Top 4 most powerful military's

The most important fighter that we need are MiG 25-31's, Su-27-33's, Tu-22-160's Ground attack Su-24-25's, other less important ones are MiG 27's so those figures you guys gave are 1996 and 2001's figs DUDE a wwhhhoolllee lot has change scince then man, heres the figures for operational Aircraft 1. Su-27=400, warfare.ru... 2. Su-33= 52 warfare.ru... 3. MiG-25= 232 warfare.ru... 4. MiG-29's= 455 warfare.ru... 5. MiG-31's = 325 warfare.ru... NOW lesser important Fighters 6. MiG-23's= 635 warfare.ru... Now "Fighter/Bombers" 7. MiG-27's= 253 8. Su-24's= 577 www.abovetopsecret.com... 9. Su-25's= 262 warfare.ru... Now we Strategic Bombers (I will only list the most important ones) 1. Tu-22's= 265 warfare.ru... 2. Tu-160 this site says 12 but scince 2004 the total now in 17 warfare.ru...

Originally posted by ArtemisFowl
I would say chinathey could woop our buts with so many troops

Hmmmm, how many of their troops are front line formations? Also, Yes on paper they have many troops, but they lack the ability to move them beyond thier borders esp over a long distance.

Remember Iraq in Desert Storm had what the 5th largest standing army? They were crushed like a bug.

Originally posted by Hockeyguy567
Inventory:
U.S. Army: 4,796
U.S. Marine Corps: 221

www.army-technology.com...

3,273 M1 tanks were produced for the US Army. 4,796 M1A1 tanks were built for the US Army, 221 for the US Marines

u forgot the M1 tanks.

so u add it all up its 8290 tanks for the U.S.

Originally posted by mirza2003

24 destroyers(BTW these designs are all indegenious)

world know the reality chinkom

that why you need explanation everywhere

[edit on 5-7-2005 by mirza2003]

Nothing you write makes sense to me

get a new translator unit

I think what he tried to say was that that you were quick to raise the indegenous point because of all the copying accusations on China..
And i think he found it funny..


What was your source(s) for the pilot post of this thread Uk_United?

[edit on 5-7-2005 by Daedalus3]

Originally posted by Daedalus3
I think what he tried to say was that that you were quick to raise the indegenous point because of all the copying accusations on China..
And i think he found it funny..

oh his got weird humour

anyway from the start of the thread UK mentioned that chinese destroyers are old and from US Russian designs. and i pointed out that chinese destroyers are indegenious

Originally posted by Uk_United
United Kingdom
Army: 2500 Tanks (Challenger 1&2(Best Tank In Nato)) Navy: 20 Subs, 4 Carriers, 25 Frigates, & 23 Patrol Boats Air Force: 800 Combat Aircraft Atomic Weapons Cap.

Last time I looked at our forces all our nuclear capability fell to the Navy after the last V-Bomber was retired. I believe all our Atomic weapons can now only be launched by the Trafalgar Class submarine (I am just going by memory here - feel free to correct me)

Originally posted by Uk_United
Army: 21,820 Tanks (Most If Not All Do Not work(need spare parts)) Navy: (Most Vessels Do Not work or are too old to run or be effective) 67 Subs, 1 Carrier, 7 Crusiers, 10 Frigates, 108 Patrol Boats (Not heavly Armed) Air Force: 1500 Combat Aircraft (not many trained pilots, some do not work or need spare parts, Most old Soviet Aircraft this information on it

"If Not All"

Originally posted by Uk_United
But anyone who has studied military history knows that the number of troops is a misleading measure. There are several factors that make the troops of one army more effective than others. The most obvious modifying factor is weapons and equipment (quantity and quality). Closely related to this are the “combat support” elements. The most important of these are logistics (being able to move troops, and their supplies, long distances and in a timely manner) and maintenance (keeping things in repair and running under all conditions.) Then there are the intangibles (like leadership, training and the most intangible item of all; military tradition.) Apply all of those to the raw number of troops and you get different number. This number is called "combat power."

Top Ten By Combat Power

United States
China
Israel
India
Russia
Korea, South
Korea, North
United Kingdom
Turkey
Pakistan

Presumably this is your source: www.strategypage.com...

Doesn't seem to include navy and air transport etc in the calculation, not that I can see anyway.

As you say force projection is an important factor in deciding 'most powerful'.

Naval forces, lift capacity, air transport, bases, intelligence, operational capability and, presumably, alliances have to be taken into account as well as just land power.



The list could then look like this.

US
China
UK
Russia
France
India
N Korea
S Korea
Israel
Turkey
Pakistan

Thoughts?

[edit on 7/7/2005 by Mike at ATS]

^^
Dude... even the chinese on this site would agree that the PLA has minimal force projection capabilities as of now..
They are purely a defensive military except for the impending invasion of taiwan which cannot be called "force projection" as such because its only some 200km from the mainland..

The only conventional chinese thing that can go beyond 4000 km is a refueled Su-27/30MKK and I doubt it will be allowed to go that far in any direction..

My force projection List looks like this:

USA(global scale)
UK(global scale)
France( I dont know)
Russia(I dont know)
India(Entire Indian Ocean/Central Asia/SE Asia)

The remaining in your list don't have any "independant" projection capabilities.. i.e. they have the vessels but not the firepower to back up an "independant" convoy...They must carry out all troop transports under US/(other) supervision/protection..

