World Airforces

[John Farley]

Last week's Flight had some interesting statistics.

They listed the top ten airforces (based on number of fixed wing combat aircraft) as:

USA 13,902
Russia 3,429
China 2,860
India 1,905
Japan 1,612
South Korea 1,412
France 1,264
Egypt 1,107
Turkey 1,020
North Korea 940


The UK ranking is not given but they quote us a having 162 (including 3 F35Bs).

They say we are better off when it comes to combat helicopters with 353, ranking 9th behind Turkey.

I wonder how many of our politicians realise this.

[Melchett01]

John,

Whilst I don't disagree with you about the parlours state of things in the good old RAF, if those figures are just talking about Air Forces and don't include the like of naval or army aviation then some of the numbers look a little suspect.

The French figures for example seem very high when compared with the numbers given by the French Ministry of Defence as being 220 fixed wing combat ac as of 30 Jun 14 http://http://www.defense.gouv.fr/content/download/302626/4023685/file/Chiffres%20clés%20de%20la%20Défense%20-%202014%20(GB).pdf

[John Farley]

Melchett01

I take your point.

I am not suggesting Flight is correct because I have no way of knowing - merely quoting them.

[Melchett01]

John,

Most definitely not shooting the messenger, just wondering out loud how they came to those figures.

If we only had half the number of combat ac given for North Korea things might not be quite so bad!

[Lima Juliet]

Hey JF, I do agree with the thrust of your post and if it wasn't for Op SHADER and the continuance of the Tornado GR4 then those numbers would be even lower! :eek:

I shudder when I consider the RAF I joined just 25 years ago when we had 33 Fast Jet Squadrons - now it is half a dozen! I really do think we have taken the "peace dividend" too far.

What really annoys the cr@p out of me is how we have salami sliced down the side of capability rather than axing from the bottom to protect the raison d'etre of the RAF - high end air power and plenty of it...

LJ

[barnstormer1968]

Leon
I've just had a bit of a think about your post.
Even if we were to ignore the number of aircraft, the loss of capability over your time period is simply huge IMHO

I also smile every time I read 'peace dividend' as its just an odd phrase when the RAF operational workload since 1990 is considered.

[5 Forward 6 Back]

Isn't "number of fixed wing combat aircraft" a bit of a poor metric to base anything on nowadays?

I know we're cut to the bone, and I've limped through tours with barely enough serviceable jets, wishing we had more. Plus I don't want to ever sound like our politicians who think one man in a LII can do the job of a squadron in times past...!

But, on the other hand, 600 Mig-17s isn't really much use. And I'd rather have 7 sqns of Typhoons, properly manned, trained and equipped (yes I know we don't), than 15 sqns of rusty, non-updated, mid-90s vintage MiG-29s.

It's just a number, isn't it? While our number is frightening for its own reasons, it's still not the only way to judge an air force.

[Pontius Navigator]

But remember the Israeli proverb, quality over quantity but best in large numbers.

Matching 3 Sqns of F4 with one Sqn of Typoons -

You might lose 3% of your F4, say one aircraft.

If you lose just one Typhoon you have lost over 10%.

[5 Forward 6 Back]

You and I can appreciate there's much more to it than that, sure. I always wonder about the people. Yes, you can do more with fewer airframes; but now we have fewer airframes, we have fewer people doing the same amount.

[Mr.Noritake]

'600 Mig-17s isn't (sic) really much use'.

Flown one recently? Like, e-v-e-r? Any idea how you'd manage in your one Typhoon against a dozen or so of the agricultural little beasts?

No. Thought not.

You might be surprised.

[BBadanov]

Those totals of "fixed wing combat aircraft" appear way off the mark. Included every trainer or bug-smasher with 2 wings?


It does nothing for Flight's credibility to publish such "garbage out'

[Willard Whyte]

They listed training aircraft separately I think.

But HUZZAH! We got lots of those, oh yessah. Particularly sh1tty little grubs.

[Jimlad1]

How many of those aircraft are actually airworthy? Its all very well saying you have X hundred airframes if you can only put 2-3 in the sky.

