Yuropoors can't even afford having atleast 10 aircraft carriers

>ramp

>north korea
>6600 tanks, 2/3 of which are t-34, 1/4 are t-55 and all the rest are shitty copies of t-62
>943 planes, 95% of them are mig-15 and mig-21, the most modern planes are mig-23 produced 40 years ago

>78 submarines
>95% of those being permanently submerged

I'm pretty sure their subs are less advanced than these ones your navy had during WW2.

we use our aircraft carriers back and forth in the mediterraneum to bring refugees in europe

Our best soldiers with the most modern weapons and equipment we have were easily beaten by a bunch of Ukrainian peasants armed with outdated soviet weaponry. Really makes you think.

Useless in the Chiapas jungle
IFVs got the job done during insurection
Anyway this will change in near future

Holy shit Rossiya that's a lot of tonks

why is north korea in the last position?

There's no point to develop an aircraft-catapult, since we have no planes for that carrier anyway.

Or you know having the ability to fight nowhere near your territory. Beers mat be able to fly around the world but close air support can't. Not to mention helicopters and landing craft to move your troops.

Most of them are old and in storage.

They are definitely noisy diesel-electrics which is pretty much a temporaryily submerged coffin in this day and age.

The Admiral Kuznetsov is an aircraft-carrying cruiser – in other words, an aircraft carrier with powerful missiles. Russia is the only country in the world with such a heavily armed aircraft carrier.

It can defend itself with 12 Granit anti-ship cruise missiles, six AK-630 automatic weapon systems, two Udav rocket launchers with 60 depth charges, a Kinzhal surface-to-air missile system and a Kortik gun-missile system, prevent the enemy from getting too close, whether from the air or from underwater.

It will soon be deployed to the Mediterranean with 15 Sukhoi Su-33 all-weather air superiority fighters and Mikoyan MiG-29K/KUB multirole fighters, and 10 Kamov Ka-52K, Ka-27, and Ka-31 helicopters.

the
>ramp

meme is overstated by people who don't understand/know what is doctrine

I have no idea what you're talking about. Right now it's got SU-33s and Mig-29Ks. It even removed the Granit missiles to make it more of a pure aircraft carrier.

Soviet army had 68000 tanks in 1989.

I asked about your carrier.

They took off the Granits to make room for more planes.

You should have done a tank rush t b h

>spend Russia's amount 8 fold
>barely ahead of them
>thinking of useful shit that money could have done

We need more nukes and tanks.

It's not a carrier, it's a heavy *aircraft-carrying* missile cruiser.

Aircraft carriers are obsolete

America-class (with well decks), Mistrals and similar ships are the future

You have a huge quantitative aircraft advantage, but in a hypothetical war near Russia's borders and without nukes, I think it will be completely neutralized by their land AA systems.

However if you decide to fight them in Syria there is little they can do unfortunately.

Mistrals can only carry helicopters, and the America is good in a support role but it's not capable of fulfilling the role of a dedicated carrier on it's own.

>I have no idea what you're talking about.

Of course you do.

>Right now it's got SU-33s and Mig-29Ks.

There are only 12 Su-33s currently deployed on Kuznetsov.

>Mig-29Ks

No, it doesn't have Mig-29K or MIg-29KUB in the wing.

It's apparently deploying to the Med in October with Mig-29Ks in it's air wing according to the sources i've found.

Even if it only had Su-33s it wouldn't fit your definition of "no planes".

How is this determined actually?
We have more active military, reserve military, air power and naval power than Sweden. The only one they beat us in is military spending.

Smells like bullshit honestly.

Only ~1700 of them are modern ones (650 T-72B3, 480 T-80BV, 560 T-90A and T-90AM plus some amount of T-14).

>Best Korea

As expected of the Master Un

We don't need any. We have Amerilards who love to die for us.

thank you for your service,

I assume because most of their stuff is more modern. Also I think they have more Gripens than you do Hornets.

Are you Ukrainian?

>Even if it only had Su-33s it wouldn't fit your definition of "no planes".

12 is fucking nothing. Nimitz-class and Ford-class carriers have a fixed wing of 80-90 aircrafts onboard.

It is, those lists are always retarded. Very hard to quantify training, technically level ete without creating some retarded flawed point system.

How will submarine warfare between Russia and USA play out? I've read about Russian submarines that are so quiet that they are called "black holes" but I am not sure if they would have an overall advantage.

Does USA have a working equivalent of the Shkval supercavitation torpedos that are several times faster than normal ones?

