The most advanced Air Forces today?

[F-15 Eagle]

The most powerful Air Forces are IMO.

1. USAF without a doubt, with 700 F-15s, 1300 F-16s, 350 A-10s, 20 B-2s, 65 B-1Bs and 76 B-52s. There are 183 F-22s and hopefully 60 more will be built for a total of 243 plus 2458 F-35s for the USAF, USN, and USMC. And Hopefully 100 new bombers by 2018 a B-3 type aircraft assuming it does not get canceled in the 2010 defense budget.

2. Russia, 16 TU-160s, 158 TU-22s, 65 TU-95s, 260 Mig-29s, 300 Mig-31s, 200 Su-27s, 23 Su-33s, soon to have 58-70 Su-34s, and 24-36 Su-35/Su-27 SM2. Their situation is slowing getting better and they are getting more new aircraft, more training and flight time as their defense budget increases.

3. China has around 400 modern Su-27s, J-11s, J-10s and Su-30s, 300 fairly good but not high tech J-8s and around 400 older and obsolete Q-5s and 500 J-7s and 80-120 H-5s.

4. Israel which has the most powerful Air Force in the Middle East, with over 500 fighters of F-4s, A-4s, F-15s, F-15Es and F-16s including the block 60 F-16s and soon to have 100 F-35s giving them a true 5th generation air dominance fighter against adversaries such as Iran.

5. The U.K.(over 300 fighters) and Germany(over 200 fighters) are both tied, the U.K. will soon have 232 Eurofighters and Germany will have 180 Eurofighters, both have Tornado GR-7s and the U.K. will have 100 or so 5th Generation F-35Bs with air to air capabilities close to that of the F-22.

 

[rjmaz1]

1. United States Airforce - 2000 + combat aircraft
2. United states Navy - 500+ 4 gen aircraft
3. United states Marines - 200+ 4th gen aircraft
4. Royal Air force - 300+ 3rd and 4th generation aircraft
5. Israel Air force - 200+ fourth gen
6. Russia - 1000+ aircraft mostly third gen
7. China - 1000+ mostly third gen
8. India - 500+ mostly thirid gen
9. France - 200+ 3rd and fourth gen
10. Germany, Sweden, Turkey, Greece, Japan etc etc

The USAF is clearly number one.
The US Navy is clearly number two.

3rd to 9th place is relatively even. Some have quality aircraft some large quantity of aircraft. Some highly trained, some poorly trained etc.

 

[Wall83]

2. Russia, 16 TU-160s, 158 TU-22s, 65 TU-95s, 260 Mig-29s, 300 Mig-31s, 200 Su-27s, 23 Su-33s, soon to have 58-70 Su-34s, and 24-36 Su-35/Su-27 SM2. Their situation is slowing getting better and they are getting more new aircraft, more training and flight time as their defense budget increases.

You forget 400+ Su-24 and 250+ Su-25 strike aircrafts also as I know it Russia still has more then 400 Su-27 fighters.
As for the Su-34 i still have my doubt about thoose 58 ones being built by 2015. But I agree their situation looks better and better, atleast until the global finanzial crises started. Much of the older fighters are starting to fall apart, just look at the MiG-29 that was grounded some time ago.

 

[crobato]

I always wonder why people on the Chinese side always forgot to count the 7 regiments of JH-7 and JH-7As, with 24 aircraft per regiment. These planes have the potential to fire an active guided BVRAAM in addition precision munitions, anti ship and land attack missiles.

On the J-8IIs, there is probably about 450 to 500, but I would say about four to five regiments worth of planes belong to the variant that is capable of firing the active guided PL-12 missile. Any plane that can fire an active guided missile should be regarded as a first line threat.

There is probably about four to five H-6 regiments with the updated configuration, that is, capable of firing anti ship missiles and stand off land attack missiles.

Numbers of AEW, surveillance, and ECW aircraft are also rapidly growing via the KJ-2000s and the Y-8GX family.

Next ten years, we can expect retirement of all J-7s except for a handful of J-7Gs, and of all non PL-12 upgraded J-8IIs. Quite possibly, some of the earlier Flankers as well if these are not upgraded. My estimates based on tracking orbat, that a J-11B, J-10, J-8F and JH-7A regiment are being upgraded at a rate of one regiment per type of plane per year and a half.

