How accurate do you think Global Fire Power is?

[KRAIT]

India can not make its own fighter aircrafts, its MBTs, not even its assault rifles, I reckon. How can India be considered stronger than North Korea? Frankly, if China supported North Korea economically in an all out war between North Korea and India (hypothetical case), I would reckon North Korea has a better chance of winning.

North Korea is just isolated by the West to a large degree while all of India's misdemeanours are actively supported and/or encouraged by the same bunch.




Good point indeed but I do not know if there are any national German fighter aircrafts or civilian planes. Joint ventures or coproduction with other EU members is a different story.

Read more about Indian LCA to be inducted in 2012, Arjun tank already inducted in IA, warships and nuclear submarine, Indian missile capabilities and Space program.

 

[Varunastra]

India can not make its own fighter aircrafts, its MBTs, not even its assault rifles, I reckon. How can India be considered stronger than North Korea? Frankly, if China supported North Korea economically in an all out war between North Korea and India (hypothetical case), I would reckon North Korea has a better chance of winning.

North Korea is just isolated by the West to a large degree while all of India's misdemeanours are actively supported and/or encouraged by the same bunch.

and that^^^ my friends is what i call a troll!!

 

[Banglar Lathial]

Surely you have heard of INSAS assault Rifle?? It has been a much discussed topic on this forum....
And how is it a North Korean victory, if China provides the money?? Talk sense dude!!
Please!!NK may have numbers but most are worthless junk from 1950's......And unlike India they don't even have developing Defense industry...
And did you know that the combined HAL -DRDO budget is less than $1.5 billion??Still they have developed Tejas, Arjun and what-not....

1. INSAS rejected by indian military
INSAS Rifles Rejected By Indian Army | India Defence

2. So called Arjun tank not inducted by any country except India, which also plans to use many more T-90 from russia than its own "Arjun"
3. Does not matter who provides money or supplies, a victory is a victory. Vietnam's victory against USA is Vietnamese victory despite whatever the source of weapons and other forms of support for Vietnam may have been.
4. North Korea also designed MBTs and other major military equipment and with only 20m people, they have held out successfully against USA for over 5 decades despite most of the world toeing the American line.
5. North Korean literacy rate is 100%. Indian illiterates are more than any other country in the whole world.
6. The vast majority of Indian fighter aircrafts, MBTs, or any other major or minor weapons systems are junk from the 1950s also, the difference is most of India's so called latest weapons like "Arjun" and Tejas are junk also, that is why no one trusts them, not even Indian military.

 

[Varunastra]

1. INSAS rejected by indian military
INSAS Rifles Rejected By Indian Army | India Defence

2. So called Arjun tank not inducted by any country except India, which also plans to use many more T-90 from russia than its own "Arjun"
3. Does not matter who provides money or supplies, a victory is a victory. Vietnam's victory against USA is Vietnamese victory despite whatever the source of weapons and other forms of support for Vietnam may have been.
4. North Korea also designed MBTs and other major military equipment and with only 20m people, they have held out successfully against USA for over 5 decades despite most of the world toeing the American line.
5. North Korean literacy rate is 100%. Indian illiterates are more than any other country in the whole world.
6. The vast majority of Indian fighter aircrafts, MBTs, or any other major or minor weapons systems are junk from the 1950s also, the difference is most of India's so called latest weapons like "Arjun" and Tejas are junk also, that is why no one trusts them, not even Indian military.

