The Russian navy have more than 500 ship in its inventory, few dozen, the most modern can be considererd still operationals.Something from 15 to 35 SSN for example.

I'd question whether Russia could field a fleet that is numerically the size of Japans. They might have 500 penanted vessels, but I'd argue vigorously that only a small pecerntile (20%) are seaworthy. let alone capable of going out into the atlantic on a wild and windy day.

According to that I said it is even less in percentage

french-stratege - I was trying to be generous, ;)

For me their main strenght are in kursk class and akula 1/2: how much do they have operationals?I don't know but they receive most of the money, the best crews (almost fully professional)and the spares.However if 70 % of them are operational it is still impressive. For me a navy strenght is mainly in offensive blue water means.Less in escort ship if you are a land coutry (but UK or Japan need them) or in logistic if you go nuclear and/or have naval bases spread in the world. Good night for me it is almost 5 in the morning.

the russian navy has EXCELLENT hardware....at least in theory.......an akula SSN is a very potent ship so long as it's not rusting in port for several years :} unfortunately...the navy recieves the smallest share of the tiny russian defence budget, so while their ships are capable and numerous, i don't know about their maintenance, crew training...etc. nobody, least of all the US or Russia can come close to the Royal Navy when it comes to professionalism, crew training, morale, pride and tradition. i think the RN is the most underrated navy in the world (due to lack of numbers) and then the RAN (Royal Australian Navy, again for the same reason)

1- USA 2- UK 3- Russia 4- France 5- Japan 6- Spain/Italy 7- Germany 8- Nederland 9- Taiwan 10- Australia

1- USA 2- UK 3- Russia 4- France 5- Japan 6- Spain/Italy 7- Germany/Netherland 8- India 9- Taiwan 10- Australia

Looking at the fleets in terms of balanced forcemix in fulfilling its intended role, average age, maintainance, training, experience and weapons systems, I rate the top ten fleets like this, US UK Japan France Russia Italy Spain India Germany China I put Russian lower than the UK, France and Japan, because of the question marks over how many of its ships it can deploy and over its professionalism. I put Germany lower than Italy and Spain, because the German fleet still reflect's a cold-war anti-submarine/coastal defence/escort mission. Even with the Type 124's, the Germans aren't really geared for global naval ops, as is becoming of a power of their size. In contrast, I rate Japan highly, even though its fleet has a similar focus. This is because Japan still faces a realistic threat of being interdicted by sea, so its navy is right to be focussed on that mission. China is fairly intangible, but given the numbers of frigate-sized ships, the presence of nuclear subs and the aquisitions of the new destroyers, I rate them above Taiwan. I doubt they can really project power, but they do appear to be capable of putting up a resonable interdiction force against the islands off their coast. As much as I would like to include Australia, I can't in good faith do so. While our navy is highly professional and generally has modern ships, it is too small and to focused on ASW, to the exclusion of AAW and power projection(both important missions for the RAN), to be considered. Ask again in 10 years time, when we have our new amphibious ships and AW destroyers(and fingers crossed, light-carriers) and it might be a different story.

Have to agree with you there, AG. The RAN is world class in training, professionalism and morale, but since as you said, our AA and projection capabilities have been neglected for the last 20 or so years, our rating has dropped. Silly buggers, the various governments (I think it was largely Fraser and Hawke) not replacing HMAS Melbourne and Sydney (Majestic Class Carriers) and our Destroyers (can't remember the class) back then. Then again, recessions and economic trouble often means defence is seen as good way of cutting costs............ I honestly think that we need more stuff - 4 more Collins, 5 more ANZACS, at least 5 Destroyers (All with AEGIS) but all not necessarily AA, and at least one decent sized Carriers, or god willing 2. And last but not least, 3 Large LSTs although 2 will probably do. We would then have adequate border patrol capability, and unmatched projection in the region. I think force projection will be a key part of regional security and stability in the future. I have High regard for the JSDF Navy - High qaulity ships and training, in a very volatile region (NK). I think a few modified Murasame class destroyers would be a great coice for the RAN's destroyers, if the Japs would sell/or license manufacture to us. Sorry, small hijack off. Pucka