2011 World Military Strength Ranking released (Top 20)

i bloody knew this thing would come to who won world war 2. (it often does)
the answer is the good guys.
end of that derailing hopefully

Originally posted by hawaii50th
China will have the ability to mobilize a standing army of 2 hundred million once their air force and navy is up to what they need if it's not already there.
With a one child per family policy that was in effect for so many years, came a population that is close or even more males than females.

Um……… NO, they don’t.
Key word here. Logistics!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

First things first.
If you don’t want them to just stand around as cannon fodder, you have to arm them.
They don’t have the firearms to arm 200 million people.
They don’t even have close to enough firearms to arm 200 million people.
And I am talking about small arms like AK47s and the like.
If they built factories to turn out AKs all day 24/7, it would take decades to produce that many arms and bullets to fire in those guns.
I won’t even get into the discussion of heavier armaments like RPG, missiles and self propelled arms.

You also have to have uniforms, personal gear, and other items for each person, which they don’t have.

And the last, but by far the biggest problem with a 200 million man army. You have to feed those people once they are mobilized! They can not feed themselves once they are away from home, so you have too! You can only run them without food them so long before they become worthless.

A truck takes fuel. A person takes food. Take away the food and fuel, and both of them are totally useless in a fight.

They don’t have the weapons for 200 million people to use, if they did mobilize them.
They don’t have anything for them to wear.
They have nothing to move them with.
They have no infrastructure to support them (both food and fuel) once they do get to the battle field.

If they did launch a 200 million man army, the battle would only last one week before supplies ran out. Then you could just go in and flatten them with impunity.

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by shadowATS

Originally posted by SpookyFox
India has a better army than the U.K?
Aaahahahahahahaha oh this thread gave me a good laugh. The Indian army still use spears and stones don't they?

yeah the indian defence forces still have the indigenous spear and stones,the kinds that made half the world slap sanctions on india only to revoke them later on in couple of years to acknowledge the growing economy and the market opportunity of india.to put it in perspective our middle class population is bigger than the entire population of the states.

edit on 16-7-2011 by shadowATS because: missed out a word...

edit on 16-7-2011 by shadowATS because: my eyes were aching

I think India has a pretty potent punch. Good sized armed forces, vast pool of new recruits and a indigenous weapons production capacity. In any war, they will be able to easily replace their losses and produce even more weapons and troops than most nations. The rankings take more into account than just the size and training and equipment of the nation.

The UK's ranking is pretty impressive, don't get bent out of shape about it. You have great armed forces.

All I see is numbers. Where does it even talk about training? It mentions equipment, but not how advanced the equipment is. One simple example is Canada's AETE health systems. They have designed a G-Suit that allows the pilot to fully engage targets at a constant 5 gs and not blackout, to not black out with constant 5gs is impossible to do with current g-suits. The suit forcefully inflates the lungs for maximum oxygen use, they must take a little while to get used to because you breathe in to breathe out and breathe out to breathe in. that must be a strange feeling. Germany's new U boats are are pretty amazing, most quite subs in the world. I love the US's directional e.m.p. device ) still being worked on though. I think it was Norway but I could be wrong. I have never seen such fast auto loading artillery weapons in the ever. Belgium (usually works with France but not all the time) is producing some of the most effective assault rifles...I would love to have a P90 Israel has produced some effective assault rifles as well. The Swiss are pioneers in a lot of optics systems, I could add another 10 countries on this post from just my current knowledge. I hope I was able to get my point across, it is a challenge for me sometimes since I am autistic. I hope this has caused some people to think a little more about other countries because they are people to as well as allies. Anyways I am more or less completely neutral on this issue. Almost all of these pieces of equipment are up for sale in the global M.I.C. market.
I think its all about money and greed in the end. I really wish people could be more humble about these issues.
Instead of getting all Patriotic and making this a pissing contest (I can pee further than you! No you can't. Oh yes I can! No you can't. I just told you I could. Prove IT!)