1- seriously a 2007 article??......if it had been B.S. then we would not have made it our standard army rifle!
2-India does not have plans to export it b4 fulfilling our requirements.......T-90 was ordered to fill in the gap b4 more advanced versions like arjun mkii and FMBT etc arrive....see this link-Arjun tank outruns, outguns Russian T-90
3-not relating to india
4-not relating to india
5-blah blah......and our scientists are recruited by NASA
6-junk from 1950's????i don't know of any weapon except for MIG-21 that was "designed" in 1950's(of course our mig-21 bisons are as strong as f-16's but we have started putting them out of service)......as per as arjun goes it has started to be inducted in the indian army and they consider it the most superior vehicle in their arsenal.....and as per tejas goes it would be officially inducted in our airforce in 2012 and it is a 4.5 gen fighter plane with stealth features(not as much as a 5th gen aircraft by the way).

but b4 u blabber about our millitary i'll suggest you read these articles-
Indian Armed Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Indian Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Indian Air Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Indian Navy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[AlexAli7]

And whats also important is how quickly and easily they can be manufactured... think of the soviet union during WWII if it wasent for their super simple and effective T-34s they probably wouldn't have won
(first post dont kill me)

 

[Mav3rick]

1- seriously a 2007 article??......if it had been B.S. then we would not have made it our standard army rifle!
2-India does not have plans to export it b4 fulfilling our requirements.......T-90 was ordered to fill in the gap b4 more advanced versions like arjun mkii and FMBT etc arrive....see this link-Arjun tank outruns, outguns Russian T-90
3-not relating to india
4-not relating to india
5-blah blah......and our scientists are recruited by NASA
6-junk from 1950's????i don't know of any weapon except for MIG-21 that was "designed" in 1950's(of course our mig-21 bisons are as strong as f-16's but we have started putting them out of service)......as per as arjun goes it has started to be inducted in the indian army and they consider it the most superior vehicle in their arsenal.....and as per tejas goes it would be officially inducted in our airforce in 2012 and it is a 4.5 gen fighter plane with stealth features(not as much as a 5th gen aircraft by the way).

but b4 u blabber about our millitary i'll suggest you read these articles-
Indian Armed Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Indian Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Indian Air Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Indian Navy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You had to ruin a perfectly acceptable reply with that junk, you just had to didn't you?

 

[The_Sidewinder]

^ Mevrick
toattaly agreed..

 

[Varunastra]

You had to ruin a perfectly acceptable reply with that junk, you just had to didn't you?

MiG-21 Bison
Upgraded version for export, the Indian Air Force being the first customer. Equipped with the Phazotron Kopyo (Spear) airborne radar, which is capable of simultaneously tracking 8 targets and engaging 2 of them with semi-active radar homing air-to-air missiles, such as the Vympel R-27. The radar also enable the fighter to deploy active radar homing air-to-air missiles such as the Vympel R-77 when an additional channel is incorporated. Russia has claimed that this version is equivalent to the early F-16. It performed well against F-15s and F-16s of the USAF during Indo-US joint air exercises.

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 variants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Koovie]

1. INSAS rejected by indian military
INSAS Rifles Rejected By Indian Army | India Defence

2. So called Arjun tank not inducted by any country except India, which also plans to use many more T-90 from russia than its own "Arjun"
3. Does not matter who provides money or supplies, a victory is a victory. Vietnam's victory against USA is Vietnamese victory despite whatever the source of weapons and other forms of support for Vietnam may have been.
4. North Korea also designed MBTs and other major military equipment and with only 20m people, they have held out successfully against USA for over 5 decades despite most of the world toeing the American line.
5. North Korean literacy rate is 100%. Indian illiterates are more than any other country in the whole world.
6. The vast majority of Indian fighter aircrafts, MBTs, or any other major or minor weapons systems are junk from the 1950s also, the difference is most of India's so called latest weapons like "Arjun" and Tejas are junk also, that is why no one trusts them, not even Indian military.

still we are among the top powers, where your country will never be (In case BD is still your country since you left it)

 

[Hello_10]