Swedish men are taller, stronger and faster than finns.

5 Swedish warriors equal a tank

>no planes
>12 planes

Hmmm

Yes, I am Ukrainian. I had to flee to Russia from Luhansk 2 years ago, but i still love my fatherland and will return there right after Kiev regain a control over that territory.

Trump will fix that

I'm sure they are unflyable, have no fuel, spare parts and ammunition.

You're a disgrace really. Zero self-awareness

Nah you're not ukrainian, you're a diagrace.

Nope. More like 40-50.

Only peak deployment with maximum load can carry 80-90. And this ruins yhe combat effectiveness since there are planes all over the deck.

wake up, Taras, ты oбocpaлcя

Okay.

Because the reality was that Ukraine's military got BTFO by paramilitary forces drunk on vodka.

True, but there are different doctrines. The Su-33s would be mostly used in a defensive role to protect the fleet.

I've heard that about Virginia and Astute subs, not about Russian subs though I suppose it's not impossible it's true. Ambient noise level of the ocean is generally around 90db, i've heard Chinese estimates on the noise level of the Virginia and Astute are at 95db, though who knows if those are accurate.

The Russian sub fleet is fairly old for the most part though. The Improved Akula is supposed to be fairly comparable to the 688i in noise level, with the Yasen somewhere between there and a Virginia. These are public estimates for the most part though, so hard to trust them. Also Russia doesn't have very many of these more modern subs.

Well, you'll have 40-50 fighters (Hornets). There are more actual aircraft than that. You'll have 4-5 Hawkeyes, 4-5 Growlers, 2 Greyhounds and close to 20 helicopters. You really will have close to 80 aircraft on board, you just won't have close to 80 fighters.

Thailand has a nuke

what de fuq

Why is France below the UK, it seems that they have more of everything including nukes.

Also if South Korea was allowed to develop nukes it would be stronger than both France and the UK.

You would do the same if you were in my place. Here i have got an accommodation and a well-paid job.

Shut the fuck up, you both. Our guys have beaten the best Russian special forces, defended Mariupol and Kharkiv. That's Russians who got BTFO with thier Russian world and so-called "Novorossiya".

>Russia bas half the budget of China.
>still ahead

>UK has less planes, less troops, less tanks, less warheads, no AC (dunno why it counts one) and one more submarine than France.
>ahead of it because higher budget

I have no fucking clue how this ranking work.
If you consider that Russia is currently stronger and more interventionist than China, France should be ahead of UK because it currently has a larger.military and stronger will to intervene and go alone.
If you consider soft power and future perspective, UK might rank higher than France, but in this case China should be ahead of Russia.....

No coherence at all, its just a kid ranking

It's a very old chart actually. Notice it shows Britain as still having a carrier. I think in the 2016 ranking it placed France above Britain.

That said Global Firepower is a meme in the first place.

Why didn't you go to the holy EU though? You went to the hated "aggressor".

> Our guys have beaten the best Russian special forces, defended Mariupol and Kharkiv

Are you a Russian that is having fun parodying an Ukrainian? I refuse to believe you are this retarded.

The attack on Mariupol was called off by the cucks in Moscow and the same reason you have Kharkiv is that they never tried to take it.

You literally have zero credit for that.

The vast majority of the population in both Mariupol and Kharkiv is pro-Russian and living in fear of the retards currently in power and their jewish ((nazi)) punitive militias.

Meanwhile your attacks on Novorussia were repelled by just a slight "northern wind" (slight enough to maintain plausible deniability) and mostly by the superior organization, coordination and military know-how of Russia. And by the local farmers and miners, yes.

U.S. subs during the cold war were quieter which is where the "Crazy Ivan" came from. The Soviets would loose track of our subs but we would see theirs the whole time. Our Navy unsurprisingly made the Soviet's submarines out to be better than they were to secure more funding.

Like I've already said, these lists are pretty retarded. You can't quantify a lot of things.

better planes, better tanks, better logistics and force projection

Mexico military is relatively capable, too bad most.of it is on cartels' payroll or even cartel themselves (Zetas).
Our country won't matter politically ans militarily as long as we haven't solved our shit. We still have some economic soft power due to high growth and domestic demand coupled with oil exports. But for how long?

What do you mean North Korea doesn't have the greatest submarine fleet in the world?

It is kind of ridiculous that anyone takes it seriously....

North Korea has at least 3 millions reserve personnel and a fucking TEN YEARS (10) conscription with, amusingly enough, mandatory celibacy during service.

