H-hello I did an autism.Clicking through the Wikipedia pages trying to get some sort of understanding of what the European navies operate and if (and how) they might complement one another was very difficult. So I decided to list every single ship.Well, almost every ship.I listed every warship over 100t that has armament. Doing so, I realized that actually many ship designs and classes are actually just renamed, or subclassed from, other European vessels. What you see is that a poor(er) European country buys ships from a rich(er) European country and then give them a new name. Or even they decide to work on a project together, and both come up with their own class name. I've tried to 'normalize' that by giving 1 name where possible.Second thing to notice is that Europeans tend to call everything a frigate, even 9000t behemoths are called frigates. What's more is that some navies call the EXACT SAME CLASS of ship a destroyer and then another country calls it a frigate. What I've done is tried to come up with a system for non-carrier and non-submarines just to give an indication of the ships size.>10.000t+ cruisers>5.000t-10.000t destroyer>2.500t-5000t frigate>500t-2500t corvette>0t-500t cutterand>below 50.000t carriers and above are super carriersAfter adding all the existing ships, I also added all known replacement classes and projects. Then I added them all together to get a better idea of the numbers. Obviously I'll have made plenty of mistakes but forgive me.Pic rel. shows the current fleets in the European navies, and also across members of various organizations.The darkest rows indicate the total ships, and all ships that can carry aircraft (so CV&AAS).The middle rows are the most interesting I think, I've merged ships together a bit more according to their various roles to give a good indication of the tonnage distribution across the navies.The last rows shows all types and role combinations that I recorded.
Here is the 'future' fleet. Europe's first nuclear super carrier (~nimitz/ford class) type thing makes itself known in the French Navy. Construction of the France Libre started in september of 2025Germany will also introduce it's largest vessel since WW2 in the form of a MEKO A-400AMD-derived 12.000t cruiser. Of course, they are still referred to as 'frigates' in the German Navy.One trend across the board is that replacement ships are often far more capable, with far more displacement and crew and that the navies will grow by about 20% on average.
Here is every corvette currently in service.
And the future corvette fleet. While the amount of corvettes increases, the amount of classes decrease. Across the board there is far more shared procurement. It is more visible with the MMPC project, and the FREMM project. But also less transparently with for example city-class mine warfare ships, which all receive a different class name across the dutch, belgian and french navies. Same for MEKO 200 derived frigates across many navies.
>>65085901Nice work desu.
I know of some German Bundeswehr Youtubers that have created an up-to-date database of our equipment. Including the Bundesmarine with their ships with specifics and armanent (current and future). I am not sure if they provide free access to their database or an API. Would be really interesting if you combine your work with APIs.
The Netherlands is the only country planning to replace its entire navy.>>65085991Thx anon.>>65086027Ah that's cool. It also seems that information is becoming less transparent lately. They list a project without disclosing the number of ships or tonnage/role. I've left those projects out of my list.
>>65085983Are Finland's future Pohjanmaas not corvettes or something
>>65086059By OP's convention their frigates.
>>65086067Maek sense, I know jack about botes.
>>65085901Fucking pathetic. Would get bodied by a single American CSG.
>>65085901thx annon, I've saved it for future reference
>>65085901Is there a single Euro ship with over 48 VLS?I know the Darings (Type 45) are getting CAMM at some point, which would bring that up to 72.
>>65085901This is real good work, OP. Thank you.
>>65086086Iver Huitfeldt is generally configured with 56 VLS cells but can be more.
The Nordics compliment each other beautifully. The super heavy patrol vessels are armed and armored icebreakers, something lacking in every non-Nordic navy.
>>65086086If you mean any VLS, then DanishIver Huitfeldt class, if it chooses to get modules with AA missiles usually rolls with 32 strike and 24 ESSM If pure strike - Spanish Álvaro de Bazán seems to be the largest with 48.EU members were really busy playing with patrol boats (+a few carriers) since the end of the Cold War to build large(ish) surface combatants
Here is the future of European submarines. Keep in mind that some projects plan into the late 2030s, so it will take a while before the total is fleet is upgraded with 25% more subs than currently in service.>>65086137Spotted that I forgot to add Norway as a JEF member.
>>65085901>Italy 62 ships> UK 43 shipsWhat the fuck. Since when the Italians mog the British navy?Its fucking embarassing. At its peak during World War II the British Royal Navy possessed over 1,400 vessels.Truly nothing but barely a shadow of its former empire. Might as well give Scotland and whales independence while becoming swamped with Indians, africans and Muslims to truly end up as less relevant to the world events than Taiwan is.
>>65086164nuclear and global vs conventional and local
>>65086164Italy has a lot more patrol vessels. But they also accept more quantity for less quality (which, mind you, might well be the right way to go). The UK maintains two supercarriers and a fleet of nuclear submarines.See also Greece and Turkey. Their navies are large and growing. Greece has many old fast attack ships which they just upgrade with more modern missile launchers. It's cheap but it probably works just fine.
