What's new

New GlobalFirePower List seems very Biased (Pakistan dropped to 17th, Iran Rose)

. . . .
These lists do not make a difference. Militaries around the world especially in Pakistan always try to keep things under the wraps.
 
.
. . .
17th is reasonable , we have long way to go to improve we are such a humble nation
We have not really bought anything substantial in recent times

a) Just from FM-90
b) HQ-19
c) 50 JF17 Fighter Jets
d) Few helicopters from Russia
e) Some locally made improvements to Babur

Saudia on other hand has bought a 100-200 Fighter Jets , S-300 from Russia and Patriot Missiles from USA and more weapons from other countries on Joint development basis and they are ranked 26th

Eypt on other hand have got Helicopter carrier and Deadly helicopters from Russia and Rafale with no missiles clearly lot of stuff bought
 
Last edited:
. . . . .
It's almost as if many members on this forum are incapable of reading or really are that stupid. If you actually click on the link, you will see it says the following:


The finalized Global Firepower ranking relies on over 55 individual factors to determine a given nation's PowerIndex ('PwrIndx') score. Our unique formula allows for smaller, more technologically-advanced, nations to compete with larger, lesser-developed, ones. Modifiers (in the form of bonuses and penalties) are added to further refine the list. Some qualities to observe in regards to the finalized ranking:

+ Ranking does not rely solely on the total number of weapons available to any one country (though it is a factor) but rather focuses onweapon diversity within the number totals to provide a better balance of firepower available. For example, fielding 100 minesweepers does not equal the strategic / tactical value of fielding 10 aircraft carriers.
+ Nuclear stockpiles are NOT taken into account but recognized / suspected nuclear powers do receive a bonus.
+ First World, Second World, and Third World statuses are taken into account.
+ Geographical factors, logistical flexibility, natural resources, and local industry influence the final ranking.
+ Available manpower is a key consideration; nations with large populations tend to rank higher due to the availability of personnel for supporting both war and industry.
+ Land-locked nations are NOT penalized for lack of a navy, however, naval powers ARE penalized for lack of diversity in available assets. For example, 100 patrol boats does not equate the same advantage that fielding 4 guided-missile frigates and 2 nuclear-attack submarines does.
+ NATO allies receive a slight bonus due to the theoretical sharing of resources should one of the members commit to war.
+ Financial stability / strength is taken into account as finances represent one of several important factors in running a successful campaign.
+ Current political / military leadership is NOT taken into account as this can be highly subjective and not necessarily influence in-the-field indivudal combat performance.

For 2018 there are a total of 136 countries included in the GFP database. New to 2018 are Ireland, Montenegro, and Liberia.

Arrow graphics correspond to each nation's placement against the previous year's list. Green Arrows indicate an increase in rank whilstRed Arrows reflect a decline. Gray 'Double Arrows' reflect no change in ranking; this does not necessarily indicate that no changes occurred across individual values but more so that changes were not great enough to affect year-over-year ranking. Increases/declines are based on many factors and can be related to attrition, financial instability, population fluxes and the like.

Regardless, I think the ranking is biased and rubbish. Somehow, Pakistan has a worse ranking than Indonesia, Iran, Brazil and Egypt.

Anyway, at least one other thread was already posted on this topic so no need to start another one. @The Eagle
 
. .

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom