What's new

22 top airforces (based on plane quality and quantity).

Hats off for the effort, must took you quiet some time!

The result however is highly debatable, since you mainly scored based on numbers and not on capability, not to mention that the scoring of the fighters itself does not include which capability a country has, compared to another country with the same fighter.



PAFs Block 52+ are technologically and most importantly wrt to the available weapon options inferior to the Sufas, or even UAEs Block 60s. Be it EW system, SEAD capability, IRST, AESA radar, stand off weapons, or even latest gen of WVR missiles, all this would reduce the score of PAFs fighters clearly and why you have to take individual capabilities to account as well.


When you then add some calculation mistakes, like in case of Saudi Arabia for example, you see why they, Greece or Taiwan are rated so high, while forces of France or UK are pretty low.
Saudi Arabia have just 24 x EF T2s yet, with very basic A2G capabilities, which should replace the Tornado ADVs, that then would be out of the calculation, just like the F-5 and all this reduces (if I'm not wrong) at least 237.6 points from the total score and rates them far lower.
France currently opertates more than 75 x Rafales, M2Ks and F1s, which partially are not mentioned, or underated.

So you need a calculation system that not only takes the general modernisation level to account, but also which country has the most capabilities available for a certain fighter.
Imo, a normal Block 52+ could be rated as the base of modern 4th fighters today with 1/1, but the Sufas would rate slightly above, while PAFs B52s slightly below this base.
An EF T1 or T2 might be very good in A2A, but not even as capable as a M2K-5 in A2A...

May I ask why?
 
May I ask why?

As mentioned, because not every Block 50/52 is the same for every operater, S. Korea, Greece, Singapore or the Israeli Sufas are the same baseline version, but have more EW sensors (RWR, MAWS) for example, have SEAD and stand off strike capability (ASQ-213 HTS or similar pods, HARM missiles, JSOW, SPICE, Popeye...), or latest 5th generation IR missiles (Python V, IRIS-T, AIM9X).
These limitations or modifications makes some less, other more capable, just like Bars PESA, canards and TVC makes the MKI more capable in A2A than the MKK, although both are the basline Su 30MKs.
 
As mentioned, because not every Block 50/52 is the same for every operater, S. Korea, Greece, Singapore or the Israeli Sufas are the same baseline version, but have more EW sensors (RWR, MAWS) for example, have SEAD and stand off strike capability (ASQ-213 HTS or similar pods, HARM missiles, JSOW, SPICE, Popeye...), or latest 5th generation IR missiles (Python V, IRIS-T, AIM9X).
These limitations or modifications makes some less, other more capable, just like Bars PESA, canards and TVC makes the MKI more capable in A2A than the MKK, although both are the basline Su 30MKs.

But as you mentioned Baseline Block-52s.. so then while greek 52+'s may have a better dogfight missile.. they lack the more sophisticated ECm system of the PAF block-52s. I just find it a rather odd thing to single out the PAF's block-52 as the lower breed.

The greatest issue being DRFM may apparently have been sorted out as well...

Other than that.. PAF has been authorized all other weapons capabilities vis a vis any Block-52 user.

If anything.. Egypt's purchase may be below the baseline as they are not cleared Aim-120s.. or 9M-8/9s...nor JHCMS.
 
But as you mentioned Baseline Block-52s.. so then while greek 52+'s may have a better dogfight missile.. they lack the more sophisticated ECm system of the PAF block-52s. I just find it a rather odd thing to single out the PAF's block-52 as the lower breed.

The greatest issue being DRFM may apparently have been sorted out as well...

Other than that.. PAF has been authorized all other weapons capabilities vis a vis any Block-52 user.

If anything.. Egypt's purchase may be below the baseline as they are not cleared Aim-120s.. or 9M-8/9s...nor JHCMS.

I didn't singled out PAFs fighters, but took them to show the difference between the same baseline fighter with different configs and I did the same with MKI and MKM as well.