>>65086170Gobal my ass.As of this month the British navy assessment was they didn't have enough ships in functional conditions to even be able to send a single carrier group to Hormuz if needed without leaving their only working carrier exposed.
>>65085901>>65085925>>65085925>>65085925>>65085947Post a Google doc or something so visualization is easier.Where did you a gathered this info from? Its hard to reflect these things , but the reailty on the ground is much Diferent from offcial data. For Britian it became very apearent that most of their Navy exists on paper. Most of it is down for repairs or endless refits that get delayed constantly. This is likely the case for most of these navies bar the French, Italian and maybe the greek Navy.Another thing worth highlighting is the insanely top heavy situation most European militaries have. Sometimes as bad as 3 officers per enlisted personel. Join this the low atraction for the military career as well as resistence to re-implementing conscription. Its very hard to understand how any sort of maritime expansion will happen
>>65086198Conventinal and local vs nuclear and [larping as] global
>>65086191According to AI Italy has a shit ton of small vessels. What do you do with a bunch of small ships around the size of pic related?
>>65086236play with them in a bathtub
>>65086198>As of this month the British navy assessment was they didn't have enough ships in functional conditions to even be able to send a single carrier group to Hormuz if needed without leaving their only working carrier exposed.ESL moment.
>>65086236Below 100t displacement are not listed
>>65086255Can't read without punctuation? We are on 4Chan you petulant nigger not writing an essay at college. Anyhow, here you go.As of this month, the British Navy's assessment was that it didn't have enough ships in functional condition to send a single carrier group to Hormuz if needed, without leaving its only working carrier exposed.
>>65086288It's not a punctuation issue. It's your inability to command English to correctly use "that" and "was" and follow A+B = C. Your statement is logically contradictory for asserting a fucking simple premise.Without engaging with factual basis, you should have written: "As of this month, the British navy assessment was that they lacked sufficient operational ships to deploy a single carrier group to Hormuz without committing their only working carrier, thereby leaving the nation without carrier capability at home."However, that is not the case. There was no "British navy assessment". The option to not pre-deploy HMS Dragon weeks before; was a political choice. It's on a regeneration cycle for the next UK CSG deployment to the north Atlantic. The British CDS (UK joint chief) recommended deployment of aircraft and AD equipment to RAF Akrotiri. Believing it was sufficient, in terms of capability -- which it is. Obviously, the political optics have played differently.Now, what people are not grasping is that the UK was engaged in an operations against Russian forces in the north Atlantic -- Tracking three Russian submarines.https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/russian-submarines-britain-military-vessels-9.7158613If you bothered looking you'd see there were 3-4 Royal Navy surface ships active on operations or on exercises over the past four month.
>>65086345>Without engaging with factual basis, you should have written: "As of this month, the British navy assessment was that they lacked sufficient operational ships to deploy a single carrier group to Hormuz without committing their only working carrier, thereby leaving the nation without carrier capability at home."What he wrote was fine enough, quit being a faggot.>the restSolid. Agree.
>>65086391no u
>>65086345>we actually aren't pathetic because we could deploy three ships to keep nuclear submarines out of our home watersYou should be fucking ashamed the Royal Navy has sunk this low. The U.K has commitments in the Mediterranean and Southern Atlantic that it is unable to meet with its current fleet.
>>65086198>Completely different opeational requirements.Italy couldn't do that either and their carriers don't even have the same capability.You'd think perhaps european navies work together or something idk.
Oh God anon that is the sexiest spreadsheet I have ever seen will you please please please let me have it for my collection? I swear not to upload it anywhere if you don't want me to.
>>65086345Seems there is some confusion The assessment was that they could not send a carrier group without IT (the carrier) being exposed due to the lack of screen vessels availability. In simple terms the UK cannot send its only working carrier into the strait without it risking being hit due to a lack of destoryers and frigates to protect it. That means the UK currently has very minimal power projection capabilities. The Italian Navy with its large number small and fast vessels might be oddly more suitable than the British for helping in the strait. Many of the small ships have a 12.7mm or bigger automatic AA turrets and can launch Spike missiles and are now getting the fulgur module for the turret to fire manpads like missiles. Being tiny and fast with good accelleration they can't be targeted by Iranian large drones which already have an difficulties hitting a slow fuel tanker if it is moving. Dropping 50 of those vessels in the strait would likely allow 25 vessels at once to go trough while bigger vessels can focus on intercepting any large missiles and the carrier can take down the launch sites if any large missile gets rolled out of some cave.You can refer to recent Mark Felton video on the British navy condition for detailed info.