Remove proxy, degenerate.

Russia is more technologically advanced than China, even with reverse-engineering the Chinese still have troubles constructing a decent 4th generation jet engine for example, and they can only dream of constructing an AA system as formidable as the S-400 ( I won't even mention S-500). They also had to copy the S-300 as well.

The Russians are simply creative, despite all the brain drain and being dwarfed by the R&D budgets of USA and China they actually manage to keep up overall and to be ahead in some areas.

They have better artillery (with longer range and more firepower), better rocket systems of all kinds (ballistic missiles, AA, etc), quite impressive electronic warfare systems, they have their own equivalent of GPS (GLONASS) and so on.

It all comes down to corruption
The stupid factor is, when the military arrives to an area to provide security the mayor of the municipality has control of the military while they are there
Thats the corruption, one of my friends from high school is on the army, they are told to kill the sicarios because mayors or municipal police would let them out
Zetas are a different matter, their brutality is a sight into our militaries point of training, gorila warfare to take on a much larger force by intimidation and destroy someone´s morale, my friend tells me a lot, and its the only way of fixing this shit is take on goverment corruption

The Rafale is at least equivalent if not better than the eurofighter.
Tanks are equivalent but I'll give you an advantage.
Logistics and force projection is clearly in favour of France. They do have a functional AC and repeatedly went in Africa alone in the last years. Last time UK did the same.was sierra Leone 15 years ago if I'm not.mistaken.

Globally nearly identical doctrines and equipment with a alught advantage for France because historical spending boosts now turning at your advantage. Especially considering you have slightly better Intel and SF.
Brexit might afeft your soft power though

>Why didn't you go to the holy EU though? You went to the hated "aggressor".

Because i had no opportunity to move to the EU, obviously.

>The attack on Mariupol was called off by the cucks in Moscow and the same reason you have Kharkiv is that they never tried to take it.

The attack on Mariupol was warded off by our army and national guard. Russian terrorists didn't occupy it only because they weren't able to do that.

>The vast majority of the population in both Mariupol and Kharkiv is pro-Russian

There are no people with a pro-russian sentiment anywhere in Ukraine, not even in the occupied Crimean AR. And people living in the East and South-East hate the katsaps more than anyone else.

Remove yourself from Russia if you don't appreciate it and feel part of it, debil

>There are no people with a pro-russian sentiment anywhere in Ukraine, not even in the occupied Crimean AR. And people living in the East and South-East hate the katsaps more than anyone else.

quality post, you are obviously normal and adequate human and not retarded at all

Typhoon has some solid advantages over the Rafale. An in-service HMD, two-way datalink with Meteor, and far more weaponry integration.

The prob is not only the gov. Everybody in mexico is corrupt , the problem is people's mentality. How many of my friends are sad that the politicians are corrupt but prefer to give policemen a handout (mordida) instead of facing a higher fine or legal trouble?
We are all part of it, and until people are educated and have higher standards everything will stay the same. We need to be more citizen oriented and less selfish. Today everyvody think they are smarter than the rest and if they can get an advantage for.themselves by fucking the community they will do it without second thoughts. Its valid from the smaller details like throwing trash in the street or cutting lines of car at the traffic light to the most important like political corruption or health scandals.
Do you remember the interview of the old guy saying: "of course the PRI steals, but at least it let me steal too" ? To me it sums up everything that's fucked here

Things will take decades before any change is possible and no law will make it easy or fast.

Its education m8 and I get what you are saying
I remember that mayor that confessed stealing from his comunity, "Le robe poquito" AND HE GOT FUCKING RE ELECTED
We need to learn how to love this place, and love each other so we stop being so greedy and self centered
Also wages need to go up, police training needs to be implemented average police are kinda good lads but they get overwhelmed by everything and end up bending into shit

What? Oo
The rafale was designed as a multirole from the start while the typhoon was an air superiority project (that's why the French bailed out of the project and made their own).
It was later retrofitted as a multirole with more modern avionics, but only the latest gen can compete with the rafale on this respect.
Scale of production helped flatten the differences faster but I would never consider it to be superior to the Rafale.

Anyhow they are nearly identical and arguing about it is pointless. As of today Armee de l'air has more equipment and projection capabilities than the RAF, but the F35 will change that

>The Rafale is at least equivalent if not better than the eurofighter.

The other way round. Eurofighter has the A2A advantage over Rafale.

>Logistics and force projection is clearly in favour of France. They do have a functional AC and repeatedly went in Africa alone in the last years. Last time UK did the same.was sierra Leone 15 years ago if I'm not.mistaken.

