How accurate do you think Global Fire Power is?

[danger007]

Your assumptions are wrong.

The reason why Russia is put above China is obviously because of Russia's huge size and huge land forces. Other than that, nothing that site says that it's taking into account would have put Russia above China.

so you are saying china is ahead of Russia???? lol in that case...lol...in that case what is the gdp of china, population... you denying Russia's nuclear weapons, air defence , weapons,........ etc.... do you forget who is largest army by military personal????

 

[RayKalm]

so you are saying china is ahead of Russia???? lol in that case...lol...in that case what is the gdp of china, population... you denying Russia's nuclear weapons, air defence , weapons,........ etc.... do you forget who is largest army by military personal????

Sigh. I was talking about what the list takes into account, if the GFP rulings were true to their words then China should indeed be above Russia, and India should indeed be above Russia as well.

This is why GFP is highly flawed.

 

[danger007]

Sigh. I was talking about what the list takes into account, if the GFP rulings were true to their words then China should indeed be above Russia, and India should indeed be above Russia as well.

This is why GFP is highly flawed.

if u take military personal wise China is at number 1 and India at 2..... no way we are not even close to russia...

 

[Ir.Tab.]

That is wrong. GFP takes into account conventional technology as well, that is why you do not see China above Russia, even though china got more "numbers" so to speak.

The reason why some people are dissatisfied with GFP is that GFP takes into account a myriad of other factors beside military. eg. pakistan may have a good conventional military, but its energy dependancy puts it down to 15. Of course this would dissatisfy many people and hence, the defamation of GFP here. People don't understand that you need energy, infrastructure etc. to sustain war, not only weapons.

you are right, I know there are more factors in GFP calculation regardless of the "numbers game" section, but I think it is possible to perform more precisely in terms of counting. No problem with the logistical and financial aspects but with "purely a numbers game" attitude.

GlobalFirepower.com reports 22,950 in russian tank inventory. But we know there are well under 1000 T90 MBT as the re-presenter of 3th generation technology among them (ref). For comparison based on the data provided by GlobalFirepower.com USA has 9,573 MBT which more than 8000 are M1 Abrams tanks (one of the most advanced MBTs around). So it is not enough to say Russia has 22,950 MBTs and USA has 9,573 MBTs.

Other factors should be considered in counting. For example Tank's counting could be classified by their generation. There is an example

I am agreed with GlobalFirepower.com with ranking Russia as the second army in the world. I give these figures to show that "Numbers game" could be very misleading especially for those who are not among the 5 top in the ranking table.

 

[King Solomon]

in electronic warfare, i believe that China is surpassing Russia as we speak. That is because China now has access to huge amounts of resources from our successful ventures in semiconductor, optical communications and signal processing for telecom applications.

Maybe, maybe not. I have studied Russian military and according to me China is still behind Russia. I'd recommend this book: Shopping cart Experts - CCNow Online Credit Card Processing and Merchant Account

china is catchin up pretty fast though. With the recent upsurge in Russian rearmament I guess Russia would pace up as well.

Sigh. I was talking about what the list takes into account, if the GFP rulings were true to their words then China should indeed be above Russia, and India should indeed be above Russia as well.

This is why GFP is highly flawed.

You obviously have little or no basic military knowledge. Look again, the only thing Russia is above China in numbers terms in the total land based weapons. In all other stats, if you compare number by number China seems to be superior. So, going by your assumption that GFP only compares "numbers" then obviously China would have been at number 2 not Russia.

The reason why Russia is ranked higher to that of China is:

- Superior technology.

- Energy independence.

you are right, I know there are more factors in GFP calculation regardless of the "numbers game" section, but I think it is possible to perform more precisely in terms of counting. No problem with the logistical and financial aspects but with "purely a numbers game" attitude.