Peace, Nova

Originally posted by Novatrino

I think its all about money and greed in the end. I really wish people could be more humble about these issues.
Instead of getting all Patriotic and making this a pissing contest (I can pee further than you! No you can't. Oh yes I can! No you can't. I just told you I could. Prove IT!)

Peace, Nova

Considering I am neither Indian nor British, I'm not peeing. The site refers to the number of of age conscripts, India produces quite a bit of military hardware. Nothing I said wasn't factual. India would be a formidable foe in any war in the Sub-Continent area. They don't have the ability to project force beyond that yet. Only the U.S, U.K. and France really seem to be able to project their force far from their borders routinely nowadays.

I understand your point, these topics do get rather nationalistic.........Who has the best special forces by the way........? Just kidding.

reply to post by pavil

I was replying to the same people that you were talking to. I was not disagreeing with you at all actually I was agreeing with you. I am sorry the post came out like that. I was referring to Shadow but he edited his post to retract his previous statement.

Sorry about that Pavil. I am still new here so lesson learned I should have directly quoted his post. He changed it for a reason.

Peace, Nova

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Agreed.

IMO, China is likely really in the number two position, and may hit the number one position by the end of the decade.

I highly doubt this. Our technolgy is still leaps and bounds infront of them. After there economy outpaces our GDP for 50 years then we can start to worry about this. You should check out the numbers for percent of GDP in china spent on millitary compared to ours.........

Australian soldiers, in my view are pound for pound the best soldiers in the world. [FULL STOP]

this list is so funny because its so full of shxx

I find this USA statistic very hard to swallow...

PERSONNEL
Total Population: 313,232,044 [2011]
Population Available: 145,212,012 [2011]
Fit for Military Service: 120,022,084 [2011]
Reaching Military Age Annually: 4,217,412 [2011]
Active Military Personnel: 1,477,896 [2011]
Active Military Reserve: 1,458,500 [2011]

reply to post by MikeboydUS


us hegemony is over and will be destroyed in the coming hyperinflation and civil war in USA.

Euro zone is in the worst economic crisis and its future is questionable. NATO is drained.

leaves two nations Russia and China.

This ridiculous list was posted a few months ago and debunked then. True military power has nothing to do with how large your standing army is but instead how good your logisitcs are. Only a complete idiot would put India so high on this list and look how low France is. 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. Stop reposting this stupid list.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by CountDrac


Looks to me like American taxpayers are providing defense for about a third of this list!

reply to post by CountDrac


Awww CRAP!!

Indonesia outranks Australia by 6 points...lol

They will totally PWND us..!!

Not..!!

One thing this survey dosen't take into account is the condition and age of their equipment. Indonesia's armor, navy and airforce would fall apart before they even made it half way to Australia... LOLOL

its really a big debate between China and USA but im pretty sure chin is 2nd and Russia is 3rd....along with Chins being close behind USA

Nice list and completely irrelevant, IMHO. These days' wars aren't "wars" anymore, by the true meaning of the word.
It's the "white collars" who are deciding who is going to live and who is going to die now; the economic war is the most frightening method to conquer a country because it involves losses of the innocent ones.

In the past, at least you knew that looking into a gun barrel meant that on the other side of the gun was the enemy but now... ... you don't even see your enemies, they are deep buried in their luxurious offices, playing with human lives, killing millions with a move of the pen on a piece of paper.

I honestly regret the days when the men were actually MEN, fighting like men, dying like men; today, a bunch of fat, greasy wusses wearing white collars are deciding where I should point my gun. But the real tragedy comes from the fact that every day, around the world, thousands are dying of hunger, thirst or diseases because this was decided by the fat, greasy wusses. It makes me sick.

That list? Irrelevant. USA is the most powerful country in the world, biggest army, most modern weapons but if some white collar s.o.b. decides in his office that the USA should go down, he'll only have to sign few papers for that and, despite of the military power, the USA will go down in flames. I pray to God not to happen.