We tend to be very good as a nation at looking at the potential orbats of others and going 'the sky is falling in' without asking some searching questions as to the actual level of capability out there. I suspect if we did, there would be a little less moaning.

[5 Forward 6 Back]

Mr Noritake, no, I've never had the interesting experience of flying a MiG-17. However, it's not simply a question of "which would win, 1 Typhoon or 50 MiG-17s," as you seem to imply. What you can do with them is more varied and more capable and broader, as long as you man them appropriately; our big error!

The point still stands; "number of items with 2 wings and an engine that you can hang an AA missile off" is not the best metric to judge any air force. Anyone can see that you can be more capable with 5 sqns of Rafales (for example) rather than 10 sqns of 1950s-era MiGs. It's not as gauche a question as "which air force would win if EVERY fighter met in the middle and shot it out."

[Lima Juliet]

If there were a metallic scraping sound at the bottom of a cylindrical object, we could always count the 15 G-REG Hawker Hunters in the UK as well (plus a few Meteors, Vampires, a Sea Vixen and a few Lightnings/Buccs at Brunti that might do a trip).

Well, if we're counting MiG15/17s, then we might as well... :}

Does that get us back in the Top 100?

LJ

[Whenurhappy]

Based on working there a few years ago, the Turkish figures are hoop, too.
Janes IHS list 270 F-16s, 54 F-4E Phantoms and 70 ageing F-5s - the latter as fast jet trainers with a secondary combat role in extremis, totalling some 394 airframes.

I have no idea what their FE@R is, but it will be considerably less that this total (although their acft are maintained to a high standard). So I have no idea where Flight got these figures from

[Mr.Noritake]

'How many of those aircraft are actually airworthy?'

Excellent point.

I've seen '80's era Mig 21's, which have been left unloved and unattended outdoors for 2+ monsoon seasons in a certain SE Asian country, renovated and snag-free-flyable after one day under the care of some competent local technicians.

Equally, I note that Gripens at Surat Thani seem to require air-and humidity conditioned hangers and an army of foreign technicians to maintain their systems. Rumor suggests they aren't the most reliable of beasts. I think many in the RTAF look back at their simple-to-maintain F 5's with undisguised envy.

Are the Gripens more capable than their old F 5's or an 80's era Mig 21? Of course. But sophistication has a price, and that price is maintainability and resultant sortie generation rates.

If it's not in the air, it's not there.

[Mr.Noritake]

'It's not as gauche a question as "which air force would win if EVERY fighter met in the middle and shot it out."'

Forgive me if I suggested it was.

But I believe studies on both sides have examined what would likely occur should a small number of F 22's or F 35's face a far less capable but numerically superior (by a factor of ten or so) force in, say, the Taiwan Straits.

I'll let you guess the outcome.

[Pontius Navigator]

Don't forget the mission requirements.

If your legacy Soviet kit is used for an offensive mission it will be range limited and load limited. If on a defensive mission it would face an opponent with ample fuel, AAR, and CCC etc capable of striking at a time and place of its own choosing.

Another advantage of small numbers occurs in a target rich environment. The more numerous the opponent the greater the potential for fratricide on both defensive and offensive missions.

"Just what I like, 50 bandits trapped on my nose."

[Finningley Boy]

Figures definitely seem to refer to the total number of aircraft each, including Transport, Tanker, Rotors, ASW and Trainers. While the 162 fgure for us is purely Operational Combat airframes i.e. Typhoon and Tornado and of course the 3 F-35Bs in America. But I imagine that the Russians Air Force still field a combat type force of about 1,000 near enough, including a recently quoted figure of 180 Long Range Bombers, about same numbe rthey had, I believe, during the 1980s.:8

FB:)

[Heathrow Harry]

they listed the top 10 in 6 categories

The RAF came 7th in tankers, 9th in Combat Helicopters and 6th in training (aircraft plus helicopters)

Didn't figure in Combat aircraft, special mission, or transport categories...

makes you wonder if 343 training airframes is a bit on the high side............... Russia has 346 for reference

[teeteringhead]

The RAF came 7th in tankers, 9th in Combat Helicopters and 6th in training (aircraft plus helicopters)

