World Airforces
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
World Airforces
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.
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.
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/co...014%20(GB).pdf
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/co...014%20(GB).pdf
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Melchett01
I take your point.
I am not suggesting Flight is correct because I have no way of knowing - merely quoting them.
I take your point.
I am not suggesting Flight is correct because I have no way of knowing - merely quoting them.
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!
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!
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! 
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
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
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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%.
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%.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Far, far away.
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'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.
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.
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'
It does nothing for Flight's credibility to publish such "garbage out'
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.
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.
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."
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."
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
Well, if we're counting MiG15/17s, then we might as well...
Does that get us back in the Top 100?
LJ
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
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
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Far, far away.
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Far, far away.
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'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.
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.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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."
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."
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.
FB
FB