Greek B52s have more than just IRIS-T, but also SPICE stand off weapons and:

The HAF F-16s will shortly receive Litton's ASPIS electronic warfare suite (Advanced Self-Protection Integrated Suite) which will be internally mounted and includes:

ALQ-187 I-DIAS jamming system
ALR-66VH (I) RWR
ALE-47 Chaff & Flare Dispenser

F-16 Air Forces - Greece :: F-16.net


Greek pilots reportedly don't regard the US export EWS as capable as the French one in their M2Ks, but their fighters do have some more capabilities than PAFs B52, Egypts or the latest Iraqis might have. That's why a general scoring for a fighter is not the right way to compare different air forces.
 
Its silly to rank world air forces, how can one compare the Brazilian Air Force to the Egyptian Air Force, or the Japanese Air Force to the German Air Force? The fact is that 99% of world air forces are only capable of protecting sovereign airspace with limited power projection capabilities. So what is the point in ranking world air forces if they are simply NOT CAPABLE of engaging each-other in the first place?

Currently only the USA, Russia, United Kingdom and France have truly global air forces. I call them 1st tier.

Sure Turkey (I use Turkey as an example) may have more combat aircraft than the Royal Air Force (or French Air Force), so in terms of sheer numbers and "fire power" Turkey may LOOK more powerful but it isn't. For example, the RAF have relatively large numbers of aerial refuelling aircraft, airborne early warning and control aircraft and intelligence gathering aircraft... this not only allows the RAF to operate anywhere in the world, but it acts as a force multiplier and endows the RAF with a major advantage in combat capabilities and situational awareness. Also the RAF has large stockpiles of stand-off weaponry such as Storm-shadow cruise missiles - that would cause significant destruction and chaos to Turkish air bases before any serious air-air combat would commence. With such advantages to Britain, the Turkish would need more than just numbers on their side! Typhoon would dominate the battle allowing Tornado GR4s the freedom to further cripple Turkish air force infrastructure and air bases.

Other areas to look at is technology, aircraft maintenance and training - the RAF is hands down years ahead of the Turkish Air Force in terms of avionics, weapon systems, communication systems, situational awareness and intelligence gathering. In terms of aircraft maintenance the RAF has high availability of its aircraft well maintained and mission ready thanks to a large budget and some of the worlds most professional ground crew, the Turks on the other hand are woefully lacking in proper aircraft maintenance and many of their aircraft are not fit to fly, let alone fly combat missions! As far as training goes its hard to say, both air forces have recent operational experience and are undoubtedly the best their nations can offer, however, according to the IISS RAF pilots accumulate far more flight hours than the Turks.

The fact is numbers are really not that important, however, there does come a point when numbers DO overcome technological superiority.

Anyway even a 1st tier air force has limits, yes the RAF, French AF or Russian AF can defeat a 2nd tier air force like Turkey, but they would without doubt fail against the Israeli AF or Japanese AF. Why? Even tho they are both 2nd tier air forces they are highly sophisticated, well trained air forces with huge emphasis on sovereign air-defence and regional power projection - they also receive allot of support from the United States in terms of training, tactics, intelligence and technology. Remember it is not expected that just because you have a 1st tier air force with global power projection that you can beat any air force in the world, quite the opposite.

The 1st tier air forces (USA, Russia, United Kingdom and France) are the most powerful because not only are they hugely capable of defending their own air space - like 2nd tier air forces (China, Israel, Japan and Germany) - but they can deploy their air forces around the world at will. The ability to deploy air power around the world is a strategically important asset, it means a nation like the UK can defend and retake the Falklands if needed, or can topple an enemy air force half way around the world. A 2nd tier air force like the Chinese or Israelis would be powerless to protect their interests abroad and powerless to engage an enemy air force half way around the world. For example the RAF could defeat any air force in South America because the RAF has power projection capabilities, while the Chinese would currently find it impossible to defeat any air force in South America because they simply do not have the ability to deploy far from home.

If I were to rank the worlds air forces I would split them into 3 tiers, 1st, 2nd and 3rd.

1st tier:
Air forces with a full range of capabilities, operating technologically advanced and sophisticated aircraft/weapon systems, have global power projection capability etc...