1.) USA
2.) Russia
3.) China
4.) India
5.) UK
6.) Turkey
7.) South Korea
8.) France
9.) Japan
10.) Israel
11.) Brazil
12.) Iran
13.) Germany
14.) Taiwan
15.) Pakistan
16.) Egypt
17.) Italy
18.) Indonesia
19.) Thailand
20.) Ukraine
21.) Poland
22.) North Korea
23.) Philippines
24.) Australia
25.) Canada
26.) Saudi Arabia
27.) Malaysia
28.) Sweden
29.) Spain
30.) Mexico
31.) South Africa
32.) Argentina
33.) Greece
34.) Switzerland
35.) Syria
36.) Iraq
37.) Finland
38.) Algeria
39.) Libya
40.) Norway
41.) Singapore
42.) Denmark
43.) Jordan
44.) Ethiopia
45.) Chile
46.) Portugal
47.) Venezuela
48.) Yemen
49.) Belgium
50.) Georgia
51.) Afghanistan
52.) Lebanon
53.) Kuwait
54.) Nepal
55.) Qatar

This list is being used everywhere, and personally, I think this list is quite unaccurate and not a good source for this kind of information. It doesn't take into account the modernity of each country, nuclear weapons, missile technology, intelligence services etc. Above that, this list doesn't include countries like Morocco, Tunisia, Bangladesh, Nigeria etc..

What are you thoughts?

there are few things which can't be measured 'accurately', like corruption, military strength, technolocial competitivenss etc. most of the time we find western propagandas behind it. but it does give us an idea on 'first cut' basis, its also true.........

my list would as below:

1.) USA
2.) Russia
3.) China
4.) India
5.) Germany
6.) Japan
7.) France
8.) South Korea
9.) Turkey
10.) Israel
11.) Brazil
12.) UK

guys, UK is now the country who may win the number game only, not any open war. their troops aren't as capable that they may 'alone' win over even Nepal, also . British may now win the war of 'Publicity' only, by using their media, not any face to face war by their own. and if we may take out their only Aircraft Carrier then we wont find Britain even in top 30 also British army is just not capable enough to win on any part of the world by themselves right now

 

[Anglosapien]

Hello-10, you are, of course, an anti-British imbecile. Not unlike many on this thread. I won't dignify your pathetic attempts to dismiss the British forces with a response, it is apparent your grasp of world affairs is not strong by your list, and i can only attribute this to the lack of electricity in your peasant Russian village, for which you have my sympathies.

Sweeping statements are made by highly misinformed people on these forums, usually biased towards their own nation and therefore ridiculously inaccurate. There are nations in people's Top 10 that wouldn't even make the Top 50 in real terms. Nations with little or no combat experience against a professional force, who buy all of their hardware from first-world nations because they lack the know how to produce internally, whose ranks are mainly filled with demotivated, ill-disciplined and poorly trained men, and who have either been previously defeated by, or have historically relied on other countries for their defence.

I believe the Global Firepower list is more or less accurate. If nuclear armament was taken into account then the top four would include The USA, GB, France & Russia, based solely upon the fact they are the only four nations currently able to station SSBN's anywhere in the world without detection.

Great Britain however, remains the only nation since World War 2 to have conducted warfare outside its own hemisphere and returned victorious.

Conventionally, it is all very well believing a nation would overcome another nation based upon hardware alone, but when it comes down to real terms, there are those nations with experience of warfare and the understanding of how to win, and those without. You have either done it or you haven't. Of course it helps if you able to field the most advanced war machines currently available, such as the Royal Navy with their Type 45 Destroyers and Astute Class Hunter/Killers. There are people on here who claim Britain doesn't have a 'Blue Water Navy'. The Royal Navy may well be smaller in size than any at any time in its 500 year Blue Naval history, but smaller doesn't necessarily mean less effective, and you really shouldn't believe all you read in your national propoganda or the British press anyway.

The fact remains in the 21st century there are very few (if any) scenarios that would include all-out conventional war between developed, democratic nations. NATO and the UN will seek to resolve conflict in other theatres, and when force is required it will be a coalition force sent.