 

[Falstaff]

Just 2 thoughts: First of all I think most of you concentrate too much on numbers of gen this or that instead of focussing on what the respective airforce can actually do with their stuff. The pro and senior members are saying it all the time, the important thing is, how good can the airforce perform on a systems level. IMO there are things to consider like how advanced are your tactics and operational doctrine. E.g. you can have the most advanced fighters in the world, if you're employing soviet style tactics you'll be screwed. Massively.
Then, how capable are your command and support structure? Can you react fast and approbriate? Is there tanker support when needed? Is there something like data distribution?
I hate the word, but I think a more "wholistic" approach is needed for assessment.

Having said this, my second point is, I wouldn't dismiss the Western European airforces as soon as some of you do.
Most of them are very advanced compared to Russian, Chinese or Indian standards, employing modern equipment, excellent and extensive training, elaborate strategies and tactics, modern infrastructure, excellent maintenance, flexible command structures, having developed all this from the advent of military aviation until today.
Airforces of countries like Spain, Italy, Sweden, Netherlands, Germany and so on can't be left out. They are very advanced. And they are embedded in NATO structures, providing them with AWACS support and AGS in the future.
Yes, they lack the money for huge numbers as they for whatever reason oftentimes choose to spend their money on social welfare, education and health systems.

 

[ReAl PrOeLiTeZ]

The most powerful Air Forces are IMO.

1. USAF without a doubt, with 700 F-15s, 1300 F-16s, 350 A-10s, 20 B-2s, 65 B-1Bs and 76 B-52s. There are 183 F-22s and hopefully 60 more will be built for a total of 243 plus 2458 F-35s for the USAF, USN, and USMC. And Hopefully 100 new bombers by 2018 a B-3 type aircraft assuming it does not get canceled in the 2010 defense budget.

2. Russia, 16 TU-160s, 158 TU-22s, 65 TU-95s, 260 Mig-29s, 300 Mig-31s, 200 Su-27s, 23 Su-33s, soon to have 58-70 Su-34s, and 24-36 Su-35/Su-27 SM2. Their situation is slowing getting better and they are getting more new aircraft, more training and flight time as their defense budget increases.

3. China has around 400 modern Su-27s, J-11s, J-10s and Su-30s, 300 fairly good but not high tech J-8s and around 400 older and obsolete Q-5s and 500 J-7s and 80-120 H-5s.

4. Israel which has the most powerful Air Force in the Middle East, with over 500 fighters of F-4s, A-4s, F-15s, F-15Es and F-16s including the block 60 F-16s and soon to have 100 F-35s giving them a true 5th generation air dominance fighter against adversaries such as Iran.

5. The U.K.(over 300 fighters) and Germany(over 200 fighters) are both tied, the U.K. will soon have 232 Eurofighters and Germany will have 180 Eurofighters, both have Tornado GR-7s and the U.K. will have 100 or so 5th Generation F-35Bs with air to air capabilities close to that of the F-22.

to add onto your post.
4th generation
~100: Su-30
~76: Su-27
~125: J-11
~120: J-10
~150: JH-7

Most J-8 are converted to later variants being able to fire BVRAAM, and its performance is comparable to early F-18. So Id say J-8 is classified as a early 4th generation.

~400: J-8

3rd generation
~400: J-7
~400: Q-5

No generation classified

~120: H-6 bombers

for your list 2000+ F-35 being counted in future that isnt in service, could be applied to any nation also. Not F-35 but other future fighter projects. Future bomber isnt in service either. Russia, India, China, etc...also have future fighter projects, shouldnt they too be counted towards their inventory then.

Oh and Russia you forgot to include the Su-25 and Su-24

 

[ReAl PrOeLiTeZ]

1. United States Airforce - 2000 + combat aircraft
2. United states Navy - 500+ 4 gen aircraft
3. United states Marines - 200+ 4th gen aircraft
4. Royal Air force - 300+ 3rd and 4th generation aircraft
5. Israel Air force - 200+ fourth gen
6. Russia - 1000+ aircraft mostly third gen
7. China - 1000+ mostly third gen
8. India - 500+ mostly thirid gen
9. France - 200+ 3rd and fourth gen
10. Germany, Sweden, Turkey, Greece, Japan etc etc

The USAF is clearly number one.
The US Navy is clearly number two.

3rd to 9th place is relatively even. Some have quality aircraft some large quantity of aircraft. Some highly trained, some poorly trained etc.

if you go by numbers either russia or china will outnumber USMC airforce in 4th generation fighters.

 

[ReAl PrOeLiTeZ]

Just 2 thoughts: First of all I think most of you concentrate too much on numbers of gen this or that instead of focussing on what the respective airforce can actually do with their stuff. The pro and senior members are saying it all the time, the important thing is, how good can the airforce perform on a systems level. IMO there are things to consider like how advanced are your tactics and operational doctrine. E.g. you can have the most advanced fighters in the world, if you're employing soviet style tactics you'll be screwed. Massively.
Then, how capable are your command and support structure? Can you react fast and approbriate? Is there tanker support when needed? Is there something like data distribution?
I hate the word, but I think a more "wholistic" approach is needed for assessment.

Having said this, my second point is, I wouldn't dismiss the Western European airforces as soon as some of you do.
Most of them are very advanced compared to Russian, Chinese or Indian standards, employing modern equipment, excellent and extensive training, elaborate strategies and tactics, modern infrastructure, excellent maintenance, flexible command structures, having developed all this from the advent of military aviation until today.
Airforces of countries like Spain, Italy, Sweden, Netherlands, Germany and so on can't be left out. They are very advanced. And they are embedded in NATO structures, providing them with AWACS support and AGS in the future.
Yes, they lack the money for huge numbers as they for whatever reason oftentimes choose to spend their money on social welfare, education and health systems.

i agree but its also your population index, that you got to account for.

 

[Falstaff]

to add onto your post.
4th generation
~100: Su-30
~76: Su-27
~125: J-11
~120: J-10
~150: JH-7

Most J-8 are converted to later variants being able to fire BVRAAM, and its performance is comparable to early F-18. So Id say J-8 is classified as a early 4th generation.

~400: J-8

3rd generation
~400: J-7
~400: Q-5

No generation classified

~120: H-6 bombers

for your list 2000+ F-35 being counted in future that isnt in service, could be applied to any nation also. Not F-35 but other future fighter projects. Future bomber isnt in service either. Russia, India, China, etc...also have future fighter projects, shouldnt they too be counted towards their inventory then.

Oh and Russia you forgot to include the Su-25 and Su-24

As I said, you're just counting numbers. And comparing the MIG-21 based J-8 to a F-18 is a bold thing do do.

 

[Falstaff]

i agree but its also your population index, that you got to account for.

Hm? How's that?

 

[HKSDU]

Hm? How's that?

First post ;P

I think what he means that military size is linked to the nation population. Countries with hightechnology fighters with small quantity in service, such as France, Germany, Spain. Have small population, so their military forces dont need to be as big as say, America who has got larger population, requiring larger military force. But numbers is besides the point, its your method of utilizing these assets, which is the main point. Also AWACS, AEW are also vital assets, and dedicated aerial tankers.

I dont agree with what you said about J8 based on Mig-19. Firstly only the J-6 is produce of Mig-19, nothing else is in the Chinese inventory. J-7 is produce of Mig-21, so if it was based on anything the J-8 is moreso based on Mig-21. But then again, I still dont agree. Since J-8 utilises two seperate airintakes on the side of the airframe, powered by two turbojets. Moreso the forward fuselage, nose design, and intakes resembles more closer to F-4 and Su-15. Maybe the early small batch productions appeared to be a lengthened Mig-21, but J-8II have little resemblance to the Mig19/Mig21

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I think everyone is getting hung up on "how many" this or that different nations field, but IIRC the question was what is the most capable air force in 2025. Capability i.e. the ability to effectively wield combat power is comprised of information gathering and dissemination ability , technological advancement, logistical capability ect, not just the number of "4th gen fighters" XX nation can deploy.

'Global Capability'

1. The US is clearly no 1, it will be in 2025, in 2050 and probably until the end of the century. In terms of R&D level and base, industrial base, ISR, C4ISTAR, quality and quantity of platforms, quality of weapons employed, numbers of force multipliers, spaced based ISR and comms systems, information distribution, EW, strategic arms, redundancy of capability and budget, the USAF is a light year ahead of anyone else. It is likely that the USAF can actually employ more actual capability than the rest of the world combined. Add the USN & USMC to that and the dominance the US enjoys should become apparent.

2. Russia. When one considers strategic arms, space based systems, ISTAR and R&D the Russians are still extremely capable, and by 2025 the Russians will be well and truly on their feet again. Russia will be the main US competitor again (although no where near the level of the USSR in contemporary terms).