>>65085925>Of course, they are still referred to as 'frigates' in the German Navy.Tbh, with F126 I was actually all for calling that thing a frigate. Because putting 16 cell meme machine made for a bygone era in the same category as 90-96 destroyers is kinda offencive to Kongous and Burkes
>>65087307I believe the Italian navy’s job is to control the Mediterranean if needed. They have no Falklands or far flung Islands to defend on the other side of the planet. For that task, they are quite capable of projecting force from the Dardanelles to Suez.The Royal Navy, which should still be ruling the waves around the globe, currently struggles to do much of anything outside the English Channel.I wonder if they will ever recover, or if they will just keep decaying and declining.The fact that it’s even remotely POSSIBLE to argue whether the Italian navy could take on the British navy and win is a joke in itself. The Italians aren’t exactly known for being a great military power, quite the opposite.It’s like if you were the heavyweight champion, like Mike Tyson in his prime, and now people wonder whether some random influencer with a bit of muscle could knock you out.
>>65086236>small shipsThat's a boat.
>>65086345>>65086391>>65087926you're all idiots.the assessment is that the single RN CSG cannot be in more than two places at once, and HM Govt has decided not to sent the RN CSG to Iran.that's it.this actually says nothing about the readiness of the RN fleet.of course, we know FROM OTHER SOURCES that the RN fleet does lack numbers and readiness, but this decision per se says nothing.however,>>65086844this is truethe RN is unable to meet the commitments that HMG said it wanted to meet across at least five regions: High North, the Atlantic, Falklands Guard Ship, the Mediterranean, and East of SuezI'm not saying each of these should have a carrier group. that's nonsense. but it's simple arithmetic that to have any kind of presence in these regions, each needs to have a small flotilla (bare minimum: 2 armed warships plus either a tanker or a local base) while the main battle fleet needs at least 8 escorts, 2 carriers, and 2 tankers and 2 SSNs to generate a force on a 1-on/1-off basis, with the further caveat that the battle fleet can only deploy in 1 place at any timethe above commitments are all the major reasons the UK escort fleet can't deploy to the Med; because they're busy doing other tasks AND HMG has decided those other tasks are more important than Iran.
>>65087926Not are you wrong, but you're actually retarded. Unsurprising for someone who would unironically watch Mark Felton.
>>65086212>>65087861Weapons free. Do with it what you will.https://files.catbox.moe/8rzly4.xlsxMade some last minute changes. Future members are now included in the future fleet and participating non-members are included in the current fleet as well.>>65087937True, it's a cruise ship with guns and missiles. But since distinctions have become meaningless cross-navies I opted to just use it as an indicator for weight class.
>>65085901>5.000t-10.000t destroyer>2.500t-5000t frigateTonnage is not a good indicator, just saying
>>65088256RETVRN to ship [of the missile line] rates. 1st rate - 100+ VLS2nd - 65-99 etc
>>65087947>which should still be ruling the waves around the globeBecause of the song? What a ridiculous notion
>>65088266The U.K. has sovereign territory or defense agreements (and don't @ me that technically under the Treat of Flabby Tits and the Retard Annex to the Shitter Convention the U.K. has an out) across the globe. It either has to get real about having a global navy or give up.Having single digit deplorable surface warships and one deplorable submarine is not going to cut it.
>>65088741>deplorablewhat a Freudian slip>>65088266>Because of the songno, because they are the only other Western-aligned navy besides the Americans and French who give a damn about the world order, and the French don't have the same institutional combat experience the RN does
>>65088741Don't need shit if you're friends with everyone. Armies only do things when politics break down. Arguably most of Europe hasn't needed a standing army since the fall of the wall and only had one because of commitments made to allies
>>65088773>we don't need a military, we can leech off America
>>65088773>hasn't needed a standing army since the fall of the wallnumber one answer to the question, "How did Russia manage to invade Ukraine twice without being deterred by Europeans?"
>>65088781up to the US if it wants to play world police all the time. nobody needs to force projection when shit is peaceful and doing so is half the reason the US ended up with a trump administration twice
>>65088832>when shit is peaceful>t. Why yes Abdullah come in, make yourself at home, feel free to use my daughter
>>65088882I accept your concession. Take the rest of your opinions back to >>>/pol/ so you can discuss them there.
>>65088256Thank you ship autist anon, you are my Hero.
>>65088832>why fund a fire department? I don't smell smoke
>>65088891>the opinion that there's no need to defend anything against anyone is not /pol/>the opinion that we need to defend ourselves is /pol/KYS, Abdullah
>>65088928Just go back to /pol/ where you belong, you can have offtopic arguments with strawmans there.
>>65088260I like this idea, but there is some combination to be made with displacement, radar capability etc. and how do you handle those upcoming modular optionally crewed vessels with missile containers and shit? In general we're starting to see more modularity and ships can ne configured for all kinds of roles.
>>65088921the main issue with European force projection is that you'd need to co-operate to do any kind of meaningful force projectionbut you can't grantee that co-operation so why would you fund 1/5 or 1/3 of the ability to go an force project in a way that matters if you can't be sure that when it matters the rest of that ability will be thereso you'd rather spend it on other defense goals or even better not at all.that's the main advantage the US has over Europe, not that it's economy is so much bigger or it spends so much more on defense, but that it can have a single defense policy where it knows that when push comes to shove everything will show up
>>65088921or to put in you analogy, why bother with the fire truck if you don't know there will even be a staff to use it?