[edit on 7-7-2005 by Daedalus3]

Originally posted by Daedalus3
^^
Dude... even the chinese on this site would agree that the PLA has minimal force projection capabilities as of now..
They are purely a defensive military except for the impending invasion of taiwan which cannot be called "force projection" as such because its only some 200km from the mainland..

The only conventional chinese thing that can go beyond 4000 km is a refueled Su-27/30MKK and I doubt it will be allowed to go that far in any direction..

My force projection List looks like this:

USA(global scale)
UK(global scale)
France( I dont know)
Russia(I dont know)
India(Entire Indian Ocean/Central Asia/SE Asia)

[edit on 7-7-2005 by Daedalus3]

the only country that i would consider to have sufficent force projection is the americans..

UK has carriers but does it have sufficent landing ships transports?

France....same thing

Russia..limited projections. useful in european coastline. monetry problems.

india.....very limited supply ships and no troop tansports that i can find.. for a conventional carrier dont you need to refuel every three days??

also india cant project power into central asia. it might have 5-10mig-29s there but thats not power projection

I think China can deliver a much bigger punch at short distances as can Russia but would certainly struggle to reach much further. Think China needs to be above Uk on the list on that basis

Uk does have a degree of global reach but weight of force that could be delivered would certainly be an issue. UK routinely charters/ requisitions civvy lift ships (there are some that are MOD-designed and civvy operated but available for call-up ASAP) to provide capacity but ultimately it's limited

France has the kit to do the job but operational ability is limited deyond air-dropped COIN type ops.
Wouldn't underestimate India - with 3 aircraft carriers (eventually) they'd be a force to reckon with

Originally posted by chinawhite
it might have 5-10mig-29s ......

Thats's 16 Mig-29 K's that India will recieve late nest year for its INS Vikramadithya. The carrier has a capacity of 32 Mig-29K's and India will fill the rest with naval version of the LCA.

India wants to acquire 40 of these Mig-29K's.The 16 aircraft contract gives India an option to acquire 30 additional Mig-29K's by 2015

And the new Mig-29's will have all the top of the line aveonics, weapons, radar like the MKI. Check it out here : India's Mig-29 K -2008

Also dont forget the 30 upgraded BVR ready Sea-Harriers on the carrier INS Viraat. The Sea Harriers were upgraded just a few months back with a new Israeli p-a radar and BVR missiles.

The new ADS carrier will have LCA-Navy's too.

And all this to add to the numerous helicopters on all the carriers with different roles like Sea King, Kimonov series, Dhruv for AWACS, transport, attack, etc.

India will also get the E-2 Hackeye 2000 AWACS for the Vikramadithya carrier.

[edit on 7-7-2005 by Stealth Spy]

i mean 5-10 mig-29 in central asia not on carriers

Originally posted by Infidellic

Originally posted by Uk_United
United Kingdom
Army: 2500 Tanks (Challenger 1&2(Best Tank In Nato)) Navy: 20 Subs, 4 Carriers, 25 Frigates, & 23 Patrol Boats Air Force: 800 Combat Aircraft Atomic Weapons Cap.

Last time I looked at our forces all our nuclear capability fell to the Navy after the last V-Bomber was retired. I believe all our Atomic weapons can now only be launched by the Trafalgar Class submarine (I am just going by memory here - feel free to correct me)

Vanguard class.

But there aren't 5 -10 MiG 29s in Tajik..
They're more..
And getting a AF base up there requires a LOT of pull with the government..
THat IS power projection..

And the UK can project power alright..
HAve you ever heard of the Falklands??

The UK defeated Argentina over there in 1982 and that is over 15000km from the UK and only abt 200-300km from ARgentina..I rest my case..

Yeah you need supply ships for carriers but they're escorted to you know..


China can pack a punch say about 500km of its east coast.. thats about it..

Originally posted by chinawhite

india.....very limited supply ships and no troop tansports that i can find.. for a conventional carrier dont you need to refuel every three days??

Did you bother to look into that before you posted this??
C'mon chinawhite.. lets not get ahead of ourselves

here's one troop carrier:

Originally posted by Daedalus3
But there aren't 5 -10 MiG 29s in Tajik..
They're more..
And getting a AF base up there requires a LOT of pull with the government..
THat IS power projection..

And the UK can project power alright..
HAve you ever heard of the Falklands??

The UK defeated Argentina over there in 1982 and that is over 15000km from the UK and only abt 200-300km from ARgentina..I rest my case..

Yeah you need supply ships for carriers but they're escorted to you know..


China can pack a punch say about 500km of its east coast.. thats about it..

how much mig-29s there??
that is not power projection that is influence. power projection is to launch attack far from bases. all that is are mig-29s stationed in tajikistan

the Falklands War only has limited ground warfare.


the thing the indian navy is lacking is troop transports and supply ships

Originally posted by Daedalus3


Did you bother to look into that before you posted this??

C'mon chinawhite.. lets not get ahead of ourselves

here's one troop carrier:

thats a landing ship. and a very small one at that.

www.globalsecurity.org...


china also has very large landing ships. but i didn't say china had a power projection capibility
www.globalsecurity.org...

china has a lot more landing ships than india but i dont think china can project power because of the supply problem