3. UK. The RAF is beginning to field some extremely capable ISTAR systems, such as ASTOR and possibly Rivet Joint. Access to US generated spaced based ISR and Comms systems, strategic arms, a large number of advanced 4th gen platforms and soon to be world class power projection capability in the form of two CVF's put the UK squarely in third.

4. France. Strategic arms, domestic R&D, and some quality platforms and weapons put the French in number four IMO. Mirage 2000 and Rafale are quality platforms, Charles De Gaul gives France some serious power projection capability.

'Regional Capability'

5. Israel. R&D, ISTAR and information distribution, technological level and strategic arms put Isreal in 5th place IMO. The shear quality of Isreali kit, people, systems and doctrine make it a truly formidable force. Even considering the mass the major Asian powers can bring to bear, in my opinion the IDF can bring more capability to bear at critical points, it can be reasonably expected to pick apart almost any of the powers that rely on weight of numbers if they both inhabited the same geographical region.

6. China/India. Probably the more controversial of my choices. Technically China is probably slightly in front of India, and many may sight the J-10 program as one example of Chinese superiority. But in my opinion they are both essentially the same thing, regional air powers with a very limited capability to influence events (through air power) beyond their immediate geographical area. Despite their size, both are heavily reliant on foreign R&D either through direct purchases or cloning, neither have ever developed or fielded a truly world leading form of air power technology, both are significantly deficient in terms of force multipliers, both are significantly deficient in terms of ISTAR and information distribution, and both rely on large numbers of obsolete platforms. While the Asian mainlands major powers are starting to introduce some reasonably good platforms (although at least half a generation behind the world leader), the reliance on either old or "light/cheap" platforms (ala tejas & JF-17) to replace them is a significant shortcoming compared to the world leaders.

8. Japan, South Korea and Germany. These nations all have a significant R&D base, with Japan fielding a home grown AESA radar, RoK about to deploy an indigenous light attack aircraft and Germany a leading developer of HOBS WVR missiles (and a leading partner in the eurofighter program). Although neither power has the ability to project air power well beyond its immediate geographical area, and rely on heavily upgraded older platforms (ala F-4), their quality of doctrine, people and 1st tier platforms & weapons maker each a significant air power.

11.Turkey, Australia, Singapore. Although these nations are middle powers, they have developed some individual pieces of world leading technology (e.g. JORN) and have acquired or are in the process or acquiring some of the most advanced weapons, platforms and communications technology worldwide (e.g. F/A-18F BII, F-15E BII, JASSM, Wedgetail, PHALCON, F-35A, Comms satellites). Although not the largest regional players they are amongst the worlds most advanced technologically, and amongst the best in qualitative terms. Within their geographical regions they are the most capable air powers re their neighbors (apart from each other re Australia & Singapore and Isreal re Turkey).

 

[Falstaff]

First post ;P
I dont agree with what you said about J8 based on Mig-19. Firstly only the J-6 is produce of Mig-19, nothing else is in the Chinese inventory. J-7 is produce of Mig-21, so if it was based on anything the J-8 is moreso based on Mig-21. But then again, I still dont agree. Since J-8 utilises two seperate airintakes on the side of the airframe, powered by two turbojets. Moreso the forward fuselage, nose design, and intakes resembles more closer to F-4 and Su-15. Maybe the early small batch productions appeared to be a lengthened Mig-21, but J-8II have little resemblance to the Mig19/Mig21

My bad, of course I was referring to the MIG-21, I edited my post. You have to look at the original J-8, then you'll see what I mean. But this is OT, the point I was trying to make is that he can't classify the J-8 as 4th gen.

6. China/India. Probably the more controversial of my choices. Technically China is probably slightly in front of India, and many may sight the J-10 program as one example of Chinese superiority. But in my opinion they are both essentially the same thing, regional air powers with a very limited capability to influence events (through air power) beyond their immediate geographical area. Despite their size, both are heavily reliant on foreign R&D either through direct purchases or cloning, neither have ever developed or fielded a truly world leading form of air power technology, both are significantly deficient in terms of force multipliers, both are significantly deficient in terms of ISTAR and information distribution, and both rely on large numbers of obsolete platforms. While the Asian mainlands major powers are starting to introduce some reasonably good platforms (although at least half a generation behind the world leader), the reliance on either old or "light/cheap" platforms (ala tejas & JF-17) to replace them is a significant shortcoming compared to the world leaders.