GlobalFirepower.com reports 22,950 in russian tank inventory. But we know there are well under 1000 T90 MBT as the re-presenter of 3th generation technology among them (ref). For comparison based on the data provided by GlobalFirepower.com USA has 9,573 MBT which more than 8000 are M1 Abrams tanks (one of the most advanced MBTs around). So it is not enough to say Russia has 22,950 MBTs and USA has 9,573 MBTs.

Other factors should be considered in counting. For example Tank's counting could be classified by their generation. There is an example

I am agreed with GlobalFirepower.com with ranking Russia as the second army in the world. I give these figures to show that "Numbers game" could be very mistaken especially for those who are not among the 5 top in the ranking table.

As i said in my previous post, GFP takes more into account than numbers. Take for example pakistan and Iran. At a first glance, it would seem pakistan has technological superiority over Iran as well as numerical. Then why is Iran ranked above pakistan? Because:

- Pakistan is energy dependent upon others for its survival and military machine.

- Couple this with a small coastline Pakistan is very much prone to naval blockade. In case of a real war, it is doubtful if pakistan will be able to sustain more than a month.

Iran has plenty of energy resources of its own which it exploits. Similar to Russia. So, Iran is higher than pakistan.

 

[Ir.Tab.]

I am not going to enter that challenging comparison. I said "no problem with the logistical and financial aspects but with purely a numbers game attitude". Consider we have 2 Russias. Both are equal in every aspects but the second Russia uses the upgraded vehicles which the first Russia uses. How does GlobalFirepower.com rank this two cases?

 

[RayKalm]

@S-19, that's what I have said - that GFP takes into account things which are not on the rulings.

Pakistan on the other hand, while dependent on energy, the same thing can be said for almost every other country.

 

[King Solomon]

@S-19, that's what I have said - that GFP takes into account things which are not on the rulings.

Pakistan on the other hand, while dependent on energy, the same thing can be said for almost every other country.

You seem to believe only superior weaponry and numbers count. Study why Nazi Germany was defeated in WWII. Primary objective of operation Barbarossa was to capture USSR's oilfields because Nazis were in short of oil despite their superior technology and equipment.

As for energy, it is the disparity between production and consumption that counts. Pakistan, Turkey etc have large disparity thus their superior military may be useless in case of a prolonged conventional war. Countries like India, China and US have enough oil sources to keep their war machine going even though their economy might be shut off in case of war in homeland. Their challenge is to protect their oil infrastructure in case of a possible conflict.

 

[Birbal]

I am not going to enter that challenging comparison. I said "no problem with the logistical and financial aspects but with purely a numbers game attitude". Consider we have 2 Russias. Both are equal in every aspects but the second Russia uses the upgraded vehicles which the first Russia uses. How does GlobalFirepower.com rank this two cases?

So the first Russia spends the same on defense as the second Russia but gets outdated weapons?

The point is that technology level is reflected in the defense budget and gdp size.

 

[Ir.Tab.]

So the first Russia spends the same on defense as the second Russia but gets outdated weapons?

The point is that technology level is reflected in the defense budget and gdp size.

We have two country X & Y. they are exactly same as each-other. for example their current defense budget and gdp size. the only difference is: "X uses the upgraded vehicles which Y uses." How does GlobalFirepower.com rank this two cases?
please assume X has been upgraded a long time ago.

 

[Birbal]

We have two country X & Y. they are exactly same as each-other. for example their current defense budget and gdp size. the only difference is: "X uses the upgraded vehicles which Y uses." How does GlobalFirepower.com rank this two cases?
please assume X has been upgraded a long time ago.

It wouldn't be able to. I'd argue though that such a scenario is extremely unlikely.

From what I've observed, the objective ranking that GFP has matches amazingly well with my own subjective ranking. They've clearly come up with a good formula for ranking countries.

 

[Ir.Tab.]

It wouldn't be able to. I'd argue though that such a scenario is extremely unlikely.

From what I've observed, the objective ranking that GFP has matches amazingly well with my own subjective ranking. They've clearly come up with a good formula for ranking countries.