1 USA
<-BIG GAP->
2 Russia
3 Britain/France
4 Britain/France

2nd tier:
Air forces with a wide range of capabilities (tho lacking in many areas), tend to rely on foreign suppliers for their best technology and operate a mixture of technologically advanced and "yesterdays technology" aircraft/weapon systems. Have limited regional power projection capabilities and zero global power projection capability etc...

1 China - Soon to enter 1st tier and surpass UK, France and Russia to 2nd place.
2 Israel
3 Japan
4 Germany
5 Saudi Arabia
6 Turkey
7 India - Cannot defend its self from China, and I pity India the day both Pakistan and China crush the IAF, pilots crash every other day, operates a mixture of yesterdays tech and obsolete flying coffins.
8 Pakistan
9 South Korea
10 Italy
<-small gap->
11 Australia
12 Canada
13 Spain
14 Sweden
15 Norway
16 Netherlands
17 Iran
18 Greece
19 Chile

3rd tier:
Air forces with little to no capability, operate fleets of dated and obsolete aircraft, incapable of adequately protecting them self, totally irrelevant etc...
1 Egypt
2 Poland
3 Ukraine
 
According to the experts the Chinese Air Force would be incapable of winning a conflict against Japan over the disputed islands in the East China sea!

I cannot post a link so Google "flightglobal IN FOCUS: Chinese air force not yet a match for Japan's"
 
According to the experts the Chinese Air Force would be incapable of winning a conflict against Japan over the disputed islands in the East China sea!

I cannot post a link so Google "flightglobal IN FOCUS: Chinese air force not yet a match for Japan's"

flightglobal needs to have its head examed.

China: >600 4 and 4+ gen with brv missiles
Japan: 100? 200?

china's KJ-2000 is a league above the japanese counterpart.

... and dont get me started with china's >100 H6 strategic bomber fleet (each is a cruise missile launching truck) + about 1,000-2,000 J-6 unmanned planes+ a sea of modernised JH-7, J-8,etc.
 
France/UK more powerful than China? :rofl: with what?

"they can deploy their air forces around the world at will"

huh? BBC can deploy their forces around the world at will, but not RAF.

For the starter, China's strategic bomber fleet H-6K (could load up 6 giant cruise missles)has effective combat range of about 4,000km. Name 1 plane out of UK/France that is remotely similar? can Sea harrier go beyond 400? Or Tornado? M-2000? :rofl:

On its own France even can't even move a single plane to Mali, its immediate doorstep in North Africa, without borrowing several transporters from Canada and the UK. And then "it can deploy their air forces around the world at will"... you're a funny one. :lol:
 
France/UK more powerful than China? :rofl: with what?

"they can deploy their air forces around the world at will"

huh? BBC can deploy their forces around the world at will, but not RAF.

For the starter, China's strategic bomber fleet H-6K (could load up 6 giant cruise missles)has effective combat range of about 4,000km. Name 1 plane out of UK/France that is remotely similar? can Sea harrier go beyond 400? Or Tornado? M-2000? :rofl:

On its own France even can't even move a single plane to Mali, its immediate doorstep in North Africa, without borrowing several transporters from Canada and the UK. And then "it can deploy their air forces around the world at will"... you're a funny one. :lol:

You are clearly a simpleton and not worth my time. However, for the benefit of others I will outline the most flawed point to your argument.

"For the starter, China's strategic bomber fleet H-6K (could load up 6 giant cruise missles)has effective combat range of about 4,000km. Name 1 plane out of UK/France that is remotely similar? can Sea harrier go beyond 400? Or Tornado? M-2000?"

A strategic bomber with 4,000 km range does not in any way shape or form equate to the Chinese Air Force being more capable than either the British or French air forces. I will establish my reasoning using logic. 4,000 km isn't very far, Chinese interests are global in nature not just regional, it is very likely that China will one-day find it necessary to deploy air power many 1,000s of km away from the Chinese mainland. The H-6 would need refueling to operate out side of its "combat radius" of 1,800 km (according to janes) - note combat radius is different to range - so the H-6 would need to be accompanied by several aerial refueling (tanker) aircraft to sustain operations ant any meaningful distance. The H-6 and the accompanying tankers are themselves defenseless, so an adequate number of air-defence fighters would be needed for protection putting further strain on the tanker aircraft to keep the fleet refueled. A question that the Chinese Air Force would also have to decide upon is do they want AEW&C? Without AEW&C the fleet may be at a serious disadvantage against any serious enemy air force.