I totally agree with your list except for this one, which I don't understand. My impression is you listed reasons for them not being world class airforces, but I can't find reasons why they are 6th? Could you please clarify for me?

 

[HKSDU]

I think everyone is getting hung up on "how many" this or that different nations field, but IIRC the question was what is the most capable air force in 2025. Capability i.e. the ability to effectively wield combat power is comprised of information gathering and dissemination ability , technological advancement, logistical capability ect, not just the number of "4th gen fighters" XX nation can deploy.

'Global Capability'

1. The US is clearly no 1, it will be in 2025, in 2050 and probably until the end of the century. In terms of R&D level and base, industrial base, ISR, C4ISTAR, quality and quantity of platforms, quality of weapons employed, numbers of force multipliers, spaced based ISR and comms systems, information distribution, EW, strategic arms, redundancy of capability and budget, the USAF is a light year ahead of anyone else. It is likely that the USAF can actually employ more actual capability than the rest of the world combined. Add the USN & USMC to that and the dominance the US enjoys should become apparent.

2. Russia. When one considers strategic arms, space based systems, ISTAR and R&D the Russians are still extremely capable, and by 2025 the Russians will be well and truly on their feet again. Russia will be the main US competitor again (although no where near the level of the USSR in contemporary terms).

3. UK. The RAF is beginning to field some extremely capable ISTAR systems, such as ASTOR and possibly Rivet Joint. Access to US generated spaced based ISR and Comms systems, strategic arms, a large number of advanced 4th gen platforms and soon to be world class power projection capability in the form of two CVF's put the UK squarely in third.

4. France. Strategic arms, domestic R&D, and some quality platforms and weapons put the French in number four IMO. Mirage 2000 and Rafale are quality platforms, Charles De Gaul gives France some serious power projection capability.

'Regional Capability'

5. Israel. R&D, ISTAR and information distribution, technological level and strategic arms put Isreal in 5th place IMO. The shear quality of Isreali kit, people, systems and doctrine make it a truly formidable force. Even considering the mass the major Asian powers can bring to bear, in my opinion the IDF can bring more capability to bear at critical points, it can be reasonably expected to pick apart almost any of the powers that rely on weight of numbers if they both inhabited the same geographical region.

6. China/India. Probably the more controversial of my choices. Technically China is probably slightly in front of India, and many may sight the J-10 program as one example of Chinese superiority. But in my opinion they are both essentially the same thing, regional air powers with a very limited capability to influence events (through air power) beyond their immediate geographical area. Despite their size, both are heavily reliant on foreign R&D either through direct purchases or cloning, neither have ever developed or fielded a truly world leading form of air power technology, both are significantly deficient in terms of force multipliers, both are significantly deficient in terms of ISTAR and information distribution, and both rely on large numbers of obsolete platforms. While the Asian mainlands major powers are starting to introduce some reasonably good platforms (although at least half a generation behind the world leader), the reliance on either old or "light/cheap" platforms (ala tejas & JF-17) to replace them is a significant shortcoming compared to the world leaders.

8. Japan, South Korea and Germany. These nations all have a significant R&D base, with Japan fielding a home grown AESA radar, RoK about to deploy an indigenous light attack aircraft and Germany a leading developer of HOBS WVR missiles (and a leading partner in the eurofighter program). Although neither power has the ability to project air power well beyond its immediate geographical area, and rely on heavily upgraded older platforms (ala F-4), their quality of doctrine, people and 1st tier platforms & weapons maker each a significant air power.

11.Turkey, Australia, Singapore. Although these nations are middle powers, they have developed some individual pieces of world leading technology (e.g. JORN) and have acquired or are in the process or acquiring some of the most advanced weapons, platforms and communications technology worldwide (e.g. F/A-18F BII, F-15E BII, JASSM, Wedgetail, PHALCON, F-35A, Comms satellites). Although not the largest regional players they are amongst the worlds most advanced technologically, and amongst the best in qualitative terms. Within their geographical regions they are the most capable air powers re their neighbors (apart from each other re Australia & Singapore and Isreal re Turkey).

very informative list. about self reliance, doesnt israel rely on imports of American technology, then tweak the technology to suit their needs? so wouldnt be much diffrence between india/china/israel then. to add to israel, they've got vast amounts of knowledge of war experience behind them. for the india/china, situation, China tips the scale in their favour. reasons for this. space program is ahead of india by large margin, domestic capabilities are more numerous, larger budget, domestic passenger jets, and not to mention ASAT. India right now needs re-organizing, while china needs to start patching up technology gaps in its military.

