It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Top ten world air forces?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2004 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Well USA is probably the best, but witch other countries do you think should be in the world top 10? Include reasons and think about every aspect (training, support, technology ...).

My top 10:

1. USA -
pros: technology, trainig, Awacs, combat experience, new revolutionary projects (ABL, F22, JSF, UCAVs, energy weapons), many $$$
cons: maybe too dependant on high tech
2. Russia -
pros:still good technology, many aircrafts, long range rockets, great radars
cons: poorly maintained, low military budget, bad avionics, few fly-hours per pilot
3. China
pros: huge numbers, licensed Russian technology (SUs, Sunburn etc, growing military budget
cons: not inovative tech, licensed aircrafts are mostly poorly constructed, the pilots are also not the best
4. Israel
pros: good training, US equipment, masters of upgrade (i.e. F4-Phantom), good domestic electronics and avionics(+Python)
cons: RELATIVELY low numbers, econmy can't afford everything
5. France
pros: some really good national aircrafts (Mirage 2000, Rafale) in quite big numbers (when comparing to other EU countries), also some good naval aircrafts
cons: hmm I don't know, maybe not the most advanced in the future
6. Uk
pros: quite good training, combat experience, before Eurofighter will deployed almost unable to fight air-to-air. (comparing to the first five countries, Tronado and Harrier are good for grounf attack, but not the best for the AA)
cons: EF is a little overpriced (for a 4th gen. aircraft) for example a Rafaele is almost in the same class - not many numbers of them (this is why I put French over UK)
7. India
pros: some advanced russian tech (Su-30), growing economy, future naval air force,
cons: unable to produce anything on their own
8. Germany
pros: Eurofighter (about 200?), training?, some Migs, western technology
cons: before Eurofighter lacking good AA capability, no combat experience (maybe only Jugoslavia)
9. Japan -
pros :up to 200 f-15, own good technology (although not used frequently in military)
cons : no combat xperience, without f-15 few good aircrafts
10. I dont know if Egypt (170 F-16) or North Korea (some russian aircrafts)

[Edited on 24-5-2004 by longbow]




posted on May, 24 2004 @ 03:20 PM
link   
ay,senor,i thinke you forgetta the mexican air force !
they fly stealthy ufoos,caramba.



[Edited on 24-5-2004 by NOGODSINTHEUNIVERSE]



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 03:39 PM
link   
When I read the thread title, I thought I would have a hard time coming up with 10 world class air forces. Actually I wasn't too far off. India, hard to buy into. Japan, non-combatant. I guess it really gets thin down at number 10.



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Hey there,
I'm surprised Canada didn't make your list. I know what your thinking, but hear me out. I know that the Royal Canadian Air Force is severely lacking in new equipment and is a "small" Air Force by developed world standards but, I'd like to bring up a few points here. I think that there are three reasons why Canada should have made your list:
1] Training - Canada is known for the quality of pilots it produces. If you don't beleive me, check with the U.S. Canadian Trained Pilots are a very welcomed with open arms to fly with those guys. Also, if that is not enough, why don't you check the statistics at Canadian flight schools. You'll see that a very large percentage of Flight School Students are from those countries in your list, and they have chosen to train in Canada for that very reason.
2] Resourcefulness - You may already realize that alot of our aircraft were built by the Wright Bros. (LOL) and some are at least ten years past there out of service dates. Considering the age of our fleets, our maintenance personelle should be given a pat on the back for creating ways to keep aircraft safe in the air for many years. That being said, how many US military pilots can fix a severely damaged wing on a float plane and fly it out of the bush in one peice. On a more comical side...Our pilots have delt with more actual in flight emergencies and failures in flight, per pilot than any other military or nation in the world. Man...we still fly t-birds and hercs that were used in the Korean conflict. Still not a lot of our pilots lose their lives in our planes.

3] This is my most controversial and important point. Ever hear of the Avro Arrow?? If not look it up. We were way ahead, light years ahead of everyone else. The U.S. couldn't have it friendly neighbor to the north showing it up. No one knows what threats or deals were made, but because of the U.S.'s insecurity they pressured our weak political leaders of the time to not only shut down the Avro Arrow project, but to destroy all Arrow aircraft AND documentation. Funny enough the U.S. came out with an amazing aircraft just a few short years later that looked and flew way too much like the Arrow. Wonder where they got that idea. I don't remember the name of that jet, but I'll look it up if you like.

Soooo.....



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 04:11 PM
link   
umm why is the french air force better than the RAF ? cause i dont think they are considering they aint as well trained



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Yes I know all about the Avro Arrow, its such a shame it was terminated abruptly. It was indeed ahead of the competition by many many years. My personal thoughts are that the US bought the blueprints from us secretly for a large sum of money.



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 04:13 PM
link   
P,

It is a list of the top ten air forces. Not the best total kills, world class (whatever that really means) or biggest. A top ten list is a list of the top ten of a given category, that means the list is to be compiled using available subjects. The only way you would not be able to compile a list of the top ten air forces would be if there were only 9 air forces in the world.

By the way, it is not acurate to just say top ten air forces. That is just way too broad to work. It needs to be categorized. Example: Top Ten Largest Air Forces, Top Ten for Training Air Forces, Top Ten technologically advanced Air Forces.....and so on.

