2011 World Military Strength Ranking released (Top 20)

reply to post by Zmboop


You tell em man, its like they think we use nukes in every war

reply to post by WideAwakeNow


There is a huge american military presence in Austrailla

reply to post by TheMur


this list is without the nukes

The UK should not be in the top ten, with the Axe which has been taken to its Armed forces by the Present Coalition Government. Sad to say, The British Armed forces are going down the toilet pan.

reply to post by AnonymousFem


That's not really true though, is it? The Army is getting smaller but only to the same size that it was when we had the largest Empire the world has ever known.

There simply is no need for a large standing Army.

90,000 regulars and 40,000 reservists will suffice in any situation except Total War, when all us blokes will be mobilised and sent to die a slow and bloody death in some muddy hole somewhere, while you women and children are put to work in factories until the Nukes rain down and vaporise you.

The RAF and Navy, however, are getting some very funky new toys over the next decade and, to be honest, they are traditionally (especially the Navy) the forces that have protected the UK, not the Army. We didn't build a huge Empire with the Army, but couldn't have done it without the Navy. Without the RAF, we'd all be under Hitlers jackboot, while the Army sat idle in Sussex or chased Italians around North Africa.

Originally posted by biggilo
The only countries capable of deploying and maintaining a fighting army on a different continent are USA, Russia, UK and France. All the rest casn only defend their borders or run accross them.

Russia hasn't ever shown it is capable of supplying an army halfway round the world. Afghanistan doesn't count as they had land access from Russia (USSR actually) directly. They probably could supply a fairly large force, but they don't have ANY track record of that. Till you can do it routinely, you don't qualify.

reply to post by stumason


You go Stu, we don't agree on everything but that post was spot on. The UK and France are first class militaries in every meaning of the word. British war tech is top knotch. The professionalism, training and equipment of both countries would be envied by any other country. Like I've said before only the US, UK and France can plop down a sizable military force anywhere in the world, that's pretty impressive.

reply to post by stumason


Tell that to those who are returning from Afghanistan who are facing either redundancy or the sack,

We need ore in the army not less.

I felt sick actually after hearing the amount of personell they were cutting.

If I were a mother off a teenager wanting to join the UK Armed forces right now. I would go out of my way to, persuade him/or her not to. Since this government shows its contempt towards the UK Armed forces as a whole.

I think it is really foolish to actually compare Britan to the United States in military might, I know they are allies and they swap tech and intel etc etc. But if it came to a blow to blow senerio the United States would walk away the victor. Im not even going to waste anyones time in listing my reasons, if you are really a military enthusiest you know this.

As for the US vs China, Russia...there are so many things to consider, over the past 60 years the 3 big boys have done so much to counter each other and try to beat each other in ways the other has not thought of. China is kinda new to this game but they learn very fast. China's economy is growing at a alarming rate and in 20 years they will be mass produceing what ever they want.

The US also is not just its own army, its an intergrated strike force that stretches around the globe. There are som many countries with an american military presence its kinda like cockroaches, the US is every where. Whole naval fleets are scatterred around the world, mas intelligence bases lye in Australlia (very top secret), armored divisions sit in Germany, and South korea.

This is what makes the US such a strong force , they can attack and act very fast from anywhere in the world. China is just starting to send its ships around the world in a show of force, its first one was in the mediteranian sea when lybia kicked off. Russia does not have the fleet it used to, most of there ships and subs are rusted scrap in docking bays around Russia.

The US will hold the top spot as long as it outspends its competition as much as it does today. US military budget is around 600-700 billion (that we know of), China's is around 60 billon.

reply to post by TheMur


the US will hold the number 1 spot for at least another hundred years. No country can come even close to their military industrial complex...

reply to post by CountDrac


That may be true, but one could also argue that no-one can come close to the expertise and skill of the British special services :-p Who do the USA ask for advice when planning a Bin Laden party gate crashing squad? Yup, the Brits.

reply to post by woogleuk


i dont know about that.
England was the best in the past but the US special forces has the most experience this decade...

reply to post by Mr Tranny

Your reply that it is impossible for China to amass an army of 200 million is actually disturbing. Yes this topic was discussed back in July around the 17th. It amazes me how some people think these days. What is being perceived today by many is not what it always is.