(Im suprised Spain and Sauidi Arabi aren't in the list)

 

[OPSSG]

11.Turkey, Australia, Singapore. Although these nations are middle powers, they have developed some individual pieces of world leading technology (e.g. JORN) and have acquired or are in the process or acquiring some of the most advanced weapons, platforms and communications technology worldwide (e.g. F/A-18F BII, F-15E BII, JASSM, Wedgetail, PHALCON, F-35A, Comms satellites). Although not the largest regional players they are amongst the worlds most advanced technologically, and amongst the best in qualitative terms. Within their geographical regions they are the most capable air powers re their neighbors (apart from each other re Australia & Singapore and Israel re Turkey).

Many thanks Ozzy Blizzard for even considering Singapore (a city the size of Melbourne) in your list but I feel that in the longer run, Singapore has a limited potential compared to Turkey and Australia, simply because both countries are partner nations of the F-35 program (and do or will soon operate AWACs). Further, Turkey and Australia have much larger defence budgets and defence industrial bases.

Many Singaporeans and Australians would describe Australia as a middle power. Once, we place Singapore's capabilities beside Australia (with our defence budget at less than 1/2 of yours), I am automatically happy for Singapore to be described as a small-to-medium power (rather than a real medium power like Australia). Right now, there is a delay on the wedgetail program. Once that is resolved, if we are comparing over a longer time period, I would rank Australia ahead of Singapore in air power capabilities, by virtue of your country's plans, in particular, the potential Growler configuration for the SHs, the planned F-35 buys and even your legacy Hornet fleet (when we're still using F-5s, which are due for retirement).

In reality, I cannot imagine Singapore not having common interests with Australia. IMHO, that is why we send our E-2C to Ex Pitch Black to get Australian pilots accustomed to being vectored by Singapore's AWACS. I would think that the defence of Australia would start in Singapore/Malaysia. That is why, I tend to think of our capabilities as complementary. The main advantage of Singapore is the speed at which we are willing to adopt or buy new technology, giving us a razer thin edge in the tech cycle via adoption speed rather than depth of development. We are also incremental in approach. We are not willing to take significant developmental risks in return for a sustained advantage. We are better known as kings of the short adoption cycle rather than taking a long view (in riskier tech development cycles). Whenever there is significant risk, we tend to look for a partner, rather than move alone.

 

[OPSSG]

very informative list. about self reliance, doesnt israel rely on imports of American technology, then tweak the technology to suit their needs? so wouldnt be much difference between india/china/israel then. to add to Israel, they've got vast amounts of knowledge of war experience behind them...

Let me share two comments on your thoughts on Israel:

(i) Israeli mastery of operational art is astounding and well documented (which are really talent and practice issues). Give them the same equipment and the same numbers and they will be able to beat almost anyone. They are also one of the few countries who are designed to fight multiple fronts at the same time. Since 1982 and given the scale of their last major air combat victories, it is not surprising that any peer country is very, very reluctant to challenge them today. This means unless you have huge, huge numbers, they have the means to dismember any attack bit by bit.

(ii) Israeli technology occupies specific niches and in those niches they are amongst the very top. Their gear may not be gold plated but it is excellent. Due to their mastery of operational art, they have thought through the associated issues with weapons systems. If a country fails to use their systems correctly, it's more a reflection of that country's mastery of operational art rather than other factors. Having said that Israeli supplied technology is not infallible but I have every confidence in their gear (speaking as a person from a country who is a user of their gear).

 

[Falstaff]

You're right (as always). And I'd like to add that what I find most astonishing about the Israeli airforce is how quick they learn from their experiences and adapt weaponry and tactics. They have the experience, the technology base and the flexibility to react very fast.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I totally agree with your list except for this one, which I don't understand. My impression is you listed reasons for them not being world class airforces, but I can't find reasons why they are 6th? Could you please clarify for me?

Sorry, I thought i would have to explain the reasons why they were so far down the list rather than that far up.