Originally posted by Zmboop
At the end of the day, the United States has a stock pile of 5,113 Nuclear weapons far far greater than any other country, this is why the list doesn't include nukes. It'd be ridiculous,

Nuke category would be something like

United States 5,113
Russia 2,400
United Kingdom 225

edit on 16-7-2011 by Zmboop because: Numbers

it only took 2 nukes for the Japanese to surrender , enlighten me as why a stock pile of 5113 nukes will make any difference than a stock pile of 2400 nukes or whatever the case maybe????

Originally posted by michael1983l
Really, you are that naieve? China has just completed the worlds biggest aircraft carrier and has been building up their military for years.

No, they haven't. What China have done is taken an obsolete ex-Soviet carrier from the 70's and finished it. It isn't the "worlds largest" or even modern. Add to that the fact they have zero knowledge in carrier operations and it really is quite a pointless vessel. The Americans are the worlds Carrier masters and have dozens of the ruddy things.

Originally posted by Count Chocula
France and especially the UK shouldnt even be in the top 50. Look at how retarded they are performing in Libya right now. At this point its only the United States navy preventing Libya from invading and occupying both of those weaksauce countries.

What crap. The Uk and France are barely even committed to Libya. the UK only has a couple of dozen warplanes in action and the Libyans are under the kosh. Then there is the fact Libya couldn't mount an amphibious operation even if France and the UK gave them a head start and an unchallenged beach for them to begin with....

reply to post by POPtheKlEEN89


While not wanting to knock the US too much, I must point out that a significant amount of Tech and doctrine in the US comes from the UK. BAe owns large stakes in US defence companies, is involved in the F-35 and F-22, your tanks are largely Challenger knock offs and we can give your subs a run for their money. Also, alot of the tech which allowed you to scream ahead after 1945 came from the UK as a result of the Tizard mission...

Originally posted by Count Chocula
The sad fact is the UK and France havent won a war in almost 200 years. Its been Americans keeping your failboat from sinking for most of that time.

Do try to back this up with facts... While the French might not be so "victorious", the UK most certainly is. Don't live up to the stereotype and go and educate yourself.

War of 1812. (US like to think they won...but they didn't)

Napoleonic Wars

Various colonial wars during the 19th century with various European powers.

Boxer rebellion (against China)

Boer War

WW1 (Us only declared in 1917 and combat troops didn't turn up until half way through 1917, by which time the Germans had been defeated)

WW2 (We held our own and the prospect for defeat was eradicated after the BoB and German invasion of Russia./...Yes, the Soviets won WW2, not the USA)

Korea (as part of UN coalition)

Falklands, on our own, far from home with a rag tag fleet of old warships.

In fact, one could say the USA hasn't ever won a war without the UK being involved.

Originally posted by Count Chocula
Not to mention those UK folks seem to be cuckolded as they watch their wimmenz marry and breed with illegal muslim immigrants.

Ah, I see. Your just a troll who just says things with no basis in reality. Fair enough..

Originally posted by Count Chocula
I don't know what demographics stats, news articles, etc you've been reading but the UK and France are on target to be majority muslim in about 30 years.

No, we are not. We outnumber Muslims to the tune of 10-1 and they simply have no prospect of "outbreeding" us. Recent demographic states back this up, not fictitious ones made up by internet trolls.

Originally posted by bluemirage5
I'm surprised Turkey comes in before Israel because Israel could pop Turkey off if it ever comes down to the two. Turkey has the numbers but Israel's technology and highly desciplined/better trained military is way ahead and thats without ever having to use nuclear weapons. When it comes to urban warfare...Israel are the champs

Not quite. Turney is quite full of very modern weaponry, kindly supplied by Uncle Sam and also has a growing indigineous industry. They are also the largest Army in NATO and someone who Israel should (and are) wary of.

Originally posted by loneranger26
Oh know not the worlds biggest, likely slowest moving aircraft carrier!!! Please man, 1 or 2 ICBMS with some warheads on em will knock that right back to the blue prints.

ICBM's can take out Carriers now? Whatever dude... Even if they could, AEGIS would make short work of them. For carrier killing, you want low-flying, supersonic anti-ship missiles. Anything else won't get through the net.

Originally posted by curioustype
I am VERY surprised to see UK so high up the list, especially if as has been stated this list does NOT account nuclear strength as a factor

But we are a Nuclear power....

Originally posted by curioustype
The UK have just made ourselves 'carrier-less' for several years

We have been without a true carrier since 1983, so I am sure we can cope until 2015.

Originally posted by curioustype
, can barely afford to continue in Libya,

Not even remotely true. Political bitching about a few hundred million does not mean we can't afford it.

Originally posted by curioustype
have a few Eurofighters and ancient jets scattered about

A few? We have 71 active with 160 in total on order. And these "ancient" jets are actually younger than most of the jets used by the USAF. The Tornado, currently being used in Libya, is still a very capable airframe and with the addition of Stormshadow, why spend billions replacing it when it works fine?

Originally posted by curioustype
, and way too few helicopters.

We have plenty, it's a media story blown way out of proportion. Some Chinooks were procured by an idiot and subsequently ended up sitting in a hangar for a while, which somehow got overblown into us having none at all!

Originally posted by curioustype
We have a few good naval vessels,

When the kinks are ironed out, the Type 45 will be the worlds most advanced Destroyer. We also have a new Frigate program in the works, due to enter service in 2020. Then there are the carriers we're building too. Our Navy is still pretty large, the 2nd Largest in NATO in fact and second to none when it comes to ASW warfare as that was our task in the Cold War.

Originally posted by curioustype
taking for instance the subs, they are primarily nuclear deterrant

No they aren't. There are 4 SSBN's in the Fleet and there are a total of 7 SSN's. 6 Trafalgar and 1 Astute, with 5 more on order. The Astute is probably the worlds most advanced Sub, only the Yanks could pip us there.

Also, don't forget we run the Punisher course. No one else even comes close when that training is taken into account, so much so the USN sends it's guys to do the course too.

Originally posted by curioustype
Secondly, The second carrier's 'future' remains 'unclear'...we did try to sell it to the French, but they didn't want to know, perhaps because they already have the nuclear powere CDG, and weren't overly impressed with forking out on a very expensive and unplanned oil burner?

Not entirely true.

The French are going to build a QE class under license and pay us part of the development cost.

The second one is either going to be a rolling case, with one in refit and one out at Sea or, as I reckopn is most likely the case, we will have come out of this budgetry nightmare and actually float the pair, but still likely in a one on-one off configuration.

Originally posted by TheMur
I agree that the European front was not won due to just American military, however on D-day the Allies landed around 156,000 troops in Normandy. The American forces landed numbered 73,000: 23,250 on Utah Beach, 34,250 on Omaha Beach, and 15,500 airborne troops, which was about half of the total allied invasion on this day.

Just under half, actually. The other half coming from......

Drum roll please...

The UK and Commonwealth.

Not including that 90% of the warships involved in D-Day were Royal Navy, the majority of thr aircraft were RAF and even the landing boats used on Omaha and Utah were Royal Navy, not the US Coastguard as portrayed in Saving Ryans Privates.

reply to post by stumason

What China have done is taken an obsolete ex-Soviet carrier from the 70's and finished it. It isn't the "worlds largest" or even modern. Add to that the fact they have zero knowledge in carrier operations and it really is quite a pointless vessel.

I don't think it's pointless, from what I have seen and read this may be part of a forthcoming program to develop a carrier fleet of several new units, probably in line with their ambition to have the ability to challenge the US where necessary anywhere in the world by around 2020? They already have some very capable carrier suitable Russian jets that they are training crews on (even a mock carrier deck on an airfield) and I beleive the two Russian refit carriers are part of that development and training program - you've got to start somewhere right? They could also become weapons system test beds?