The fact is China has a rather large air force with rather few tanker and supporting aircraft in comparison, this is not good. As a result it can not support large operations abroad at all and at best China could merely deploy a "token force". Presently the H-6 bombers can only be used in regional conflicts as China has a severe lacking of essential supporting aircraft. Another factor to consider is that whether you like it or not but Chinas air force is technologically inferior to that of the USAF, RuAF, RAF or French AF. The best fighters in Chinese service are the watered down export versions of the Russian Su-30 and Su-27s of which you only have ~70 - 80 each. The domestically built J-11 isn't worth it weight in p i s s and s h i t and I ROFL at the rest of the combat fleet.

The RAF and French who you are so quick to disregard however are in possession of a comparatively large and capable fleet of tankers, AEW&C, intelligence gathering and other supporting aircraft. They also have sizable fleets of highly capable and technologically sophisticated combat aircraft and weapon systems, and despite your poor attempt at insulting the French operations in Mali, they are fully capable of operating around the globe. For goodness sakes the British and French signed a defence treaty 2 years ago where they agreed to pool such resources such as aerial refueling aircraft - just because the RAF has lent support to the French operations does not mean the French are incapable, but rather that the two nations are acting upon their new defence treaty.

Like the Americans, the French and British operate military air bases around the world. The Chinese by comparison are absent such a complex network of supply chains and military bases around the world. Thanks to British military bases dotted around the world they have been able to pull of operations such as the Falklands, 1st and 2nd Gulf war, Afghan war etc... all of those campaigns saw a significant deployment of British air power. In fact every single war the UK or France have been engaged in over the last several decades the Chinese would have been incapable of fighting lol

And wrong, flightglobal is accurate in saying the Chinese can not match the Japanese if it ever came to a conflict in the skies over the disputed islands in the East China Sea... numbers are irrelevant. The Japs F-15s would dominate with ease.

You sir are the funny one, go back to making fortune cookies or making cheap knock-off toys or whatever you Chinese like to do.
 
Nice research but Pak now has 64 F-16 block 52+,more potent JF-17s plus 3 Korakoram Eagle AWACs... also our Mirages are upgrades to ROSE standard...earning them more points..
 
You are clearly a simpleton and not worth my time. However, for the benefit of others I will outline the most flawed point to your argument.

"For the starter, China's strategic bomber fleet H-6K (could load up 6 giant cruise missles)has effective combat range of about 4,000km. Name 1 plane out of UK/France that is remotely similar? can Sea harrier go beyond 400? Or Tornado? M-2000?"

A strategic bomber with 4,000 km range does not in any way shape or form equate to the Chinese Air Force being more capable than either the British or French air forces. I will establish my reasoning using logic. 4,000 km isn't very far, Chinese interests are global in nature not just regional, it is very likely that China will one-day find it necessary to deploy air power many 1,000s of km away from the Chinese mainland. The H-6 would need refueling to operate out side of its "combat radius" of 1,800 km (according to janes) - note combat radius is different to range - so the H-6 would need to be accompanied by several aerial refueling (tanker) aircraft to sustain operations ant any meaningful distance. The H-6 and the accompanying tankers are themselves defenseless, so an adequate number of air-defence fighters would be needed for protection putting further strain on the tanker aircraft to keep the fleet refueled. A question that the Chinese Air Force would also have to decide upon is do they want AEW&C? Without AEW&C the fleet may be at a serious disadvantage against any serious enemy air force.

The fact is China has a rather large air force with rather few tanker and supporting aircraft in comparison, this is not good. As a result it can not support large operations abroad at all and at best China could merely deploy a "token force". Presently the H-6 bombers can only be used in regional conflicts as China has a severe lacking of essential supporting aircraft. Another factor to consider is that whether you like it or not but Chinas air force is technologically inferior to that of the USAF, RuAF, RAF or French AF. The best fighters in Chinese service are the watered down export versions of the Russian Su-30 and Su-27s of which you only have ~70 - 80 each. The domestically built J-11 isn't worth it weight in p i s s and s h i t and I ROFL at the rest of the combat fleet.

The RAF and French who you are so quick to disregard however are in possession of a comparatively large and capable fleet of tankers, AEW&C, intelligence gathering and other supporting aircraft. They also have sizable fleets of highly capable and technologically sophisticated combat aircraft and weapon systems, and despite your poor attempt at insulting the French operations in Mali, they are fully capable of operating around the globe. For goodness sakes the British and French signed a defence treaty 2 years ago where they agreed to pool such resources such as aerial refueling aircraft - just because the RAF has lent support to the French operations does not mean the French are incapable, but rather that the two nations are acting upon their new defence treaty.

Like the Americans, the French and British operate military air bases around the world. The Chinese by comparison are absent such a complex network of supply chains and military bases around the world. Thanks to British military bases dotted around the world they have been able to pull of operations such as the Falklands, 1st and 2nd Gulf war, Afghan war etc... all of those campaigns saw a significant deployment of British air power. In fact every single war the UK or France have been engaged in over the last several decades the Chinese would have been incapable of fighting lol

:rofl: you're a complete military illiterate.


you wrote a novel mainly about 1 simple id:

overseas military base = overall military airpower.

The one who has more oversea bases = the one who is more powerful airforce

A complete nonsense!

By the same moronic logic:

1. British or France airforce are 20X more powerful, to say the least, than Russian airforce which has just several insignificant overseas bases, the ones in Syria and stanlands included.

2. British and France armies are also the 2nd/3rd most powerful in the world, hell, alongwith everything else one cares to measure, just becasue they have more overseas bases.

3. Indian airforce, with several oversea bases, is of course X times stronger than the Chinese one...

4. Indian navy, with several oversea bases, is of course X times stronger than the Chinese navy?

5. Indian army, with at least 2 oversea bases as far as I am aware, is of course twice stronger than the Chinese army?

6

7.

8.

etc,etc.

:rofl:

Utter stupidity of the mentally challenged!

some bonus points on logistics and flexibility for UK/FR on operating in certain areas in the world, yes. But hence overalll airforce power? :no:

plus, have more opportunies to do sth =/= necesarrily be able to, and/or do it well ( win or stronger in thise case).

And wrong, flightglobal is accurate in saying the Chinese can not match the Japanese if it ever came to a conflict in the skies over the disputed islands in the East China Sea... numbers are irrelevant. The Japs F-15s would dominate with ease.

Obviously you have next to zero clue on what vintages those Japanese F-15s are. :no: Some of the decades-old first tranche Su-27s would be proud in comparison.



You sir are the funny one, go back to making fortune cookies or making cheap knock-off toys or whatever you Chinese like to do.

...swaggering a $lumdog Indian recently arriving in Canada to a 2nd gen Chinese Dutchman... say what a gall! :lol:
 
:rofl: you're a complete military illiterate.


you wrote a novel about 1 simple id:

overseas military base = overall military airpower.

The one who has more oversea bases = the one who is more powerful airforce

A complete nonsense!

By the same moronic logic:

1. British or France airforce are 20X more powerful, to say the least, than Russian airforce which has just several insignificant overseas bases, the ones in Syria and stanlands included.

2. British and France armies are also the 2nd/3rd most powerful in the world, hell, alongwith everything else one cares to measure, just becasue they have more overseas bases.

3. Indian airforce, with several oversea bases, is of course X times stronger than the Chinese one...

4.

5.

etc,etc.

:rofl:

Utter stupidity of the mentally challenged!



Obviously you have next to zero clue on what vintages those Japanese F-15s are. :no: Some of the decades-old first tranche Su-27s would be proud in comparison.