I just want to show a little bug in that evaluation. I have no problem with the ranking there. In other words all the countries upgrading their equipments instead of producing "a new one with an old technology" are losers in this ranking.

An example:
Russian military experts have decided to upgrade their T-72 tanks fleet (option 1). They have had the other option of producing more T-72 tanks with the same budget (option 2). option 2 was more effective than option 1 to heighten the rating at global firepower ranking. But if you ask me I am more with Russian experts idea not the global fire power strategy.

 

[RayKalm]

It wouldn't be able to. I'd argue though that such a scenario is extremely unlikely.

From what I've observed, the objective ranking that GFP has matches amazingly well with my own subjective ranking. They've clearly come up with a good formula for ranking countries.

Highly unlikely? How so? Look at the list - it is not highly unlikely, but very common.

 

[King Solomon]

Highly unlikely? How so? Look at the list - it is not highly unlikely, but very common.

I get where are you coming from, loitering in the past 10 pages trying to prove the "injustice" of GFP. Pray publishing here your "own" list if you are so dissatisfied with it? Let everyone see how meticulous you are?

Or maybe because Pakistan is not in top 10, that is why the grunt?

We have two country X & Y. they are exactly same as each-other. for example their current defense budget and gdp size. the only difference is: "X uses the upgraded vehicles which Y uses." How does GlobalFirepower.com rank this two cases?
please assume X has been upgraded a long time ago.

I'm not a GFP staff so I can't comment accurately. Based on my understanding the country which uses upgraded vehicle will be ranked higher. As in the way Israel is ranked above Egypt.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Maybe, maybe not. I have studied Russian military and according to me China is still behind Russia. I'd recommend this book: Shopping cart Experts - CCNow Online Credit Card Processing and Merchant Account

china is catchin up pretty fast though. With the recent upsurge in Russian rearmament I guess Russia would pace up as well.



You obviously have little or no basic military knowledge. Look again, the only thing Russia is above China in numbers terms in the total land based weapons. In all other stats, if you compare number by number China seems to be superior. So, going by your assumption that GFP only compares "numbers" then obviously China would have been at number 2 not Russia.

The reason why Russia is ranked higher to that of China is:

- Superior technology.

- Energy independence.



As i said in my previous post, GFP takes more into account than numbers. Take for example pakistan and Iran. At a first glance, it would seem pakistan has technological superiority over Iran as well as numerical. Then why is Iran ranked above pakistan? Because:

- Pakistan is energy dependent upon others for its survival and military machine.

- Couple this with a small coastline Pakistan is very much prone to naval blockade. In case of a real war, it is doubtful if pakistan will be able to sustain more than a month.

Iran has plenty of energy resources of its own which it exploits. Similar to Russia. So, Iran is higher than pakistan.

Shopping cart is empty, what is the book name? I'm not so sure about that, because in electronic warfare, China's KJ-2000 already has maximum detection range further than the E-3, we already have phase array radars installed on our destroyers and frigates, we already have the 2nd most amount of supercomputing power in the world, we're one of only 5 countries in the world able to make photolithography machinery, and our programmers are ranked the same as Russian programmers.

Russia is still very powerful though. In addition to its immense strength in conventional and nuclear arms, Russia has unparalleled geography.

Russia only needs a 8000 km range ICBM to strike anywhere in the Northern Hemisphere. China needs a 11000 km range ICBM to do the same.

Russia produces more oil than Saudi Arabia (WOW!) while consuming very little. China produces less than Iran and consumes all of it. Russia has the most natural gas in the world. China has no natural gas.

Russia has 4 sea access routes to 3 oceans. China has 3 sea access routes to 2 oceans, but they're stacked, so its actually 1 to 1. Russia has much more domestic water supplies than China does.

Russia is helped by global warming. That's a major advantage in a world where global warming doesn't seem to be letting up.