Interestingly though, even China are currently playing down rumours that they may wish to end up with as many carriers as the USA, and that may be because they have developed threats to (all?) carriers that even the USA are taking very seriously, namely their missile and UAV program, which is well documented in the press, I mentioned their new UAV earlier in this thread, the missiles are these:

DF-21D (CSS-5 Mod-4) Anti-ship ballistic missile

Aviation Week Innovative Chinese UAV article

NB - Iran have been collaborators with China on other missiles, they even set up a factory there, I wonder how long it will prove to be a good idea to send our carriers through the med/suez canal/arabian sea/indian ocean etc...?

ICBM's can take out Carriers now? Whatever dude... Even if they could, AEGIS would make short work of them. For carrier killing, you want low-flying, supersonic anti-ship missiles. Anything else won't get through the net.

Not far off really, the Dong Feng 21 was an MRBM with ICBM heritage that is now a capable ASBM (Anti Ship Ballistic Missile):

The US Department of Defense has stated that China has developed and reached initial operating capability [10] of a conventionally-armed[11] high hypersonic[1] land-based anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) based on the DF-21. This would be the world's first ASBM and the world's first weapons system capable of targeting a moving aircraft carrier strike group from long-range, land-based mobile launchers.[12][13] [14] These would combine maneuverable reentry vehicles (MaRVs) with some kind of terminal guidance system. Such a missile may have been tested in 2005-6, and the launch of the Jianbing-5/YaoGan-1 and Jianbing-6/YaoGan-2 satellites would give the Chinese targeting information from SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar) and visual imaging respectively. The upgrades would greatly enhance China's ability to conduct sea-denial operations to prevent US carriers from intervening in the Taiwan Strait.[15] A professor at the U.S. Naval War College says that carrier-killing missiles underscore that the U.S. can no longer assume naval supremacy as it has since the end of World War II.[16]

China has recently launched a series of satellites to support its ASBM efforts

If it can worry the USA, shouldn't it worry the UK too - who cares, let's commit to building two highly expensive carriers and hope we never have to find out eh?

But we are a Nuclear power....

I never said we weren't, justy that if this list was based on some weird calculation omitting nuclear then I was surprised - that's all.

We have been without a true carrier since 1983, so I am sure we can cope until 2015.

Well technically perhaps, BUT, at least we had carriers that had SOME fast (OK not so fast - but very useful none the less and NOT helicopters) jets in the form of the Harriers.

Are you sure of 2015? sources (Wikipedia) say the new QE is due to go operational 2020 - and that's presumably if they don't get held up - as most procurements of such scale have done.

That WOULD mean we have no fast jet or helicopter alternative between 2011 and 2020 - 9 years, and if we can last 9 years, why do we really need it? What will happen to carrier specific crew training, availability, knowledge and experience in the meantime?

Originally posted by curioustype
, can barely afford to continue in Libya,

[and you said:]

Not even remotely true. Political bitching about a few hundred million does not mean we can't afford it.

My apologies if I misunderstood, I was basing that on this:

link to Sky news article

First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope said ministers would have to "reprioritise" - making cuts in firepower elsewhere - if the Nato-led campaign lasts beyond the UK's existing six-month commitment.

However, the head of the Armed Forces responded to the comments by insisting Britain could sustain the military operation "for as long as we choose".

Chief of the Defence Staff General Sir David Richards suggested Sir Mark had been misunderstood when he said yesterday that the Government might be forced to divert warships patrolling "home waters" around the British Isles to the Mediterranean, closer to the conflict.

In comments that have fueled further debate over cuts to the defence budget, Sir Mark said he was confident parts of the operation would have been faster and cheaper if the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal had not been scrapped.

But the Navy chief refused to directly criticise the decision to axe the vessel and its Harrier jump jets taken as part of the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR).

"How long can we go on as we are in Libya?" he asked at a media briefing.

A few? We have 71 active with 160 in total on order.

OK, I perhaps over reacted a little, but hey look at this - it won't be 160 Eurofighters for long - they're looking to retire a bunch as early as 2019 (just before we SHOULD get our QE carrier?), leaving a fleet of 107:

Royal Air Force – 62 of a confirmed order of 160 aircraft, an additional 72 not yet committed, total 232. The 53 oldest aircraft to be retired early by 2019, leaving a fleet of 107

OK, Ok, I kow, we should have some F-35s in service to make up the numbers...just wanted to get it straight.