...swaggering a $lumdog Indian recently arriving in Canada to a 2nd gen Chinese Dutchman... say what a gall! :lol:


are you nuts? do you think he is Indian??? he said India in the 7th position.... look what he written there..... lol..... shut your up..... chinese are ain't rich... just new found lil wealth.... Indians are better than chinese slum Dogs
 
are you nuts? do you think he is Indian??? he said India in the 7th position.... look what he written there..... lol..... shut your up..... chinese are ain't rich... just new found lil wealth.... Indians are better than chinese slum Dogs

IQ shown in his posts is within 80 to 85 range, plus the nasty attitude. so...you know. who he is has nothing to do with where he puts India. Those who laugh at Indians the most are frequently those newly arrived overseas indians in general in the real world. ironic, huh?
 
IQ shown in his posts is within 80 to 85 range, plus the nasty attitude. so...you know. who he is has nothing to do with where he puts India. Those who laugh at Indians the most are frequently those newly arrived overseas indians in general in the real world. ironic, huh?

Indians are not like chinese... lol... why we will bash our country.... if you are fool... feel free to believe what eva you want..
 
A strategic bomber with 4,000 km range does not in any way shape or form equate to the Chinese Air Force being more capable than either the British or French air forces. I will establish my reasoning using logic. 4,000 km isn't very far, Chinese interests are global in nature not just regional, it is very likely that China will one-day find it necessary to deploy air power many 1,000s of km away from the Chinese mainland. The H-6 would need refueling to operate out side of its "combat radius" of 1,800 km (according to janes) - note combat radius is different to range - so the H-6 would need to be accompanied by several aerial refueling (tanker) aircraft to sustain operations ant any meaningful distance. The H-6 and the accompanying tankers are themselves defenseless, so an adequate number of air-defence fighters would be needed for protection putting further strain on the tanker aircraft to keep the fleet refueled. A question that the Chinese Air Force would also have to decide upon is do they want AEW&C? Without AEW&C the fleet may be at a serious disadvantage against any serious enemy air force.
while chinese interests are indeed now going global, its need for military might with a real global reach is not yet great, its primary concerns remain in its "near seas" and its current and planned future capabilities are good enough or in excess of its near seas needs with the only power matching china being japan(US aside of course) but that is changing rapidly as china continues to modernize, even the USN/USAF is finding that it will painful to interveen in any near seas senario and only more so as time passes. thus with that in mind the chinese airforce is adequate for its currently needs(yes this includes the H-6 and its range). if you think china cannot somehow build a b-52 type bomber you must be joking, the fact that it has not choosen to is a different story. and sure PLAAF,PLAN cannot send a meaningful force to europe but no single european country can expect to send forces to in china's near seas in war and survive either. and certainly not operate in said near seas at will. so if you wanna talk global reach of course france, britain have greater reach, but that greater reach does not directly translate into automatically being better than the PLAAF when we consider all things.