Should we change the thread???



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 09:14 PM
link   
I think the order goes like this,

USA
Isreal
Russia
UK
China


The reason I say Isreal, is because i remember watching Discovery Wings channel, and the US had a exercise simulating what would happen if isreal attacked, and 13 of our ships would be gone, forgot how many planes. But, thats all before the f-22 :0



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 09:30 PM
link   
isreali pilots are trained by American pilots, thats why they are number 2


GO USAF!



posted on May, 25 2004 @ 01:01 PM
link   
hey how can russian pilots be better trained than ours?
they barely fly them and we fly them all the time?



posted on May, 25 2004 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
umm why is the french air force better than the RAF ? cause i dont think they are considering they aint as well trained


Because without EF Royal Air Force would be probably defeated in AA combat (Rafale and MIrage 2000 against Tornados?). Maybe after all those 200 Eurofighters are deployed UK will be equal (French are planing to have about 250 Rafales and 200 Mirage2000). And IF the JSFs are purchased the Royal Airforce would be better.



posted on May, 25 2004 @ 02:30 PM
link   
it aint just the aircraft its the pilot also the RAF doesnt just use the tornado
it uses the harrier ( a very good plane),jaguar (ok plane)



posted on May, 25 2004 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
it aint just the aircraft its the pilot also the RAF doesnt just use the tornado
it uses the harrier ( a very good plane),jaguar (ok plane)


Harrier is too slow and has a short range and it's medium range fight capability is also not the best. Hoovering is good against helicopters and ground targets but not against an aircraft flying Mach 2 speed .
But I don't say it is bad aircraft it was (and still is) revolutionary plane, the only one world VTOL jet (JSF is not operational and JAK was #ty)probably the best military thing the British invented after WWII, but it is not a fighter.



posted on May, 25 2004 @ 02:49 PM
link   
The harrier is a very old plane, so i think its kinda worn out. If the British get into a shootin war you can bet the US will back them up like the British did in Iraq, but France shouldnt count on it.



posted on May, 25 2004 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
But I don't say it is bad aircraft it was (and still is) revolutionary plane, the only one world VTOL jet (JSF is not operational and JAK was #ty)probably the best military thing the British invented after WWII, but it is not a fighter.


Two things,
1. I think you meant to write YAK as in YAK-38.
2. If you don't think the Harrier is a fighter you may want to mention that to the Royal Navy. They use them for Air Defense of their carriers.



posted on May, 25 2004 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Two things,
1. I think you meant to write YAK as in YAK-38.
2. If you don't think the Harrier is a fighter you may want to mention that to the Royal Navy. They use them for Air Defense of their carriers.


1. I meant Yak, but in my mother language it's JAK so sorry about that.
2. Maybe they are using it as a fighter but would you name subsonic aircraft with short range and short range radar a dedicated AA fighter? Harrier is great for the smaller british carriers but I don't think the US would use them instead of F-18 E/F or F-15
. I think there is a reason why US version of Harrier is designated as A (attack) aircraft. It is basically an attack aircraft, sometimes used as a fighter.

[Edited on 25-5-2004 by longbow]



posted on May, 25 2004 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
1. I meant Yak, but in my mother language it's JAK so sorry about that.
2. Maybe they are using it as a fighter but would you name subsonic aircraft with short range and short range radar a dedicated AA fighter? Harrier is great for the smaller british carriers but I don't think the US would use them instead of F-18 E/F or F-15
. I think there is a reason why US version of Harrier is designated as A (attack) aircraft. It is basically an attack aircraft, sometimes used as a fighter.

[Edited on 25-5-2004 by longbow]


Perhaps you are not aware of the Harrier II+? They added a air to air radar and the ability to fire the AMRAAM missile to the Harrier, thus placing it on equal footing with something like the F-15 in terms of weapons range.

The USMC uses it to provide air defense to the amphibs as well as the RN's use of it.



posted on May, 25 2004 @ 05:09 PM
link   
yeah its a nice plane but the JSF will be a refreshing change
french are ok people actually but england has made every 1 hate them

jeez long time no post cool where u bin?



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by longbow

Originally posted by devilwasp
it aint just the aircraft its the pilot also the RAF doesnt just use the tornado
it uses the harrier ( a very good plane),jaguar (ok plane)


Harrier is too slow and has a short range and it's medium range fight capability is also not the best. Hoovering is good against helicopters and ground targets but not against an aircraft flying Mach 2 speed .
But I don't say it is bad aircraft it was (and still is) revolutionary plane, the only one world VTOL jet (JSF is not operational and JAK was #ty)probably the best military thing the British invented after WWII, but it is not a fighter.


May be slow but has a few tricks up its sleeve, check out the manoeuvre that the Harrier pilots used in the Falkands that down supposedly superior Mirages (and some thought at the time Skyhawks!) where they would let the enemy come in behind, then sudden transion to hover thus slow down and shoot up rapidly, enemy fly by and then they popped off a sidewinder taking him out. Despite being out-numbered over 6 to 1 by Argentine fighters not a single Harrier was lost in air to air, the Argentine's lost over 80 aircraft (admittedly not all to A2A)



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 09:40 AM
link   
really?i didnt know thats what they done in the falklands a2a combat wow nice info



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join