And where did we come in MPA? Oh ..... no ..... :O ....... hang on ..... b@gger ..... :ugh:

[Martin the Martian]

I've thought for a few years now that Flight's annual review seems to pick numbers out of the air. They list France as having over 1200 combat aircraft, but taking a consensus from several spotting sights, which quite frankly I would believe first, and considering Alpha Jets as such (stretching a point, I know), the AdlA has 375 jets that can drop nasties (175 Mirage 2000s, 87 Rafales and 113 Alphas), while the Aeronavale has 62 (30 Rafales and 32 Super Etendards). That's quite a difference, and I would say that 1200 is near to the sum of all French air force aircraft.

I used to think better of aviation/defence journalism.

[melmothtw]

I've thought for a few years now that Flight's annual review seems to pick numbers out of the air.

Knowing the time it takes him and the amount of effort that Craig puts into compiling these lists, I can assure you that they are most definitely not picked out of thin air.

I used to think better of aviation/defence journalism

We think very highly of you too Martin.

[Whenurhappy]

Knowing the time it takes him and the amount of effort that Craig puts into compiling these lists, I can assure you that they are most definitely not picked out of thin air.

Can you, therefore, account for these apparent discrepancies?

[melmothtw]

Can you, therefore, account for these apparent discrepancies?

No, I'm afraid I can't as I don't work for Flight. My only point was that I know how much time and effort that Craig Hoyle puts into compiling this list every year, and I know that he doesn't just pluck the numbers out of thin air.

I'm sure there are contact details on the Flight website for you to get the answers you seek, but bear in mind when you do Whenurhappy that we in the media enjoy readers' questions almost as much as you enjoy FOIs.

[Pontius Navigator]

I imagine he must rely on open source material from each country. Obviously some are going to over claim for both political and military reasons. At least for western supplied equipment they probably have accurate in-to-service numbers and can keep an eye on accident tallys.

[Mr.Noritake]

"Just what I like, 50 bandits trapped on my nose."

I think that sort of statement is best confined to the rather woolly memory of some long-forgotten BoB pilot, don't you?

[Whenurhappy]

Melmothtw.

As I am still serving I have absolutely no intention of writing to Flight International (or anybody else) to seek clarification of these figures.


Unfortunately, I cannot access the explanatory notes on the Flight International articles, which might account for these differences.

The FOIs are a bit of light relief!

[Pontius Navigator]

Top Gun not BoB but it exemplifies the simplicity of one v many.

[Mr.Noritake]

'...the simplicity of one v many.'

True. It's usually very simple and over in seconds.

[Pontius Navigator]

I see you have 16 posts.

I know of one engagement of 1v16. Contrary to what you may assume there was one aircraft hit and the singleton departed not having been engaged. DR chatter amongst the 16 played no small part.

[Mr.Noritake]

And now I have 17 posts. Life moves on...

The (remarkable) outcome of one encounter does not an air fighting strategy make.

[B Fraser]

Thank goodness for the Arrows and the BBMF so we can hold our heads up high......

Slightly above Belgium. :(

[Biggus]

Take one possible scenario:

1940 - 1 Spitfire vs 16 Stukas..... I can well believe the Spitfire could survive this encounter.

What does that prove?

[Pontius Navigator]

Biggie, it proves two points.

It removes fratricide and proves quality over quantity.

[Willard Whyte]

Best cap the F-35 order at 3 then, eliminate fratricide by basing one at MPA, one at Akrotiri, and the other defending the Homeland.

Better still do a Duncan Sandys and just use SAMs. Scrap the airforce and get slap-happy with anything in the air - they won't be ours, after all.

[Courtney Mil]

we in the media enjoy readers' questions almost as much as you enjoy FOIs.

Good answer.

[Pontius Navigator]

WW, actually that was the Hungarian plan. Landlocked and constrained to operate within its own landmass rather inhibited air defence UK style. The solved the problem with one SA 5 site in the middle of the country .

[TEEEJ]

Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty declarations.

See page 13 Table 4.02.07 for Declared Attack Helicopters Holdings and Ceilings

See page 14 Table 4.02.08 for Declared Combat Aircraft Holdings and Ceilings.

