2011 World Military Strength Ranking released (Top 20)

Sorry i think this whole list is BS

I mean come on Indonesia has a better military than Australia that is utter BS
Why did and they still do need the help of the Australian Army to control militants over there

France ranked 8th Hahaha that is a joke right......

I dont think whoever put the list together did the right research

Was this list comprised by multiple 'judges' from multiple countries, or was it just a few Americans who want the world to think the USA is still in controll of everything?

I would disagree with the list.

Germany not in the top 10? North Korea 22nd? Doubtful.

What is GFP globalfirepower.com and why do they get to make a list of the top military strength countries?

reply to post by listerofsmeg


China's economy is based around making "Stuff" that they sell outside China. They import raw materials from places like Africa to make the "Stuff".

Russia's economy is based around Russia and some exporting of oil and gas, to places like China and Europe, who depend on Russian energy. Russia doesn't need to import resources.

In the event of a world war, China would be cut off from resources and consumers who buy their "Stuff". Their economy would collapse. They could try to invade Siberia to make up for it, but Russia has been preparing for that for decades with such fun as nuclear land mines. I'm sure the US, India, and Japan wouldn't just stand by and let it happen either.

Russia doesn't need the world, but the world needs it. This makes Russia far more dangerous than China.

reply to post by CountDrac


Yeah, that's worked out REALLY well for us. *eye roll*

This list is all well and good but where do these countries rank in tenacity.

That's key.

I see this list every year, its balanced on basically just military capability so doesn't account for the quality of soldiers, just the quality of troops equipment.

Still im really impressed the UK is so high up despite our under funded military and our small size, Im hoping this may be a reflection on the quality of our servicemen (although like I said before I dont think this is accounted for) Probably because of our tate of the art submarines and nuclear capability.

I think china must be 2nd really, they have some good technology atm with their new tanks and fighters, its scary how large they are, but also how advanced they are getting as well at the same time with their military.

South Korea are always right up there. They have a very good military and compulsey service keeps their numbers up as well. IMO Nork Korea are lucky that the South arnt as aggressive as they are. A war would be awful for both, but the South would annihilate them.

reply to post by MikeboydUS


china does have its own oil wells.
it imports mass amount of oil because its economy is growing out of control and with a country of bike riders switching to private automobiles.
58% of china oil imports are from middle east, so russia alone could not completely cut them off.
im sure if ww3 happened china would be more concerned with fueling its military than its cars.
also russia are allied with china.
they wouldn't just cut off oil.
russia my have all its resources but thats why wars are fought these days anyway.
resources arent a measument of strength.

China's military experience is nowhere near countries like USA and Russia....China may have built their fleet in recent years, but they still havent been in any real conflicts to gain real life experience.....And based off that alone, its hard to measure how strong a countries military is....Ill take experience any day....

The fact that afganistan is within the top 51 completely negates this list, and shows that it has no meaning whatsoever.

the Afgani military is not capable of even defending its own country by itself without the Americans to help them. There are also questionable loyalties within the ranks.

This list is pure speculation based on some random numbers added together in excell or something.

This list seems to not take into account anything like quality of training or available technology.

I'm also fairly positive that Israel belongs much higher on the list. Just look at what happened last time they had a war...

Originally posted by boondock-saint
9/11 made America's military a slave
to Israel.

And Why you ask???

cuz it's true

Care to elaborate on this?

reply to post by listerofsmeg


China has some oil but not enough to fuel the entire country. Over half of the oil China consumes is imported and brought by ship.

If they lost control of the seaways they could not protect their oil shipments. In the present, Russia, Japan, and India all have more powerful navies than China.

Russia is an ally of convenience and its not set in stone like the US alliance with the UK. These types of alliances are unstable and could shift rapidly.

If you don't have resources, you can't fight.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Well if you think about it South Korea is still at war.

The whole discussion on topic is a bit pointless. US maintains huge military expenses, because the economy basically depends on it. US is by far propably only country where rifles and handguns are included in local mall's promotional offers. 'Gun nation' would be fair statement, wouldn't you agree?

But.... any global conflict would be resolved with nukes, i have no doubt about it. I don't know if MAD doctrine is still alive, but nonetheless it wouldn't be nice world to live in afterwards. Everybody loose, folks.
But hey, don't worry, it's main reason why we didn't have WWIII yet.
But those numbers about military greatness..... it's just taxmoney being given to people providing illusion of security by providing offensive assets. (so what they really doing is exactly opposite though).

Originally posted by Morg234

The UK have just made ourselves 'carrier-less' for several years, can barely afford to continue in Libya, or anywhere else for that matter, have a few Eurofighters and ancient jets scattered about, and way too few helicopters. We have a few good naval vessels, but, taking for instance the subs, they are primarily nuclear deterrant - so again, that may not afect this list. I just don't see it.

The UK currently has two aircraft carriers with two building. It's military has 400 combat, transport and utility helicopters. It has one of the largest navies in the world, by ship number and by gross tonnage; it's Vanguard-class ballistic subs are actually a minority of the UK's submarine force, alongside a Swiftsure, Trafalgar, and Astute-classes. It has 160 Eurofighters and as many Tornado GR4 fighter-bombers, which have more than proven themselves against the likes of F-16s and F-15s during Red Flag.

Your pessimism aside, the list is sort of accurate- the one world corporate shadow government and the imminent financial situations of some of those top countries not withstanding.

The UK currently has two aircraft carriers with two building.

Erm, well, I guess it depends on what you class as an operational aircraft carrier? I mean, let's just review the facts, I mean, it's not about optimism/pessimism, it's about facts, I think Wikipedia should do it for now:

Wikipedia: Invincible Class Carriers Page

The Sea Harrier was officially retired on 1 April 2006. The principal weapon of the Invincible-class carriers then became the Harrier GR9 flown by two Fleet Air Arm and two RAF squadrons until they were retired in 2010. Since then they have only operated helicopters.

Invincible was decommissioned in July 2005, and was mothballed until September 2010.[4]

Ark Royal took over as the flagship, was planned to be decommissioned in 2016, but retired in 2010 following the Strategic Defence and Security Review.

Illustrious remains the only one of the class in service but will also retire once HMS Ocean comes out of its next refit in 2014.[citation needed]

Two much larger Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers are being built, although whether they will both enter service is unclear. They are expected to displace around 65,000 tonnes each[17] - more than three times the displacement of the Invincible class.

OK then, so the UK had three Invincible carriers:
'Invincible' being sold to Turkey for breaking,
'Ark Royal' decommissioned in March 2011, leaving
'Illustrious' operational at sea [until 2014**], but with NO jet attack/defence aircraft as we dumped ALL our Harrier fleet this year too. And our one "carrier" is a ski-jump deck, which means that we have NO alternative jets to fly on/off it: it's a helicopter only operation.

And that's that until we get our next carrier:

The Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers (formerly the CV Future or CVF project) are a two-ship class of aircraft carrier being built for the Royal Navy. HMS Queen Elizabeth is expected to enter service in 2020

and that's not all because:

On 19 October 2010, the government announced the results of its Strategic Defence and Security Review. Only one carrier is certain to be commissioned; the fate of the other is undecided. The second ship of the class may be placed in "extended readiness" to provide a continuous single carrier strike capability when the other is in refit or to provide the option to regenerate more quickly a two carrier strike ability. Alternatively the second ship may be sold with "cooperation with a close ally to provide continuous carrier-strike capability".[21]

It was also announced that the operational carrier will have catapult and arrestor gear (CATOBAR) installed in order to accommodate the F-35C variant of the Joint Strike Fighter rather than the STOVL F-35B.[9][22] On 23 November 2010 the Chief of the Defence staff General Sir David Richards confirmed that HMS Queen Elizabeth would be fitted as a conventional carrier. "The short delay to the first carrier, to allow it to be fitted with 'cats and traps', means that when it comes into service in 2019 it will be equipped with the hugely capable carrier variant of Joint Strike Fighter."[23]

Two points there:

Firstly, we changed a SUBSTANTIAL part of the overall vehicle design at a very late stage (the deck/launch mechanism). Now, hopefully they'll prove us wrong, but I'm afraid the history of large UK MOD vehicle contracts thus tampered with (in fact most large building projects?) ain't so sparkly with regards delivery dates or budget.

So I'd say that's at least 9 years without an operational jet launch carrier of any kind - fact. (Of course they may get some UAV going - ?) Otherwise just helicopters and missiles - that's NOT a proper aircraft carrier by my understanding. [*I nearly missed this, just scanning through after posting - Illustrious retires in 2014 anyway, so that will only leave Ocean for SIX years - which is really NOT an aircraft carrier (just helicopters - NO fast jet deck)

Illustrious remains the only one of the class in service but will also retire once HMS Ocean comes out of its next refit in 2014

end of edit#1]

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?

400 combat, transport and utility helicopters.

I'm running out of time here, but, all I would say is that, from what I have learnt trying to gain an idea of the strength of these forces, figures often appear to be published based, understandably, on 'favourable' counts of airframes in service, whilst in the current climate, from what I have heard, many airframes are being cannibalised to maintain the airworthyness of other units, so I would bet that if tehy publish 400 it may be somewhat off what we may be able to deploy right now (and for the forseeable).

Perhaps someone else could fill in any gaps, I know little about the navy I would concede that. And I agree our troops have proven their abilities so well in so many unfavourable situations, for so long. But that's not what this list was meant to be about was it?

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
If you don't have resources, you can't fight.

tell that to ww2 britain.
desparation is always massive force when it comes to war.

stopping chinas imported oil will cripple their economy but not their military.

i know russia reserves could out last everyones but that doesn't mean much in a ww3 scenario

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by listerofsmeg

 

China has some oil but not enough to fuel the entire country. Over half of the oil China consumes is imported and brought by ship.

If they lost control of the seaways they could not protect their oil shipments. In the present, Russia, Japan, and India all have more powerful navies than China.

Russia is an ally of convenience and its not set in stone like the US alliance with the UK. These types of alliances are unstable and could shift rapidly.

If you don't have resources, you can't fight.

For now, but for how long?

Read (or watch the video) for instance:

Aircraft carrier symbol of China's naval ambitionsBy Damian Grammaticas BBC News Dailan

The PLA has invested heavily in submarines. It is believed to be close to deploying the world's first "carrier-killer" ballistic missile, designed to sink aircraft carriers while they are manoeuvring at sea up to 1,500km (930 miles) offshore, and it is building its own stealth fighter aircraft along with advanced carrier-based aircraft built from Russian designs.

All of these can target US bases, US ships and US carriers in Asia. They will make it much more dangerous for US carrier fleets to operate close to China's coast, pushing them out further offshore.

America says China's military developments are opaque and shrouded in secrecy, its real intentions unclear.

"For the longest time China denied that they were going to pursue an aircraft carrier navy even trying to get the world to believe that the purchase of the first aircraft carrier from Ukraine was all about creating a new casino in one of their harbours," says Rick Fisher, a senior analyst at the International Assessment and Strategy Center, a think tank in Virginia, US.

"[It] is going to have aircraft comparable in capability to the recent fighters on American fighter decks in about two to three years time."

Shift of power

Some observers believe China wants to build up to four carriers of its own.

Mr Fisher, who has spent 20 years studying China's military, says it has big ambitions.


The 300m (990ft) carrier, under construction in Dalian, is thought to be nearly finished "The aircraft carrier is part of China's fulfilment of its 2004 historic mission that the People's Liberation Army will increasingly defend the Communist Party's interests outside of China," he says.

"By the 2020s China wants a military that will be globally deployable and will be able to challenge American interests where they need to be challenged."

.

And as well as the sub to carrier-group missiles, they have these worrying the USA navy right now:
Aviation Week: Innovative New Chinese UAV Emerges

The latest unmanned aircraft pictures from China show a reconnaissance truck with a joined wing and tail that could considerably increase range and payload and produce better handling at high altitudes.

U.S. analysts already are suggesting that the new Chinese UAV design — with its 60,000-ft. cruising altitude, 300-mi. radar surveillance range and low radar reflectivity if it uses the right composite structure — could serve as the targeting node for China’s anti-ship ballistic missiles. The ASBM threat against carriers finally has U.S. Navy officials worried.

reply to post by curioustype


About ten years, if China doesn't implode by then.

Japan, especially Japan, and India could also become quite powerful in the next ten years.

If you want to look at major potential threats to US hegemony in the next decades, China is not at the top. A rearmed Japan and an ex NATO, ex EU Germany is actually at the top. Check out George Friedman's (head of Stratfor) book, The Next Decade. A ticked off Germany rising from a collapsed NATO and fractured EU, seems to be the big boogie man, many of the think tanks are looking out for.

Hmm The dutch are not on the list? but our government always wants to be the cock of the walk when it comes to NATO actions even The former NATO chief Jaap the hoop scheffer,,, was dutchman. That could mean two things or we were smart enough to not fill in the form due to application espionage. Or we were too slow in completing the form.

My guess is the last one

Originally posted by BLV12

And in this list, some pretty pointless criteria is obviously used when you have France down in 8th behind third world places like India and Turkey who only have cannon fodder going for them.

Haha post-british,modern India .....what say you? a third world country that would be only be as good as cannon fodder???
how do you plan to support that statement of yours using some real world facts????