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with AshLin. The power projection of People's Liberation Army, Russian Navy, Indian Navy are simply compared to that of Chilean Navy.or some Brazilian navy.Having Amphibious Assault Ship is not enough for a navy to be called as a Green water navy or lack of overseas deployments wont make the Russian,Chinese and Indian navies green water navies.The power projection of these navies is far more better than all the rest.These three navies are far more superior than any of the other navies due to the presence of Guided Missile Destroyers, More number of frigates, Naval Aircraft, Nuclear Submarine(s).So either remove the three navies from the page or completely delete the article.And does the term "green water navy" really exist or was just created to satisfy some users?. Thanks Srikar Kashyap (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
The term is in use, as in [1] and other places easily found by Google search, so that's not a reason for deletion. On the other hand, it's a very poor article for reasons explained above and ought to be made much smaller. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The trouble is that it gets used in three main contexts, two that are fairly specific and one that is very badly defined. One is the US Navy talking about elements of its own fleet, of which the Zumwalt is the poster-child. The second is the US Navy talking about a phase of development of the Chinese Navy as a whole, the first-island-chain stage. Obviously that use has only emerged over the last 15-20 years. And then just recently you've had random commentators taking that usage and applying to any second-division navy - like the example you quote. And FWIW, I wouldn't regard gcreport.com as a particularly reliable source - for something that's prone to diverse interpretations like this, I'd be looking for gold-plated sources like the Proceedings of the USNI or the Naval War College Review. We seem to be in a situation a bit like "impulse" or "momentum" - they have specific meaning when used by physicists, but a random Google will turn up lots of usage in a looser meaning by members of the general public. As with blue-water navyI really don't think that a listing of lots of different orders of battle is a particularly clever or useful idea - it just duplicates stuff that's already in the navy articles and there's very few WP:RS that will say that a particular navy is a GWN as such, so it's WP:OR to say that "this navy has an amphibious ship and some tankers, therefore it is a GWN". Certainly in high-quality sources - I suspect that China would be the only one you'd find US military sources calling a GWN on much more than a one-off basis. Personally I think blue-water navy probably has enough pedigree to remain as a distinct article, but I wouldn't cry too much if this article and brown-water navy were redirected to Maritime geography or something - I've already added a chunk of the stuff from my recent big edit here. Le Deluge (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Indian,Russian and Chinese navies[edit]

I hereby propose the removal of the Indian,Russian and the Chinese navies from this list.

  • All the three operate nuclear submarine(s) which can project power far beyond their region.
  • All the three operate Guided Missile Destroyers,much more powerful than Frigates.
  • All the three operate more than one replenishment ships..enough to support even blue-water missions.
  • The Chinese,Russian and Indian navies are the world's top five navies in terms of personnel and equipment.The other two are French and US navies.

Please comment. Thanks! Srikar Kashyap<<Talk>>12:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Not all of the above points are relevant to deciding whether a navy is green-water or not - and precisely none of them is relevant to whether they get included in this article. From a Wikipedia perspective all that matters is that we have reliable sources calling a navy a greenwater navy. And for something like this which is a bit subjective and prone to pushing of national agendas, we should be looking for particularly high-quality, independent references. As I said above, I suspect that China is the only navy that should be described as a green-water navy for certain, as there's a ton of US military reports saying that's what it is. I'd delete Russia on the grounds that it's definitely blue-water - aside from the Kusnetsov group deploying off Syria recently, there's a ton of references to its BW-ness through history, I'm working on a section for the bluewater article. As for India - I suspect you won't have many good references calling them a greenwater navy, so if you can't find those refs, India should be deleted here. That's OK, we don't have to put a label on the India navy, just like we don't have to put a label on the Icelandic, Iranian or Israeli navies. If you asked me outside Wikipedia for an opinion - I would say India was greenwater, with blue aspirations - but they're not there yet. Not just on the tangible side - like all the emerging big navies, they still don't have enough underway replenishment capability for anything more than the odd frigate. More important is all the intangible stuff that can't be measured by counting hulls - training, doctrine, overseas basing, reliability - and yet more training. All that takes a few years to get sorted, even once you've got hulls in the water. No doubt India and China will get there - but they're not there yet. Traditionally blue-water navies announce themselves with a big exercise that proves that they've gone beyond talking the talk. The USN did it with the Great White Fleet, Gorshkov's navy did it with Visna/Okean 75. It wouldn't surprise me if China did an equivalent of Okean 70 in say 2015, and Okean 75 in 2020. Then you can say they have a BWN, they will have walked the walk. I can't see India doing anything like that before China, and I wouldn't call them a bluewater navy until they have such an exercise. Le Deluge (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
India, Russia and China are covered among potential blue water navies and Brazil can perhaps be added to that list. The current listing here is mildly put ignorant nonsense and reflects a POV rating of fleets according to prejudice. The Soviet Navy learned much blue water operations and the Russians are heirs to this tradition, no matter how obsolete their technology is. Brazil is among the weaker potentials of a blue water navy, but their "Blue Amazonas" is not yet the blue water usually implied by the use of the term.
This article should be about logistics, maintenance and repair of ships in and outside of specialized port facilities. This is the problem for navies to do all kinds of repairs outside the reach of their base (as true blue water navies can with long endurance at sea). Explain here why replenishment ships are important, plus what effect nuclear power has on warship requirements. It might help to highlight the difference between blue water capable ships, ships built for cluttered littorals, green water, and blue and green water navies according to the usual area of operation of the whole fleet of a country.
The other issue with blue and green is air cover, which navy does have a modern fighter force that can take off from a ship deep in the ocean and which navy relies on shore based aircrafts. Distance reduces repeated sorties and thus effectiveness as fighter-bombers. 213.23.51.58 (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Singapore[edit]

Surely Singapore's RSN with it's stealth frigates and corvettes is green water.Phd8511 (talk) 10:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

As this is a wikipedia article, surely you dont get to choose, you find reliable references stating it is or it isn't, otherwise its OR. 108.161.117.228 (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Phd8511 you first need to find some reliable sources which refer to it as a green-water navy. I removed it as there were none provided.Antiochus the Great (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/dodko-class/
    Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Potential Green water navies[edit]

Qualifying for this list seems to be dependent on a fleet having a few AORs and a few LHD/LPD, backed up by some form of sea denial submarine force and air warfare DDG capability. This gives a country some ability to force project, but not sustain indefinitely.

The article then goes on to discuss how there are several navies that can almost be considered green water navies under those criteria, specifically citing Germany in comparison to Canada. Germany with its modern oilers, commercial ro/ro ships, functioning submarines and Sachen Frigates is more green water than Canada, a nation that lacks all of those capabilities considered necessary in the article to be green water.

I propose that this article includes a "potential green water" section; a list of large navies that are brown water but can potentially be considered green water. This would bring this article into line with a similar section of aspirational navies in the Wikipedia "blue water navy" article. This list would initially include Canada (removed from the main list) and Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.178.87.150 (talk) 04:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

That would be original research, which Wikipedia does not do. Unless there are sources stating that Germany and Canada intend to develop green-water capability, then we cannot include it in the article. Llammakey (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

In which case Canada should be removed, or re-titled "former green water fleets". If you read the old Canadian reference claiming to be a "third tier" green water fleet, the RCN no longer meets its own criteria to be considered green-water; in fact under the ranking structure outlined in the source article, Canada's navy is now a tier 6 or 7 brown water fleet. I've even read a few news articles discussing this very issue. The RCN has no place on this list.

I agree. As a Canadian, Canada no longer has this capability year round. I would propose to remove Canada too, however Canada just complicated things as they`ve just rented two replenishment vessels to maintain their green water ability. I would need to spend some time looking at sources to see if Canada would still be considered green water capable now that it has those two vessels. Sorry to throw another hammer in the works.Llammakey (talk) 11:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't add navies without reliable sources[edit]

To the IP editor, what do you not understand about the need for reliable sources? Your WP:OR definition of a green-water navy is irrelevant. Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Once again, reliable sources are necessary for such changes. If you know what your talking about, then surely you can provide some reliable sources? Thanks. Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)