Both nations posses strategic arms, and both are in the process of significant modernization that are going some way to address the significant deficiencies in force multipliers. That plus the shear scale of these organizations puts them above nations like RoK or Japan, but they do not currently have the ability to truly wield air power on a global scale. Even though India will soon have a fleet of 3 reasonably capable carriers, and china is soon to build a few, the paucity of force multipliers will significantly curtail either nations ability to operate on a global scale, as would the dominance of the USN.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Many thanks Ozzy Blizzard for even considering Singapore (a city the size of Melbourne) in your list but I feel that in the longer run, Singapore has a limited potential compared to Turkey and Australia, simply because both countries are partner nations of the F-35 program (and do or will soon operate AWACs). Further, Turkey and Australia have much larger defence budgets and defence industrial bases.

No need to thank me. It is clear that Singapore is a major military power in SEA, and indeed only the ADF is comparable in the region.

In the mid to long term, from a geopolitical perspective I agree with you. Singapore's status as a true middle power looks rather ill. Australia and especially Turkey will continue to rise economically, demographically and militarily. Singapore looks to get squeezed.

In 2020 the RoSAF and RAAF will be on almost even terms, with both nations possessing ~75 F-35A's, ~25 F/A-18F's/F-15E's & ~6 AESA based AWACS. The RAAF will have an edge in ISTAR (JORN, WEdgetail), Comms (dedicated next gen comms sat) and EW (Growler). But they will be on nearly even terms.

Many Singaporean and Australians would describe Australia as a middle power. Once, we place Singapore's capabilities beside Australia (with our defence budget at less than 1/2 of yours), I am automatically happy for Singapore to be described as a small-to-medium power (rather than a real medium power like Australia). Right now, there is a delay on the wedgetail program. Once that is resolved, if we are comparing over a longer time period, I would rank Australia ahead of Singapore in air power capabilities, by virtue of your country's plans, in particular, the potential Growler configuration for the SHs, the planned F-35 buys and even your legacy Hornet fleet (when we're still using F-5s, which are due for retirement).

Agreed, but our two nations air forces will be comparable in capability.

In reality, I cannot imagine Singapore not having common interests with Australia. IMHO, that is why we send our E-2C to Ex Pitch Black to get Australian pilots accustomed to being vectored by Singapore's AWACS. I would think that the defence of Australia would start in Singapore/Malaysia. That is why, I tend to think of our capabilities as complementary. The main advantage of Singapore is the speed at which we are willing to adopt or buy new technology, giving us a razer thin edge in the tech cycle via adoption speed rather than depth of development. We are also incremental in approach. We are not willing to take significant developmental risks in return for a sustained advantage. We are better known as kings of the short adoption cycle rather than taking a long view (in riskier tech development cycles). Whenever there is significant risk, we tend to look for a partner, rather than move alone.

In the 2000 defense white paper, Australia's strategic objectives are:

1. The defence of the Australian mainland
2. The promotion of stability in the south pacific
3. The common defence of South East Asia

As much as people like to consider Indonesia as the threat, the reality is the ADF is far far more likely to be fighting along side the TNI than engaging it in battle. Any push south by a major east Asian maritime power will come though SEA, and thus through Singapore/Malaysia. That geopolitical reality will remain a reality for the foreseeable future, thus it will be in Australia's vital national interest to ensure South East Asian allies do not fall, and the single most vital South East Asian ally is Singapore. Its obviously what Pitch Black et al are all about, improving interoperability between out two armed forces. Thus in most realistic conflict scenario's you can add both capabilities together, its a formidable combination.

The difference in procurement philosophy between the ADF and Singapore is clear, the ADF for better or worse tends to go with the big ticket, big capability, big risk items. Case in point Wedgetail and F-111. Both have been delayed significantly. However i guess we can afford that luxury, you guys cant. We have perhaps the most strategic depth of any nation, you guys have one of the least. We can afford to make mistakes.

 

[OPSSG]

You're right (as always). And I'd like to add that what I find most astonishing about the Israeli airforce is how quick they learn from their experiences and adapt weaponry and tactics. They have the experience, the technology base and the flexibility to react very fast.

Agreed. Those who have any doubts about Israeli capabilities should read about how they penetrated Syrian air defences in 2007 at the following links:

(i) Israel suspected of 'hacking' Syrian air defences; and

(ii) Why Syria's Air Defenses Failed to Detect Israelis.

As Austin Powers would say, the IAF have proven time and again they still have mojo.