Have you ever heard of "Transhumans?" This is a scary topic that has been in the making for a very long time. Little bits and pieces about cloning, gene splicing, and genetic engineering is slowly and barely coming out into public view.
If you think that it is impossible for the Chinese military to accomplish a feat of that magnitude than no disrespect to you, but your naive. China with a population of 1 billion 300 million plus and having a ratio of more men than women will and can amass an army of 200 hundred million. You just have to understand how they will do this.

200 million man army (cf. Revelation 9:16)? Why do people mock the idea of the Bible predicting a 200 million-man army when Time magazine in their May 21, 1965 edition (Vol. 85, No. 21) on page 35, stated that Red China had one? And how much more possible is it 43 years later? Do your homework, unbelievers -- it's coming!
3 years ago
answers.yahoo.com...

From an article in Time magazine dated Friday, May 21, 1965

"No Real Risks." To back up Lo's bluster, Red China passed the word that its 200 million-man (and woman) militia had gone into serious training. The mainland press reported shrilly that units on the Yunnan border were engaged in intensive bayonet and machine-gun drill; men and women in blue boiler suits marched briskly through Peking streets with rifles slung. Read more:
www.time.com...

reply to post by hawaii50th


point being the US still calls the shots...

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by curioustype

 

There was talk, at one point, for ditching the F-35 and buying Rafales!

French aircraft on a Royal Navy ship? God forbid....

Oh yes, the HMS QE should be completed in 2015 (Steel was first cut 4 years ago anyway) but the jets to fly off them won't be available until 2020, making them largely useless... What is an aircraft carrier without aircraft?

We do still have HMS Ocean, although I am unsure as to how long she will be in service.

At a push, we could do what we did in the Falklands... Refit en route and bring stuff out of mothball. We have a huge fleet in mothball and those Harriers are likely sitting around in a hangar somewhere too.... If not, borrow some of the US Marine ones..They're not as good and made in America, but should suffice in a stretch..

I read this yesterday, it's worth a read if you want an update on the situation:

"MPs warn Royal Navy's carriers will be costly, late, and of limited usePublic accounts committee says switch to US fighters raises expense significantly"

The first, HMS Queen Elizabeth, will be mothballed immediately it is launched in 2016, according to the existing plan. However, the second, HMS Prince of Wales, is not now expected to be fully operational until 2031. Moreover, it will only be able to stay at sea for up to 200 days a year, significantly fewer than envisaged, says the Commons public accounts committee.

Margaret Hodge, the former Labour minister and chair of the public accounts committee, told the Guardian: "The carriers' starting cost was £3.5bn, is currently about £6.2bn, and is likely to rise to up to £12bn. There will be nine years without a carrier, and it will be at sea for fewer than 200 days on average."

She accused David Cameron of deceiving parliament by claiming, after the defence review was agreed last year, that cancelling the carriers would have cost more in compensation to BAE Systems, the builders, than going ahead with them. According to the MoD's own figures, cancelling both ships would have immediately cost the government £2.4bn in cancllation fees but would have led to savings of £1.2bn in the long term.

An MoD spokesperson said: "It is incorrect to claim that a full carrier strike capability will not be achieved until 2030. The more capable carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter fast jet will begin operating from our aircraft carrier from 2020, with six UK jets available for operations.

So I think what that's inferring is that we'll have six jets operational from 2020, and an oil fueled carrier mothballed in 2016 awaiting sufficient funds to run it? Also, the budget for completing the carriers has already climbed from £3.5Bn to £12Bn - and the costs of adapting the carriers to catapults, and procuring the catapult launch F35s appears as yet unknown AND

"development is also threatened by pressures on the American defence budget."

so the F35 costs may rocket further, or, we may yet have to find an alternative jet? F18s anyone? - perhaps we will end up with Rafael after all eh Stu?

Presumably they'll run the six jets due in 2020 from land and in carrier excersises with allied forces at sea, if the QE is still mothballed, to keep a few pilots skills up? There didn't seem to be any mention of the need to retain/train pilots in the article, but I would imagine it's a factor?

Our troops and personnel appear to be amongst the best in the world, but isn't that even more reason to feel frustration with what appear to me and many others to be such questionable procurement decisions from the men in suits?

Originally posted by CountDrac
reply to post by hawaii50th

 

point being the US still calls the shots...

Another misconception, it's more than just the U.S. that calls the shots.