22 top airforces (based on plane quality and quantity).

[Boredofnames]

Firstly, regarding Speeder 2's reply , you are not worth my time.

Anyway...

while chinese interests are indeed now going global, its need for military might with a real global reach is not yet great, its primary concerns remain in its "near seas" and its current and planned future capabilities are good enough or in excess of its near seas needs with the only power matching china being japan(US aside of course) but that is changing rapidly as china continues to modernize, even the USN/USAF is finding that it will painful to interveen in any near seas senario and only more so as time passes. thus with that in mind the chinese airforce is adequate for its currently needs(yes this includes the H-6 and its range). if you think china cannot somehow build a b-52 type bomber you must be joking, the fact that it has not choosen to is a different story. and sure PLAAF,PLAN cannot send a meaningful force to europe but no single european country can expect to send forces to in china's near seas in war and survive either. and certainly not operate in said near seas at will. so if you wanna talk global reach of course france, britain have greater reach, but that greater reach does not directly translate into automatically being better than the PLAAF when we consider all things.


First, as my first argument states, china is not in any immediate need of global reach for its AF, its main concerns are by and large, regional and its AF is perfectly capable of taking on those pressing challenges. and while its true that china's AF is general lower tech than those of the other top AF's its best aircraft is most definitely not watered down su-30 and su-27's, perhaps u have not followed the news(less likely), or willfully ignore them(more likely) for a while but china has been producing the j-11b, j-16 and so on, which while being based on the su-27/30 it is decicisely better than those aircrafts in addition to the j-10, and i do not account for soon to be operational projects like j-10b, j-20, j-31 etc. and u can rofl all you want but chinese mock combat reports indicate that j-10 routinly crushes the j-11(ie su-27) and the PLAAF would be able to win an airwar over taiwan long enough to land significant forces on the island whether or not the US interveens. so while u may laugh, actual commanders of the likes of the JSDF, USAF,USN account for and take those planes, and the capabilities of PLAAF overall, seriously.

fully capable of, is a loaded statement. capable of what and against whom? the french and british can send planes long distances only because they have bases and aircraft carrier/s. but again those arnt everything, the small numbers they field mean that indivisually, they pose no threat to countries like china, russia, india(lol if u think britain can impose a no fly zone over china) etc. and china is also fielding its first carrier and oh about large AEW&C aircraft , lol even china has 12+ of those(kj-2000 and kj-200), more than britain(news to you, i know), relativly few for a nation the size of china but more is still more. in fact, did you know that PLAAF has more tankers than the RAF? lower tech, yes but the numbers are still there and will only grow quantivly and qualitivly. so the question is really, relativly few asssets but higher tech and overseas bases vs relativly large but lower tech and more limited in global opertions. and frankly the whole global operations thing isnt about capabilities, its about national priorities, china has things to settle in its neighborhood, europe has settled its immediate neighborhood. im 100% sure china can, if it chooses build some more support aircraft, or tankers or aew and press and gain at least some bases it has all the reasources to do so(only exception is large transport which is now being recified by the Y-20), even if those assets will be of a lower tech level than american or european standards.

yes, but again only advantage is those bases, which due to the non-intervention policy, china has not pursued, this means relativly little in a direct 1 to 1 comparason of airforces, we are not comparing who can pummle 3rd world nations the fastest. you have to consider other things like for instance size.

fan boy much? the only japanese planes with any real staying power(due to distance, go check a map ur self if u dont believe) without tanker support in a air fight over the diaoyutai islands are those f-15J's but they would be fighting many hundreds of chinese fighters and hundreds of those being 4th gen which are in fact a match for the f-15s(over two third of the f-15j fleet is of the older varient built in the 80s and 90s) and because the islands much closer to chinese airbases, the chinese planes will have much better sortie rates and loiter times. the tankers are easy targets(not manurvarable and not stealthy), especially in a war that close with any near peer. so no they would not dominate, and certainly not with ease, in fact its far more likely that china will have upper hand in an airwar over the diaoyutai islands due to the close proximity to chinese bases compared to the distance to japanese bases meaning the only really plane to worry about is the 70 or so F-15J Kai or modernized F-15J these will faced the modernized J-11B/J-10A combo.

this part is racist and for this i will report your post

As for applesauce, well at least you can grasp the points I made in my post, and given the nature of your reply agree China has very limited power outside of its immediate sovereign territory and further more you agree China lags behind in terms of technology and supporting capabilities (i.e AEW&C, airborne refueling, battleground surveillance and intelligence gathering).

I disagree that China's need for global reach is not great, China places equal importance on global stability as the British or French and it may be argued that these days China has more foreign interests on a global scale than the British or French. So an air force that is capable of power projection is necessary for China. It is only as a result of lacking capabilities that China is forced to accept a policy whereby it does not intervene overseas. No wonder then China is rapidly overhauling its armed forces to expand its influence beyond its territory.