Subs and ships - I'll admit I really know little about that and am somewhat reassured by what you and others have said, unless of course those Chinese ASBMs threaten those too?

Originally posted by curioustype
Secondly, The second carrier's 'future' remains 'unclear'...we did try to sell it to the French, but they didn't want to know, perhaps because they already have the nuclear powere CDG, and weren't overly impressed with forking out on a very expensive and unplanned oil burner?

[You said:]

Not entirely true.

The French are going to build a QE class under license and pay us part of the development cost.

Er, actually I think you'll find, or at least I did, that the French have cordially entertained the idea of building it, but:

France's 2008 military budget included ordering a second aircraft carrier.[2] However, in April 2008 French Defence Minister Herve Morin cast doubt over plans for a second aircraft carrier, citing a cash crunch and the fact that rising oil prices put the question of the propulsion back on the table, and said a decision would be taken soon.[3] Further doubts were cast on the project on 21 June 2008 when French President Nicolas Sarkozy decided to suspend co-operation with Britain on the aircraft carrier. Sarkozy stated that a final decision on France building a second carrier would be taken in 2011 or 2012. British plans for two aircraft carriers went ahead as planned despite the French withdrawal, as the original project had in any case been a British one and not dependent on French involvement.[4] On 3 February 2009, the French government ordered studies about another architecture and design raising even more doubt on the likelihood of the French Navy using the current British design. The option of nuclear propulsion is back on the table and would require a completely different approach. The option of Azimuth thruster, as used on the Mistral-class ships, is also being considered.[5]

Now, I've just done a quick google search and can find NO reports of the French committing a final decision on taking/paying for the second QE boat, to update or correct this quote from Wikipedia. Correct me if you find it.

[This appears to be because of one: they really don't like the look, from a sustainability or strategic perspective of oil fuel preferring nuclear; two they are as strapped for cash as us - and that's badly.*]

I did find plenty of statements from a stunned French navy commander saying how shocked he was at the UKs decisions to let the Harriers and Carriers go and leave a gap for at least decade, and talks about possibly flying UK jets [**from their carrier] (when we get some F-35s up and going?) at some point, but they didn't seem toooo happy about it.

Right, sorry to be so pedantic, but I don't think I was too wide of the mark, I'd discuss the helicopters but I've run out of time, cheerio - and good luck!

reply to post by curioustype


I'll try not to do a blow by blow, but compress for ease of reading

Yes, you're right about China's plans for the Carrier, but a 2020 start date for their first? I'd be surprised as they have only just finsihed (after over a decade I believe) the refit of the Varyag [sp?]

I'd say by then, UCAV's launched from cruisers or destroyers would most likely be the sensible thing to loom into. Carriers are big, expensive and nice to shoot at. Interestingly, the UK's Future Surface Combatant program (the new Frigate) is llooking at this possibility.

As for our carriers, admittedly it's been a while since I read about the French deal. It is entirely possible they too have changed their minds due to cash limitations. There was talk, at one point, for ditching the F-35 and buying Rafales!

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

As for Typhoons. Makes sense I suppose. There is a diminished need for fast jets, especially come 2020 with our own UCAV program and by then, the oldest frames will be approaching 20 years old anyway.

Erm, what else did you say... Hang on..

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..

reply to post by USAisdevil


In a worse case scenario where the US and Europe go down, China would too.

All that would be left would be Russia and another self sufficent nation people forget about... Brazil.

China isn't self sufficent, isn't homegenous, has insurgent ethnic groups like the Tibetans and Uighurs. There are many in the geo-political think tank world that fear that China will implode under all of that pressure in ten years, leaving India, Taiwan, Vietnam and Japan to come in and pick up the scraps.

Brazil and Russia on the other hand could tell the world to shove it and wall themselves off or be beacons of civilization in a dark world.