 

[applesauce]

I believe the Global Firepower list is more or less accurate. If nuclear armament was taken into account then the top four would include The USA, GB, France & Russia, based solely upon the fact they are the only four nations currently able to station SSBN's anywhere in the world without detection.

i disagree with this, if nuclear armament is taken into account its not just SSBN's that determine the top forces, SSBN's are merely one way to achieve a credible second strike (there are other ways, such a road mobile platforms), every member of the P-5 has a credible global second strike capability. others such as israel, india and pakistan have a regional second strike and is actively working on a credible global capability.

Great Britain however, remains the only nation since World War 2 to have conducted warfare outside its own hemisphere and returned victorious.

ahem, USA in say.. the first gulf war

The fact remains in the 21st century there are very few (if any) scenarios that would include all-out conventional war between developed, democratic nations. NATO and the UN will seek to resolve conflict in other theatres, and when force is required it will be a coalition force sent.

there has been no direct wars(exception maybe in korea, but china was not really a that great of a power then) between great powers since ww2

 

[Anglosapien]

i disagree with this, if nuclear armament is taken into account its not just SSBN's that determine the top forces, SSBN's are merely one way to achieve a credible second strike (there are other ways, such a road mobile platforms), every member of the P-5 has a credible global second strike capability. others such as israel, india and pakistan have a regional second strike and is actively working on a credible global capability.

QUOTE=ahem, USA in say.. the first gulf war

- SSBN's are not only the ultimate first strike weapon, unrestricted by geography and range, but they are also THE ONLY credible second strike option. If you cannot remove the opponents SSBN's from the equation then you cannot possibly win any nuclear conflict. You can destroy a nation with ICBMs and destroy their land-based weapons in the process, but will face your own annihilation in return. China is the only member of the P5 I did not mention because they do not currently have undetectable SSBN's.

- The Gulf War was a coalition effort including 30+ nations and therefore does not count as stand-alone action.

- I agree with your last point, we were making the same point.....

 

[ThePingu]

Of course this website is complete bullshit and deserves no credit.
Many figures are false and some countries (like France) have their stats "sabotaged" while others (like Britain) are overranked.
To stay with the France-Britain case, I noticed that defence budgets were both false for a long time.
France's budget according to globalfire was 44 billions and the British one was 73 billions, this while in reality they both have the same budget: 62 billions.
France's budget was recently fixed (without upgrading its ranking, of course) but Britain's is still false.
I have come to think that the guy who made this ranking really dislike France since he also pointed that France have no destroyers at all while the Horizon class frigate are destroyers.
You could think that he just wasn't aware of it, right? Actually no, because he did count the Italian ones as destroyers.
So yes, this is voluntary.
Also when you compare France and Britain's stats, there is nothing (except maybe the false British budget) that would justify Britain to be ranked two countries higher.
I only talked about France and Britain's cases, but if you really look at it, there are many countries with "sabotaged" or overrated stats and ranking.
So yes, this website is ****, and also I really don't know why people give it so much credit since it uses no source and have no kind of legitimity at all.
A big mystery to me.

 

[shivansps]

Argentina 32? Argentina should be a NEGATIVE number on that list...

We have NOTHING operational, no planes, ships, anything, the democratic goverments are anti-military here, they give $0 money to maintain the material operational, let alone update them.

Right now Argentina is on a very bad situacion with Ghana(they are probably puppets of the world official pirate country), they have illegally detained A.R.A. Libertad, with is a unarmed training vessel, a floating embassy, flagship of the navy and a symbol.
And ship has diplomatic inmunity, and Ghana is commiting a act of war, on December 15 will known what is the ITLOS will determine about it, but Ghana already said they will not release it.
The only way to recover it is a direct military intervention, but we can do nothing about because we have absoluting nothing operational... and we are talking about GHANA! they have what? patrol boats? two Meko 360 destroyers and they are done, but no one of them are operational, plus no logistic ships to operate at 7500Km from out borders.

So yeah, Argentina does not even qualify to enter the list.