I strongly believe - given the current situation - that numbers are irrelevant when comparing the air forces of Britain/France and China. For example, geographically Britain is located in a very secure location in Western Europe surrounded by allies, the only potential enemy is Russia who lies several 1,000 kms away. Therefore Britain is in no need for a large air force and currently maintains a more than adequate force to deter and defeat the very unlikely possibility of a Russian assault. It is understandable then that Britain would focus on power projection capabilities. China on the other hand is geographically located in a potentially very hostile environment. China's enemy's are its neighbours, not to mention the United States on the other side of the Pacific. Therefore it is understandable China would maintain a large air force for its defence, and I agree most definitely that the Chinese Air Force is capable of defending its self against any enemy. It is the above understanding that I come to the conclusion that numbers are irrelevant, as both air forces are in strategically different situations and both are scaled to their current regional needs and threats. However, while both air forces are scaled to their current regional needs and threats the British have an advantage in that they posses power projection capabilities. This is why I hold the belief that the Royal Air Force is more capable than the PLAAF. Of-course I don't think for one second that the RAF could enforce a no fly zone over China single-handed, but the RAF is well capable of deploying significant air power to those regions and could contribute to a "coalition" force along side the Americans and other allies (Japan, Australia, France) if ever a major conflict arose with China. China however, is incapable of deploying air power anywhere near Europe - and therefore its size is totally irrelevant against the RAF!!!

I never said the British or French could individually defeat a major air force, in fact on my first post I stated that Russia, Britain and France faced limitations on the types air forces they would be capable of beating. But hey, the RAF could single-handed take on and defeat the Brazilian Air Force (I use Brazil merely as an example)... China wouldn't be able too

British and French military bases dotted around the world are the legacies of their Colonial Empires and it is a major strategic benefit to those nations acting as forward bases around the world. Another legacy the British posses are the extremely close military ties it maintains with former colonies. Us Canadians would have no problem allowing the RAF to operate from Canadian bases if need be... indeed, Britain maintains a military base in Canada already - but our own facilities would be available if need be. Same goes for many middle eastern nations (Saudi Arabia, Oman etc), central American countries (Belize), some African countries and of-course Australia and New Zealand... Brunei yet still remains a puppet state of the British and for military purposes still known in the UK as "the strategic far east reserve".

Returning to the importance of China's global interests - what about those in Africa for example? Where China relies heavily on mined resources. With growing terrorist activity and instability growing in Africa it is a very serious possibility that Chinese interests could be affected. Or lets go even further and hypothetically say that the European Union decides to interfere with Chinese interests in Africa - Europe would undoubtedly use its two pre-eminent military powers (Britain and France) to enforce Europes will. The result is, if China were to EVER find its self in a conflict of interests far from China and military tension escalated, China would be forced to back down and lose. Hell, according to the experts if military tension were to escalate to conflict with Japan over the islands in the East China Sea then Japan would win - and this conflict would be practically on china's door step!

Perhaps the term "more powerful" is too controversial to use, especially as there is theoretically no right or wrong way to measure "power". So I will use the term "more capable" from now on.

To sum it up;
UK can defend its sovereign territory and project significant power around the globe.
France can defend its sovereign territory and project significant power around the globe.
China can defend its sovereign territory, but cannot project power around the globe. It is also arguable whether China can even project air power effectively over a dispute with japan on its own door step.

So in my opinion the RAF and French Air Force are "more capable" than the PLAAF.

My arguments stem from reality, where the capabilities, realities and situations that air forces find themselves are the basis for "ranking" world air forces. Most people on forms tend to rank world air forces based upon a purely unrealistic hypothetical scenario where entire air force A fights entire air force B in some magical air force arena. Remember, this is the real world, not a boxing match!

Im sorry if you felt the last sentence of my previous post was racist, but I assure you it was meant only as provocative banter!

 

[Boredofnames]

applesauce just some additional points;

1) I'm very aware that China has a handful more AEW&C aircraft then the RAF or French Air Force, yet that's my point, only a handful more (about ~5 more AEW&C). However, take into account, aircraft capabilities and levels of maintenance. It is an undeniable truth that the British and French platforms are vastly superior! A slight advantage in numbers is of little use. I would also be interested in how many of these Chinese platforms are available at any one time and mission capable!!! In my opinion and given China's past reputation, not very many! lol

Regarding tankers you are wrong, the RAF has 16 aerial refueling aircraft as opposed to China's ~10, and again the RAF platforms being vastly superior! You also failed to mention/recognise that China has an absolute lacking in ISTAR capabilities and other battlefield surveillance, intelligence gathering aircraft... these are war winning capabilities that both the RAF and French Air Force are in possession of.

2) You wrote... "the only japanese planes with any real staying power(due to distance, go check a map ur self if u dont believe) without tanker support in a air fight over the diaoyutai islands are those f-15J's but they would be fighting many hundreds of chinese fighters and hundreds of those being 4th gen which are in fact a match for the f-15s(over two third of the f-15j fleet is of the older varient built in the 80s and 90s) and because the islands much closer to chinese airbases, the chinese planes will have much better sortie rates and loiter times. the tankers are easy targets(not manurvarable and not stealthy), especially in a war that close with any near peer. so no they would not dominate, and certainly not with ease, in fact its far more likely that china will have upper hand in an airwar over the diaoyutai islands due to the close proximity to chinese bases compared to the distance to japanese bases meaning the only really plane to worry about is the 70 or so F-15J Kai or modernized F-15J these will faced the modernized J-11B/J-10A combo."

You make some very valid points there, especially regarding sortie rates and loiter times. Though I do not think it would be as simple as that, nor do I think China would be able to commit "many hundreds" of fighters as A it be be logistically very challenging over such a short amount of time - i.e moving air crew and ground crew to the air bases on China's East coast as well as munitions, spare parts and the aircraft themselvs (some of which stationed on China's western borders would require tanker support) - and B China would have to risk gaps in its defence elsewhere by re-deploying fighters to the east. Also remember not all aircraft in service are available in active squadrons, some are undergoing maintenance or in storage as attrition reserves.

Japanese F-15s have seen substantial upgrades over the years and have therefore maintained their superiority over any fighter in PLAAF service. The Japs are not stupid! As regards Japanese AEW&C yes they would be vulnerable, but so would yours. I guess it depends on which side can protect theirs better. I would expect the USAF to provide the Japanese with vital intelligence updates/reports too, giving the Japanese added advantage.

Now despite my comments I firmly believe China is on the right track and her air force is fast making improvements in terms of technology and capabilities. It is only a short matter of time before the PLAAF surpasses the Russians, British and French.

 

[Boredofnames]

Also, to those who think I may be Indian - nope, I am Canadian with German and Irish ancestry.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

@Boredofnames how do u compare PAF capabilities with indian airforce?

 

[500]

Its silly to rank world air forces, how can one compare the Brazilian Air Force to the Egyptian Air Force, or the Japanese Air Force to the German Air Force? The fact is that 99% of world air forces are only capable of protecting sovereign airspace with limited power projection capabilities. So what is the point in ranking world air forces if they are simply NOT CAPABLE of engaging each-other in the first place?

Read the title. I said clearly that my rank is based SOLELY on quality and quantity of planes, because other things are very subjective.

The ability to deploy air power around the world is a strategically important asset, it means a nation like the UK can defend and retake the Falklands if needed, or can topple an enemy air force half way around the world.

First of all RAF played very very minor role there. It was the Royal navy.

Secondly Argentina's airforce was (and still is) very weak with little number of outdated planes with outdated weapons. And islands were located very far from its bases. Even then UK suffered heavy loses.

If UK tried to capture Turkish Cyprus (I am using your example), Turkey would smash the invading British force like a bug.

The only country that has the ability of globar warfare against formidable enemy is USA.

 

[applesauce]

[i'll just dicuss the a few points here:

I disagree that China's need for global reach is not great...

however as i said, china's immediate and most pressing concern is in its near seas areas, britain and france does not have such concerns in their immediate neighborhood. thus its not a capabilities issue its a national priority issue, and certainly the near seas are higher up on the list than say africa to the chinese government. and as i said before, if we discounted bases the PLAAF would win hands down because it just has so much more reasources than RAF or ALA indivisually.

strongly believe - given the current situation - that numbers are irrelevant ...

we are talking about indivisual countries here not any coalition, thus in that view britain/france power projection capabilities is infact not that impressive and their power projection is nearly completly reliant on willing partners, (unlike the USAF which can force its way in or operate significant forces in an area without the use of bases), when taking in the all the factors, i am not certain the bases alone would mean the British or franch have a "more capable" AF than the PRC, longer reaching? perhaps but more capable i am not certian of.

I never said the British or French could individually ...

and i would agree, but also think of it this way, RAF alone would not be able to take on the SK AF, but PLAAF could, thus there are certainly large gaps in the RAF's reach as well. and if britain was were korea is, i would still place my money with PLAAF, its just so much bigger and constanly getting better.

British and French military bases dotted around the world ...

right, but again we are comparing indivisual AF's

Returning to the importance of China's global interests ...

you are talking about a hypoterically situation that is extremely unlikely to happen in the near to medium term, but ill induge you, currently there is little need for military intervention from china to africa and as i said near seas take priority. but lets say europe decides it wants to interfer, well first of all this is not something that just happens overnight, there is aways signs that its heading that way and china will respond, its not as though just one day out of the blue, europe will launch a massive combind air assault on chinese targets in africa. so there will be a build up, and china can respond to this easily, its military spending as a percentage of GDP is ,even using CIA estimates, less than 2%, when facing a extremely hostile europe, determind to actually atk china at some point, you can bet your bottom dollar that spending will rise, possibly even up near american percentages. now we know china has all the capabilities to build a modern AF even if not "the best" and it can build them in vast quantities, and if need be as it is in this senario, it can seek out bases in friendly african nations, there are certainly at least some that are favorable to chinese interests. as for japan, what ever "expert" says the JSDF can steamroll role over the PLA is delusional, its highly unlikely that JSDF AF can achieve any kind of air supiriority over the PLAAF in a diaoyutai senario(no other senario exists, china does not plan on invading japan or vice-versa), as i previously said, its fairly far from japan making their only real choice of aircraft the F-15, the F-15 is a fine plane but they will be faced with similar generation warplanes that vastly out number them and the PLAAf planes will have better sortie rates, and loiter times due to distance. and frankly the japanese navy/airforce is among the more powerful in the world. saying "this conflict would be practically on china's door step" is like saying britain would probably not steamroll over france and france is practically on britains doorstep, in fact even the canadian AF is fairly good, we dont say its bad just because it cant fight the USAF

My arguments stem from reality, where the capabilities, realities and situations that air forces find themselves are the basis for "ranking" world air forces. Most people on forms tend to rank world air forces based upon a purely unrealistic hypothetical scenario where entire air force A fights entire air force B in some magical air force arena. Remember, this is the real world, not a boxing match!

ah there lies the problem. you are absolutly right that its completely unrealistic to simply compare numbers etc. but thats what i was sayign too, what realistic senario require massive PLAAF forces in africa or americas or europe in the next 20 years? PLAAF is perfectly capable of meeting its current duties as are the RAF and ALA(french), there is no realistic senario(for the medium term) in which PLAAF would need to go to war in africa or south america(or europe for that matter), the realistic senarios lies in the near seas and its biggest opponent aside from the USAF is the JSDF and in all those senarios, even in a US interveention taiwan senario, the PLAAF can hold its own. thus the PLAAF is perfectly "capable" in that regard. the problem here is that you take take the longer reach of the airforce to mean everything, i do not, because that is esstentially the only advantage the RAF and ALA enjoys over PLAAF, PLAAF on the other hand also has its advantages, it has no global obligations, its far larger, its is richer, and soon even those range advantages wil disapear.

 

[applesauce]

1) I'm very aware that China has a handful more AEW&C aircraft then the RAF or French Air Force, yet that's my point, only a handful more (about ~5 more AEW&C). However, take into account, aircraft capabilities and levels of maintenance. It is an undeniable truth that the British and French platforms are vastly superior! A slight advantage in numbers is of little use. I would also be interested in how many of these Chinese platforms are available at any one time and mission capable!!! In my opinion and given China's past reputation, not very many! lol

firstly of all, as far as the published numbers goes, the ranges on the PLAAF aew planes are comparable to the RAFones, there is no evidence that the RAF planes are somehow more capable.
secondly, what makes oyu think the PLAAF planes are not well maintained?
thirdly, please expain what you mean by "past reputation" the PLAAF has never had a bad reputation for the maintance of its planes, older planes like the J-6/J-7 go out of service faster because they were never designed to last long in the first place.

Regarding tankers you are wrong, the RAF has 16 aerial refueling aircraft as opposed to China's ~10, and again the RAF platforms being vastly superior! You also failed to mention/recognise that China has an absolute lacking in ISTAR capabilities and other battlefield surveillance, intelligence gathering aircraft... these are war winning capabilities that both the RAF and French Air Force are in possession of.

china has at least 13, 10 in the PLAAF and PLAN has at least 3. but fair enough, these at at least a genration behind the like of the tristar the british uses. but your accusation that china has a complete lack of ISTAR and other surviliance/inteligance assets are completely false. the PLAAF has plenty of UAV systems in use and there are plenty of Y-8 varients used for ISTAR and intelligance gathering opertaions(go check out the Y-8/GaoXin 1,2,3,4,7) in fact PLAN even has used converted learjets for these purposes, meaning the need was never lost on the PLAAF and these "war winning capabilities" are all present within the PLAAF

2) You wrote"... "

You make some very valid points there, especially regarding sortie rates and loiter times. Though I do not think it would be as simple as that, nor do I think China would be able to commit "many hundreds" of fighters as A it be be logistically very challenging over such a short amount of time - i.e moving air crew and ground crew to the air bases on China's East coast as well as munitions, spare parts and the aircraft themselvs (some of which stationed on China's western borders would require tanker support) - and B China would have to risk gaps in its defence elsewhere by re-deploying fighters to the east. Also remember not all aircraft in service are available in active squadrons, some are undergoing maintenance or in storage as attrition reserves.

Japanese F-15s have seen substantial upgrades over the years and have therefore maintained their superiority over any fighter in PLAAF service. The Japs are not stupid! As regards Japanese AEW&C yes they would be vulnerable, but so would yours. I guess it depends on which side can protect theirs better. I would expect the USAF to provide the Japanese with vital intelligence updates/reports too, giving the Japanese added advantage.

Now despite my comments I firmly believe China is on the right track and her air force is fast making improvements in terms of technology and capabilities. It is only a short matter of time before the PLAAF surpasses the Russians, British and French..

ah but the thing is PLA in general already have sustantial assets in the region because they had planned for a taiwan senario for decades, and they, in fact, can ,in a short amount of time , put up hundreds of planes, the eastern boader is where a large number of the best assets pla has are locationed, other areas like near the russian boarder only have old j-7s because the risk of war with russia is extremely low, the tibet area has only just recently gotten some j-10/j-11 . there is no where else PLA needs advanced fighters so all its forces can focus on one area, namely the eastern seaboard. and you are right about the need for reserves, maintenance etc, but the same applies for JSDF, except even more so, because they only less than 200 avalible F-15.

and the F-15 did recieve updates, but again, only 70 did, the remaining F-15s have not yet recieved any upgrades and again even the newest best F-15 is not a raptor and cannot expect a 5:1 Kill/death versus say a j-11A which is of a simular generation to the F-15j, or against a J-11B/J-10 which is within ball park of F-15J Kai. thus the japanese simply cannot muster enough forces to win air supiriority, and the PLAAF can simply overwhelm the JSDF in the air. as for tanker/support craft, you are right they would be equally easy to hit, but like i said PLAAF has significant sortie rate/loiter time advantages, the japanese without tanker support cannot hold the air they simply do not have the numbers or loitering time, while china would not need tanker support to swarm the daioyutai islands. and yes i would agree the US would provided intelligence, but here too u are asumming china is somehow less able to gather intelligence on an area so close to its mainlands, this isnt 1996 and the PLA now has sinificant space, UAV, navy, AIR assets for intelligence gathering, in fact this is one area they worked on the most since 1996 when the USN sailed its carrier by china and the PLA could not confirmed their location.
also i fully expect china to be firmly in second place in another 20 years.