The fact is China has a rather large air force with rather few tanker and supporting aircraft in comparison, this is not good. As a result it can not support large operations abroad at all and at best China could merely deploy a "token force". Presently the H-6 bombers can only be used in regional conflicts as China has a severe lacking of essential supporting aircraft. Another factor to consider is that whether you like it or not but Chinas air force is technologically inferior to that of the USAF, RuAF, RAF or French AF. The best fighters in Chinese service are the watered down export versions of the Russian Su-30 and Su-27s of which you only have ~70 - 80 each. The domestically built J-11 isn't worth it weight in p i s s and s h i t and I ROFL at the rest of the combat fleet.
First, as my first argument states, china is not in any immediate need of global reach for its AF, its main concerns are by and large, regional and its AF is perfectly capable of taking on those pressing challenges. and while its true that china's AF is general lower tech than those of the other top AF's its best aircraft is most definitely not watered down su-30 and su-27's, perhaps u have not followed the news(less likely), or willfully ignore them(more likely) for a while but china has been producing the j-11b, j-16 and so on, which while being based on the su-27/30 it is decicisely better than those aircrafts in addition to the j-10, and i do not account for soon to be operational projects like j-10b, j-20, j-31 etc. and u can rofl all you want but chinese mock combat reports indicate that j-10 routinly crushes the j-11(ie su-27) and the PLAAF would be able to win an airwar over taiwan long enough to land significant forces on the island whether or not the US interveens. so while u may laugh, actual commanders of the likes of the JSDF, USAF,USN account for and take those planes, and the capabilities of PLAAF overall, seriously.
The RAF and French who you are so quick to disregard however are in possession of a comparatively large and capable fleet of tankers, AEW&C, intelligence gathering and other supporting aircraft. They also have sizable fleets of highly capable and technologically sophisticated combat aircraft and weapon systems, and despite your poor attempt at insulting the French operations in Mali, they are fully capable of operating around the globe. For goodness sakes the British and French signed a defence treaty 2 years ago where they agreed to pool such resources such as aerial refueling aircraft - just because the RAF has lent support to the French operations does not mean the French are incapable, but rather that the two nations are acting upon their new defence treaty.
fully capable of, is a loaded statement. capable of what and against whom? the french and british can send planes long distances only because they have bases and aircraft carrier/s. but again those arnt everything, the small numbers they field mean that indivisually, they pose no threat to countries like china, russia, india(lol if u think britain can impose a no fly zone over china) etc. and china is also fielding its first carrier and oh about large AEW&C aircraft , lol even china has 12+ of those(kj-2000 and kj-200), more than britain(news to you, i know), relativly few for a nation the size of china but more is still more. in fact, did you know that PLAAF has more tankers than the RAF? lower tech, yes but the numbers are still there and will only grow quantivly and qualitivly. so the question is really, relativly few asssets but higher tech and overseas bases vs relativly large but lower tech and more limited in global opertions. and frankly the whole global operations thing isnt about capabilities, its about national priorities, china has things to settle in its neighborhood, europe has settled its immediate neighborhood. im 100% sure china can, if it chooses build some more support aircraft, or tankers or aew and press and gain at least some bases it has all the reasources to do so(only exception is large transport which is now being recified by the Y-20), even if those assets will be of a lower tech level than american or european standards.
Like the Americans, the French and British operate military air bases around the world. The Chinese by comparison are absent such a complex network of supply chains and military bases around the world. Thanks to British military bases dotted around the world they have been able to pull of operations such as the Falklands, 1st and 2nd Gulf war, Afghan war etc... all of those campaigns saw a significant deployment of British air power. In fact every single war the UK or France have been engaged in over the last several decades the Chinese would have been incapable of fighting lol
yes, but again only advantage is those bases, which due to the non-intervention policy, china has not pursued, this means relativly little in a direct 1 to 1 comparason of airforces, we are not comparing who can pummle 3rd world nations the fastest. you have to consider other things like for instance size.
And wrong, flightglobal is accurate in saying the Chinese can not match the Japanese if it ever came to a conflict in the skies over the disputed islands in the East China Sea... numbers are irrelevant. The Japs F-15s would dominate with ease.
fan boy much? the only japanese planes with any real staying power(due to distance, go check a map ur self if u dont believe) without tanker support in a air fight over the diaoyutai islands are those f-15J's but they would be fighting many hundreds of chinese fighters and hundreds of those being 4th gen which are in fact a match for the f-15s(over two third of the f-15j fleet is of the older varient built in the 80s and 90s) and because the islands much closer to chinese airbases, the chinese planes will have much better sortie rates and loiter times. the tankers are easy targets(not manurvarable and not stealthy), especially in a war that close with any near peer. so no they would not dominate, and certainly not with ease, in fact its far more likely that china will have upper hand in an airwar over the diaoyutai islands due to the close proximity to chinese bases compared to the distance to japanese bases meaning the only really plane to worry about is the 70 or so F-15J Kai or modernized F-15J these will faced the modernized J-11B/J-10A combo.
You sir are the funny one, go back to making fortune cookies or making cheap knock-off toys or whatever you Chinese like to do.
this part is racist and for this i will report your post
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom