I really don't know why are discussing this here on this thread, which ought to be left to retire. Perhaps the
Future Carrier thread would be a better place?
I assume that you are aware of the maritime part of the war on terror, yes? Perhaps you should see
this thread?
BHR I will try to answer your questions. But first consider that for my simple analysis:
a) Submarines are considered submarines regardless of propulsion. SSBNs, being nuclear deterrent platforms, are ignored.
b) Corvettes may be capable of the same missions as frigates and destroyers, but smaller, with shorter range and endurance, etc. As with submarines its the effects achieved that count.
c) Naval forces can be used in innovative ways - consider the recent deployment of HMS
Bulwark: See
this from Defence News.
Japan. A few years ago the JMSDF ranked third (to the US and Russian Navies) in frigates/destroyer numbers. Given Japan's dependence of seaborne imports and exports this is understandable, as is the JMSDF having submarines and mines counter measures. Currently JMSDF ships are involved in the war on terror. Their power projection abilities are currently low, due largely due to post WW2 political considerations. However, the threat from North Korea and the expansion of China may cause this to be reconsidered. Some of the ships they are planning do indeed look like small carriers - I wouldn't be surprised to see the F35B operating from a Japanese deck sometime in the next decade.
Germany. Like Japan, political sensitivities, the legacy of NATO roles and the costs of reunification make offensive forces taboo. The German Navy is not that large, but is capable and contributes to the war on terror. I know nothing of their future plans.
France. Like the UK, France is a P5 nation, ex colonial power with ties and interests around the world and has many other similarities with the UK. The French Navy is now larger than the RN. It is led by the carrier
Charles De Gaulle, the only non US nuclear powered carrier with a fully capable air group. It has the full range of capabilities you expect from a modern Navy, including amphibious warfare. Future plans include getting a second carrier (possibly a sister ship to CVF) and modernising the fleet (including Aster armed vessels).
Italy. An important EU nation, Italy is the same sort of size as the UK is terms of both land area and population. The Italian Navy is smaller than that of the UK or France but is well equipped, with a carrier (with AV8B+ for both fighter and attack roles, and AEW and ASW helicopters). Amphibious capabilities have not been neglected either, and surface and submarine forces are respectable. Apart from modernisation, Italy is building a new carrier - I don't know whether this is intended to replace
Garibaldi or be a second carrier.
Spain. Like Italy, Spain has a fleet that is smaller than that of the UK/France but is capable across the spectrum, including a carrier with AV8B+ and AEW aircraft and amphibious vessels. I know very little of their future plans.
The fact that the France, Italy and Spain all have carrier based air defence makes this topic relevant to this thread. Perhaps they were paying attention in 1982, and concluded that fighters are better than shipborne missiles or guns.
So you must draw your own conclusions. Of the above nations, the three that were not subject to their military forces being restricted by constitutions imposed on them by the allies after WW2 have the full spectrum of capabilities. Shame on you BHR, ignoring political considerations. Not what I would expect from a PhD calibre person.
You may find the
Industry Projects page from
Naval Technology to be of interest. Note this is not exhaustive, it doesn't mention the proposal for Australia to operate the F35B from a LPH/small carrier.
So I guess the UK isn't the only nation to consider naval forces to be useful.
Edited to add: Italy and Spain are JSF partner nations, and are looking to purchase the F35B. I think Australia is also a partner nation, not so sure about Japan. I think the Projects page from Naval Technology is very interesting - all those ships etc being ordered by coastal defence forces (sic). The first section (carriers/amphibious vessels) is particularly interesting. A capable Navy is certainly useful always, essential often. The world's Navies are heavily commited to dealing with the terrorist threat - something which coastal defence forces cannot do in the same way.
Why did you think Germany and Japan were good for comparisons?