Published 15th May 2014

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/313583/CFE-Bulletin-amended_link.pdf

From

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/conventional-armed-forces-in-europe-equipment-holdings-statistics-2014

[Whenurhappy]

Much of this discussion is beyond academic; instead it falls into the realms of fantasy. 1 x F35 will not face 50 MiG 17s (or MiG 21s). It's the same as the 'how many Spitfires could defeat a Typhoon?' discussions. Air Defence, (and counter-air) as any schoolboy (and Mr Noritake) should know is more than just fighters; do not forget the Air Defence Ground Environment (Radar and reporting, C3I, SAM, AAA etc), sustainment, doctrine, weaponry, training &c. Any inbound force would want to degrade the ADGE with defence suppression measures (ARM, ECM/active EW/cyber), possibly using LO UCAVs and Tomahawks, before sending in manned (legacy) platforms.

I'd like to see a flight of elderly, rusting MiGs (or Hunters, for that matter) try to operate against 4th or 5th generation fighters in the absence of a C2 system. In fact, I wouldn't. It would be a slaughter.

[Pontius Navigator]

WUH, as you well know, the Syrians learnt that to their cost.

[Mr.Noritake]

Indeed, Mr Navigator.

Whenurunhappy:

No need to be rude. I'm sure - if you try very, very hard - you can manage to be pleasant if not actually polite.

I'm obviously thinking of a scenario with which you're clearly unfamiliar, but which has, nevertheless, been seriously modelled by the likely participants.

I'm also aware that modern combat aircraft do not fly, Biggles-like, into the wild blue yonder to go mano-a-mano with an evil foe, but thanks for the heads up about the other important technical things you mentioned. I shall look them up in my 'Boys book of Aircraft and Other Important Technical Things'.

Should the sky fall in and the utterly amazing F 35 and it's even more amazing elder brother, the F 22, plus assorted Other Important Technical Things decide to defend the Taiwan Straits, I assure you they'll be meeting something other than 50 rusting Mig 17's flopping around the sky without any form of control.

However, without giving the game away, I'm sure that even you - if you think in an asymmetric manner (I know, it's not something taught at your Staff Colleges) - can work out that they may have a role to play in disrupting the highly structured and not very adaptable Western Command and Control Systems.

Sun Tzu should have said: 'Believing in your own invincibility against a theoretically less sophisticated adversary is only going to end in tears, and they'll likely be yours.'

[Whenurhappy]

Mr Noritake,

My apologies to you if I appeared rude to you. That's not my style.

Yes, ADGEs are vulnerable, too, or at least can be, which is a point I make in my post. However, the levels of redundancy that exist and the resilience of the mission-critical components heavily, heavily favour the networked-enabled, cross-environment combattant. Even Sun Tzu (who didn't do a QWI course, as far as I know) would have appreciated this. Remind me, when did he die?

[Mr.Noritake]

I wasn't really upset. I simply enjoyed teasing you, but I suspect you knew this all along.

Yes, your systems are impressive and appear quite resilient. It would spoil the game entirely if I pointed out to you where weakness may lie. If you live long enough, and the world becomes 'interesting' enough, you may get to see how everything plays out in real life.

You need to brush up on Sun Tzu. The thoughts contained therein are far, far more relevant in this technological age than they were when he first wrote them.

[Whenurhappy]

Sun Tzu - as relevant as the Dead German who brought us World War I because of the slavish adherence to his 'philosophy'. Just saying.

[Wander00]

WurH - I beg to differ - lot of common sense in Sun Tzu's writings IMHO

[Mr.Noritake]

I sense I'm being sucked into a conversation I don't wish to have, so I think I'll wish you a Very Happy Christmas instead.

Remember, Baby Jesus loves you and Link 16.

[Pontius Navigator]

Hanoi Jane alive and well I see.

[Whenurhappy]

Sun Tzu's aphorisms are distilled commonsense, and nothing else. They need to be seen in the context amongst which they were formed. Nelson was a successful strategist but no one is saying - as far as I know - the the RN adopt Nelsonian tactics today.