 

[Boredofnames]

the problem here is that you take take the longer reach of the airforce to mean everything, i do not, because that is esstentially the only advantage the RAF and ALA enjoys over PLAAF, PLAAF on the other hand also has its advantages, it has no global obligations, its far larger, its is richer, and soon even those range advantages wil disapear.

I fear my friend this last paragraph of your reply sums its up quite nicely, we both have different perspectives of what an air force capabilities should be because the air forces we are discussing find themselves in totally different situations. Us Canadians have similar strategic priorities to the Europeans, and therefore like Britain and France perceive "power projection" as the priority for our air force. Tho we Canadians need British and American support to operate overseas! You however find your national air force in a vastly different scenario and therefore have different strategic priorities. Looking at it objectively then who are we to say the other is "wrong"?

UAV ISTAR is no substitute to more capable medium-large manned ISTAR aircraft. UAVs simply don't offer the Range, speed and ceiling, not to mention the on-board systems that make a true ISTAR asset. I am also interested as to whether China has any UCAV similar to BAE Taranis or X-47B in the works - these types of drone aircraft will include ISTAR like capabilities in conjunction with deep strike, stealth etc

Its crazy looking at the USAF with 40 odd AEW&C and almost 500 tanker aircraft.

 

[Boredofnames]

Read the title. I said clearly that my rank is based SOLELY on quality and quantity of planes, because other things are very subjective.


First of all RAF played very very minor role there. It was the Royal navy.

Secondly Argentina's airforce was (and still is) very weak with little number of outdated planes with outdated weapons. And islands were located very far from its bases. Even then UK suffered heavy loses.

If UK tried to capture Turkish Cyprus (I am using your example), Turkey would smash the invading British force like a bug.

The only country that has the ability of globar warfare against formidable enemy is USA.

Your ranking is still silly and appears to be based upon a purely unrealistic hypothetical scenario where entire air force A fights entire air force B in some magical air force arena.

No, the RAF played a rather vital role - the Vulcan bombing raid for example! The strategic air lift of troops, supplies and munitions to RAF Accession and the fact that 14 RAF Harriers were deployed alongside 28 FAA Harriers! 1/3rd of combat aircraft were therefore RAF... not a "very very minor role" eh? Wrong again, Argentina's air force was considered highly capable in 1982 and vastly out numbered the 14 RAF and 28 FAA subsonic harriers with around 130 available aircraft of its own many of those considered to be among the most capable air superiority fighters at the time.

Britain maintains two military bases in Cyprus, including a large air force base (RAF Akrotiri) which is also shared by the Americans. The RAF would emerge victor in such a campaign to rid Cyprus of any Turkish presence. Typhoon is leagues ahead of Turkeys watered down F-16's, and would dominate the conflict -Turkey would only have a slight numbers advantage. Oops and Turkey presently has no AEW&C ROFL. Tornado GR4s also operate standoff weaponry such a Storm-shadow cruise missiles, any Turkish forces station on the island would be crippled beyond the point of fighting very early on in the conflict. Also any air force bases close to the coast on the Turkish mainland would be vulnerable to Storm-shadow attacks as the Tornado GR4 can offload its cruise missiles 250+ kms away at a safe distance (hence a standoff weapon), the Typhoon would escort the Tornado GR4s in the unlikely event Turkey managed to muster some F-16s in a counter attack.

Surely tho, in any real conflict such as this the Royal Navy would be present. This would complicate things even further with a combination of Typhoons and type 45 destroyers denying Turkish F-16s any access in the air space over Cyprus... the Royal Navys Astute and Trafalgar class nuclear powered submarines would pose such a deadly threat that no Turkish admiral in his right mind would put to sea. The Astute and Trafalgar class nuclear powered submarines are also equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles with 2,000 km ranges... just like the Tornado GR4s Storm-shadow cruise missiles, the Tomahawks would be used to strike Turkish air bases close to Cyprus to further cripple Turkeys ability to deploy more F-16s.

At this stage with 0 air power over Cyprus and Turkish air bases under cruise missile strike the RAF/Royal Navy would have complete air superiority and a sizable Royal Navy task force consisting of type 45 destroyers, type 23 frigates and nuclear powered submarines would screen the waters between Cyprus and Turkey... the Turkish Navy would be useless absent air cover, not to mention the Royal Navys submarines would decimate any Turkish fleet put to sea.

Turkish submarines are pathetically inferior in comparison to their Royal Navy counterparts and the British are renown for their expertise in submarine warfare... so even a Turkish attempt to strike the Royal Navy using submarines would fail... not to mention the Royal Navy type 23 frigates are excellent anti-submarine platforms and the RNs Merlin anti-submarine helicopters are considered to be the bestin the world!

Anyway this has now gone off topic.

 

[Speeder 2]

Also, to those who think I may be Indian - nope, I am Canadian with German and Irish ancestry.

wow, that's creative. whatever, just don't let the mod find out that you share the same ip with some recently banned indian.

so another page of repeated novel on that simple yet crooked id of yours that more bases = more powerful?

yeah right cocacola has bases allover the world in almost every country, hence give it a dozen of 4th gen, cocacola would be the most poweful airforce in the world? why not?

mine, that's how fcuked up your indian logic is.

on the japanese airforce, you have no id what are those F-15 vintages, what are their missles and radars, how many are upgraded to modern warfare... for christ sake they are easy parys for even korean's J-15k.

 

[Pakistanisage]

I was bored and decided to estimate airforces strength. I wrote down the list of active aircrafts for each air force and then counted score.

Here is method I used. F-16C I used as base: 1 air-air point/1 air to ground point. For other aircrafts my estimates are follow:

F-16C = 1/1
F-16A = 0.8/0.8
F-16 block 52+ aka F-16I = 1.1/1.2
F-16 block 60 = 1.3/1.2
F-15A = 1.2/0.5
F-15C = 1.3/0.5
F-15E = 1.4/1.5
F-15S = 1.3/1.4
F-15SG = 1.5/1.5
F-18A = 1/1.1
F-18F = 1.3/1.3
F-2 = 1.3/1.2
F-16AM = 1/08
Mirage 2000 = 1/1
Typhoon (MESA radar) = 1.3/1.1
Rafale (PESA radar) = 1.2/1.2
Tornado IDS = 0.5/1.2
Tornado ADV = 1/0.6
F-4 = 0.4/0.7
F-4 Terminator = 0.6/1
Su-27 = 1.2/0.4
MiG-29 = 0.9/0.5
Su-30MKI = 1.3/1.2
Su-30MKK = 1.2/1.2
MiG-21 aka J7 = 0.3/0.4
MiG-27 = 0.3/0.7
JF-17 = 0.9/0.8
AMX = 0.3/0.5
Mirage F.1 = 0.7/0.8
Mirage 3/5 = 0.3/0.4
Jaguar = 0.2/0.6
F-5 = 0.3/0.4
J-10 = 1/1
J-8 = 0.6/0.4
JH-7 = 0.5/1.1
Q-5 = 0.1/0.4
H-6 = 0/1

E-3, Phalcon, KJ-2000, Boeing 737 = 8/0
Saab, KJ-200 = 6/0
E-2C, ZDK-03 = 4/0

jet tanker = 2/6
KC-130, H-6 tankers = 1/4

Here the results:

UK

86 Typhoon
136 Tornado GR4
AEW&C: 7 E-3
tanker: 4 Tristar, 12 VC-10

260 air to air points/354 air to ground points

France

59 Rafale
158 Mirage 2000
AEW&C: 4 E-3
tanker: 14 KC-135

285/313

Germany

55 Typhoon
177 Tornado IDS
45 F-4
tanker: 4 A310

187/328

Israel

25 F-15I
30 F-15 C/D
30 F-15 A/B
101 F-16I
135 F-16C/D
100 F-16A/B
AEW&C: 4 G550
tanker: 7 KC-707, 5 KC-130

487/466=1440

India

146 Su-30MKI
45 Mirage 2000
68 MiG-29
88 MiG-27ML
152 MiG-21Bis
120 Jaguar
AEW&C: 3 Phalcon
tanker: 7 IL-78MKI

430/491

Turkey

213 F-16 C/D
52 F-4 Terminator 2020
110 F-4
87 F-5
AEW&C: 1 Boeing 737 AEW&C
tanker: 7 KC-135

336/419

Korea

60 F-15K
169 F-16C/D
84 F-4E
170 F-5E
AEW&C: 2 Boeing 737

354/399

Japan

82 F-2
180 F-15C/D
117 F-4E
AEW&C: 4 E-767, 13 E-2C
tanker: 4 KC-767

480/294

Saudi Arabia

72 Typhoon
109 F-15C/D
72 F-15S
87 Tornado IDS
24 Tornado ADV
120 F-5
AEW&C: 5 E-3
tanker: 8 KE-3

488/449

China

190 J-10
100 Su-30MKK
189 Su-27 and J-11
180 J-8
280 J-7 (MiG-21)
60 JH-7
180 Q-5
110 H-6 (Tu-16)
AEW&C: 5 KJ-2000, 2 KJ-200
tanker: 8 IL-78, 10 H-6

859/905

Italy

55 Typhoon
78 Tornado IDS
14 F-16A ADF
55 AMX
tanker: 2 KC-767, 2 KC-130

148/214=510

Spain

32 Typhoon
86 F-18A
24 Mirage F.1
tanker: 2 KC-707, 5 KC-130

154/181

Greece

126 F-16C/D
30 F-16C block 52+
44 Mirage 2000
57 F-4E
AEW&C: 4 Erieye

250/246

Pakistan

50 JF-17
45 F-16A/B
18 F-16C block 52+
75 Mirage III
83 Mirage V
144 F-7
AEW&C: 4 Erieye, 2 ZDK-03

224/219

Egypt

40 F-16A
178 F-16C
18 Mirage 2000
32 F-4E
115 MiG-21 & J-7
60 Mirage V
AEW&C: 8 E-2C

291/320

UAE

79 F-16E
68 Mirage 2000
AEW&C: 2 Saab 340
tanker: 3 Airbus 330

189/181

Canada

103 F-18A
tanker: 2 A-310, 5 KC-130

112/145

Australia

71 F-18A
21 F-18F
AEW&C: 4 Boeing 737
tanker: 3 A330

136/123=395

Singapore

24 F-15SG
54 F-16C
20 F-16C block 52+
49 F-5
AEW&C: 4 G550
tanker: 4 KC-135, 5 KC-130

171/177

Sweden

158 Gripen
AEW&C: 4 Saab 340
tanker: 1 KC-130

183/146

Final points I calculated air-air points*2 + ground points

The final results:

1) USA
2) Russia
3) China - 2623
4) Israel - 1440
5) S. Arabia - 1425
6) India - 1351
7) Japan - 1254
8) Korea - 1107
9) Turkey - 1091
10) Egypt - 902
11) France - 883
12) UK - 874
13) Greece - 746
14) Germany - 702
15) Pakistan - 667
16) UAE - 559
17) Singapore - 519
18) Sweden - 512
19) Italy - 510
20) Spain - 489
21) Australia - 395
22) Canada - 356

This estimate is still subjective does not include personnel quality and UAVs.

I think you have under counted the PAF Aircraft Inventory:


JF-17 100+
F16 86
MIRAGES 3/5 157
F-7 186

List of aircraft of the Pakistan Air Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Speeder 2]

@500:

good thread and relatively very good point system.

why don't you add in your spreadsheet a few more variant cells such as

logistics,
avg training hours/pilot,
war/major int'l execise experiences,
total pilots available,
lethalities of major combat missiles,
radar avionics sophistications,
force mulitplier (awacs,tankers...)adecuacy in relation to total warplanes,
self-production for replacement capability & quanitity in case of war( i.e, no imports, no int'l black mkt)
other major points such as effectivity and tactical/strategic decision-making capabilities of commanders/war planners,

etc.

then assign each of these cells a scaling score ranging from 0.50 to 1 for each major airforce, before mulipling all these ratios to the total points you have. it can be easily done and could make the final results even more accurate and scalable (easily updated whenever a noticeble improvement or otherwise is made), imo.

 

[Boredofnames]

wow, that's creative. whatever, just don't let the mod find out that you share the same ip with some recently banned indian.

so another page of repeated novel on that simple yet crooked id of yours that more bases = more powerful?

yeah right cocacola has bases allover the world in almost every country, hence give it a dozen of 4th gen, cocacola would be the most poweful airforce in the world? why not?

mine, that's how fcuked up your indian logic is.

on the japanese airforce, you have no id what are those F-15 vintages, what are their missles and radars, how many are upgraded to modern warfare... for christ sake they are easy parys for even korean's J-15k.

You yet continue to vomit the same hogwash. Good luck with your logic (or should I say, lack thereof) and I hope it serves you well. But before I let you go, a question: Is every one who disagrees with you and calls you out on your trashy logic an Indian? Or is that just some false reality you force yourself to believe so you can sleep at night?

 

[Neptune]

Your ranking is still silly and appears to be based upon a purely unrealistic hypothetical scenario where entire air force A fights entire air force B in some magical air force arena.

No, the RAF played a rather vital role - the Vulcan bombing raid for example! The strategic air lift of troops, supplies and munitions to RAF Accession and the fact that 14 RAF Harriers were deployed alongside 28 FAA Harriers! 1/3rd of combat aircraft were therefore RAF... not a "very very minor role" eh? Wrong again, Argentina's air force was considered highly capable in 1982 and vastly out numbered the 14 RAF and 28 FAA subsonic harriers with around 130 available aircraft of its own many of those considered to be among the most capable air superiority fighters at the time.

Britain maintains two military bases in Cyprus, including a large air force base (RAF Akrotiri) which is also shared by the Americans. The RAF would emerge victor in such a campaign to rid Cyprus of any Turkish presence. Typhoon is leagues ahead of Turkeys watered down F-16's, and would dominate the conflict -Turkey would only have a slight numbers advantage. Oops and Turkey presently has no AEW&C ROFL. Tornado GR4s also operate standoff weaponry such a Storm-shadow cruise missiles, any Turkish forces station on the island would be crippled beyond the point of fighting very early on in the conflict. Also any air force bases close to the coast on the Turkish mainland would be vulnerable to Storm-shadow attacks as the Tornado GR4 can offload its cruise missiles 250+ kms away at a safe distance (hence a standoff weapon), the Typhoon would escort the Tornado GR4s in the unlikely event Turkey managed to muster some F-16s in a counter attack.

Surely tho, in any real conflict such as this the Royal Navy would be present. This would complicate things even further with a combination of Typhoons and type 45 destroyers denying Turkish F-16s any access in the air space over Cyprus... the Royal Navys Astute and Trafalgar class nuclear powered submarines would pose such a deadly threat that no Turkish admiral in his right mind would put to sea. The Astute and Trafalgar class nuclear powered submarines are also equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles with 2,000 km ranges... just like the Tornado GR4s Storm-shadow cruise missiles, the Tomahawks would be used to strike Turkish air bases close to Cyprus to further cripple Turkeys ability to deploy more F-16s.

At this stage with 0 air power over Cyprus and Turkish air bases under cruise missile strike the RAF/Royal Navy would have complete air superiority and a sizable Royal Navy task force consisting of type 45 destroyers, type 23 frigates and nuclear powered submarines would screen the waters between Cyprus and Turkey... the Turkish Navy would be useless absent air cover, not to mention the Royal Navys submarines would decimate any Turkish fleet put to sea.

Turkish submarines are pathetically inferior in comparison to their Royal Navy counterparts and the British are renown for their expertise in submarine warfare... so even a Turkish attempt to strike the Royal Navy using submarines would fail... not to mention the Royal Navy type 23 frigates are excellent anti-submarine platforms and the RNs Merlin anti-submarine helicopters are considered to be the bestin the world!

Anyway this has now gone off topic.

1- you said we don't have any AEWC's. But we have 4 advanced ones plus 2 on order

2- WE also have our own cruise missile which has a range of 300+ kms AND noone gives a damn about your shadow bastard a.k.a cruise missile. If that so Our ships in cyprus can shoot those missiles with Phalanx CIWS, Sea Sparrow and ESSM

3- Turkey and UK has the same pilot training skills cauz of NATO

4- the redcoat times are over. As he said, US is the only fullscale strike capable force.

5- neither you believe it or not OUR AIR FORCE IS BETTER THAN RAF. While UK wins in army and navy specs

6- as we saw in Exercise Anatolian Eagle, TuAF F-16's sloped the hell out of UK's Typhoons.

7- you're not british so don't be the poker face. And you are TURK HATER.

 

[Boredofnames]

1- you said we don't have any AEWC's. But we have 4 advanced ones plus 2 on order

2- WE also have our own cruise missile which has a range of 300+ kms AND noone gives a damn about your shadow bastard a.k.a cruise missile. If that so Our ships in cyprus can shoot those missiles with Phalanx CIWS, Sea Sparrow and ESSM

3- Turkey and UK has the same pilot training skills cauz of NATO

4- the redcoat times are over. As he said, US is the only fullscale strike capable force.

5- neither you believe it or not OUR AIR FORCE IS BETTER THAN RAF. While UK wins in army and navy specs

6- as we saw in Exercise Anatolian Eagle, TuAF F-16's sloped the hell out of UK's Typhoons.

7- you're not british so don't be the poker face. And you are TURK HATER.

1) I accept I was wrong on the AEW&C issue, I wasn't aware they had entered service yet.

2) Turkey has cruise missiles too, ok? And what exactly is turkey going to do with them? Fire upon RAF Akrotiri? Waste of time with land based Rapier point missile defence systems and type 45 destroyers in the area! I would expect the UK to achieve a 100% kill rate v any Turkish cruise missile. Not to mention that any F-16 equipped with cruise missiles operating anywhere near Cyprus would be lucky to still be alive. I personally cannot see any chance of an F-16 surviving the Typhoons and type 45 air defence destroyers! The British on the other hand would be able to use their Tomahawk cruise missiles (2,000+ km range) and Storm-shadow cruise missiles (250+ km range) with deadly effect. I highly doubt Turkey would have any ships anywhere near Cyprus once the Royal Navy arrives and those Phalanx CIWS, Sea Sparrow and ESSM you speak of do not have the ranges necessary to shoot down cruise missiles. ESSM would be the only system with any chance of taking down a cruise missile (and even then the chance is very remote). Plus ESSM could only engage the cruise missile during its terminal phase, allowing literally only a couple of seconds for ESSM to respond. A very tall order indeed and the success rate is so low that Britain wouldn't even take it into consideration. Therefore I stress again, the UKs strategic use of cruise missiles would be deadly for Turkey as Turkey has no real defences in place.

3) Wrong, there is no standard NATO training for pilots, your statement is absurd. According to the IISS RAF pilots receive significantly more flight hours per year than their Turkish counterparts. Plus RAF pilots have lots of recent operational experience. For these two reasons alone I would back an RAF pilot any day.

4) Some British Army regiments wear red tunics, so too do some of our Canadian regiments, the redcoat days are far from over Anyway I agree the USA possesses the only armed force with full power projection capabilities and the ability to topple pretty much any nation on earth (with the exception of Russia and China), however such a force is unnecessary against a 3rd rate nation like Turkey. Plus our scenario only involves a fight for Cyprus, not to blitz all of Turkey lol

5) Just because you placed some text in caps doesn't make it true. Britain is superior in terms of air force, regardless of whether your simple brain cannot process this information or not. Yes I agree, Britain is superior in terms of naval and land based power.

6) "as we saw in Exercise Anatolian Eagle" "as we saw" OK, this is a good one. The RAF hasn't participated in an Anatolian Eagle exercise since 2009. The unofficial "reports" of Pakistani pilots in Turkish F-16s scoring kills on RAF Typhoons were form the 2011 AE exercise, yet the RAF as we have already established via the above reasoning were never even present! You are surely an idiot if you believe phantom reports and even more so if you quote them in an argument heheh. But sure if you want to believe that a watered down export variant of the F-16 is superior to the Typhoon then be my guess!

7) No, I am not British, but that still does not mean I shan't give voice to their armed forces being capable, same goes for the French and Russians. I am not a Turk hater, I just don't care for them - but I do eat Turkey often!