Don't get me wrong; I am a keen historian, have published a few papers and given a number of lectures on military history. But that's not the same as slavish adherence to dogma.

[sprucemoose]

I'm coming at this one a bit late, but the whole point of this thread is flawed from the start - John F, you are not quoting Flight when you say that the USA has 13,902 fixed-wing combat aircraft. That is their entire fleet of all military aircraft categories across all services. Likewise, it does not say that France has 1,200 combat aircraft (it's 283 fixed-wing across the air force and navy, Melchett01); that includes everything in military use, bar VIP types. And the numbers most certainly aren't plucked from the air!

[Party Animal]

The issue with one Typhoon versus 50 old MiGs would be that HM Govt only purchased 15 AMRAAM missiles as a cost saving measure. Obviously the supply chain would only let our steely eyed killers have 14 of them because they would have to keep one back in case anybody needed it.


Then having taken out 14 MiGs, there would be the painful pregnant pause as we looked to Uncle Sam to bale us out......... again!

[Pontius Navigator]

PA, Statistics to the rescue.

In an endeavour to avoid the threat a number of collisions my be assumed.

Of the remaining 30 we can assume two kills per missile leaving

1v2

Allowing for a gun kill we can terminate a 1v1 with close merge.

The Typhoon is now redundant.

:)

[barnstormer1968]

Or
Statistics losing us the battle.

Each side having serious equipment failures of between one and ten percent of their force!
No typhoons able to launch and forty migs swarming around free to cause mayhem.

[Martin the Martian]

Didn't statistics say that the Germans would win the Battle of Britain? Or that the North Vietnamese Air Force would stand no chance against the modern US fighters facing them? Or that the Sea Harrier would come off second best against the Mirage III?

Statistics are one thing. Reality can be quite another.

[Heathrow Harry]

why do we have so many training aircraft?

[Onceapilot]

I doubt that we will see a major combatant against major combatant air to air war. The big risk for UK air assets is that they might end up employed in a proxy war/invasion situation, where they are vulnerable to a capable surface to air threat. Our tiny numbers of combat aircraft mean the enemy only has to knock out a few and it will be game over.:uhoh:

OAP

[Mr.Noritake]

Interesting comments about the superiority on a real world basis of the latest Western aviation wundermachines. As the more realistic amongst you have noted, maintaining their superpowers in the field may prove problematic, to say nothing of the length and complexity (and therefore vulnerability) of the supply chain required to support snag-free operation.

Anyway, I'd have assumed that the West would have learnt by now that the next major air war is unlikely to be influenced by the superiority or otherwise of the equipment employed. The outcome is far more likely to be determined by the asymmetric warfare techniques each side uses. In other words, it's far easier (and cheaper, though maybe not in terms of loss of human life) to stop an F 35 or AWACS getting into the air than it is to down them once they're flying. One or two carefully trained and motivated individuals on a carrier or air base who are prepared to sacrifice their life for their 'noble cause' could effectively remove - at least temporarily - an air wing from the conflict.

The world has changed. A few hundred crazies with explosive belts have proved that even without air cover you really can take on a major power and win, or make it so costly they decide to declare 'mission achieved' and wander back home mumbling about the unfairness of it all.

[rh200]

Statistics are one thing. Reality can be quite another.

Statistics are very powerful and extremely accurate when used correctly with the appropriate information.

Statistics don't tell you this is going to happen, we interpret that. Statistics give you a probabilities of something happening. 4,5,6,7 etc. standard deviation events in the negative are still possible, no matter the decreasing likelihood.

[Thelma Viaduct]

If there were a metallic scraping sound at the bottom of a cylindrical object, we could always count the 15 G-REG Hawker Hunters in the UK as well (plus a few Meteors, Vampires, a Sea Vixen and a few Lightnings/Buccs at Brunti that might do a trip).

Well, if we're counting MiG15/17s, then we might as well...

Does that get us back in the Top 100?

LJ

Roflol very funny that :ok:

[scorpion63]

Plus the Canberra B2/6 at Coventry and the PR9 at Kemble for good measure!!