UK totally out tonnes France for logistics. For France's light three logistics ships UK has one light, two medium and three heavyweight logistics ships.

France has three amphibious ships, UK has four.

>They do have a functional AC and repeatedly went in Africa alone in the last years. Last time UK did the same.was sierra Leone 15 years ago if I'm not.mistaken.

Look to Afgan and Iraq. UK has far, far more standing deployments. Numbers aren't even really comparable.

Lol.

explain yourself belgium

Isn't this outdated? Plus it's kinda meme chart, doesn't really tell you on what basis it ranks countries

Its based in raw numbers
Does not takes into acount the training of the soldiers, quality of equiptment, effectivness in battle

Yup, chart is pretty useless then. Is there an actual chart which takes the factors you mentioned into account?

Can someone pls answer this? I'm curious as well

Imagine if you kept and used all your old phones, kinda like that.

>Remove yourself from Russia if you don't appreciate it and feel part of it
I will.

>debil
And you move to Russia if you like it so much.

1. To land special forces in SK
2. To prevent American reinforcements from landing (you can fly in troops and vehicles, but it's far more efficient to have RO/RO ships to deliver thousands of vehicles at once).
3. To attempt to take out American carrier groups

They're mostly mini-subs with pretty much no range or speed.

France often relies on us for some of its heavy logistics, we used our own logistics in Afghanistan and Iraq, our force projection is simply better.
Our equipment is largely also better.
Don't believe the memes, Brexit will improve our soft power as we aren't so closely tied into the decisions of every-single-fucking-european country..

>Why is France below the UK, it seems that they have more of everything including nukes.

>Logistics and force projection is clearly in favour of France.

France has no strategic airlift
no large tankers
no heavy helicopter transports
no 5th gen fighters
and if you compare ship-to-ship or sub-to-sub, the French one is often clearly inferior to the British one. Examples are type 45 destroyer vs horizon class destroyer, or Astute class attack sub vs Suffren class. Example in pic.

Their big advantage over us right now is one aircraft carrier, which is out of commission for something like 18 months and has to be refuelled every 7 years (a process which takes many many months). UK will always have an aircraft carrier available, with superior fighters sitting on them and (eventually) in greater numbers.

>Globally nearly identical doctrines and equipment

Wrong and wrong. Completely wrong. The difference in French and British doctrines is one of the driving factors that the British abandoned the Horizon Class destroyer project.

What's the point of this? You don't need it for defense.

You said it, typhoon is good at a2a, the Captor-M has indeed a longer range than the RBE2 but is vastly inferior when scanning ground. This will change with CAPTOR-E but its years ahead. It also cruises faster and as a better maneuverability at high speed/ low payload. Things are completely reversed when looking at bombing targets or supporting troops on the ground. The rafale maneuver better at low speeds, low altitudes and with high payload.

It is also notable that rafale was designed with more RCS reduction in mind and has a better electronic warfare system.

As you said, when the meteor comes into play, the typhoon will exploit it better, giving it advantage in long distance a2a. But regarding ground munitions the rafale has a clear advantage with better targeting and load capabilities. It also can deliver nukes.

In conclusion, the typhoon do outperform the Rafale in a2a but is a lousy at everything else.
Rafale is not as good as taking other jet planes down but much more versatile and oriented toward ground.

I do consider it more fit for the current world of threat that these nations are facing. How many MIGs did the Typhoon had to take down in Iran compared to bombing or air support missions?

Projection capabilities in a coalition with the US support is not the same thing as going alone. I was only comparing sole interventions where only the capabilities of the country is involved.
In that regard , French intervened in cote d'ivoire, Central Africa or Mali alone. While you only did it 15 years ago in sierra Leone. If the Brits had to go by themselves Falkland style, I'm not sure they would be as performant as the French, the depednanxe on uncle Sam deployment capabilities is too big in your case

Americans like being involved in things, Russia needs to feel scary, China wants to bully people

Yes you do. Defence is defence of the national interest around the world. Since your country is affected by things that happen elsewhere, it must have the ability to project

>Projection capabilities in a coalition with the US support is not the same thing as going alone. I was only comparing sole interventions where only the capabilities of the country is involved.

> French intervened in cote d'ivoire, Central Africa or Mali alone.

Wrong. They were assisted in the logistics department for the reasons I outlined here Pic related is French vehicles leaving an RAF C-17 in Mali

Trst

you would be right, but you are assuming the targets we expect to go up against will be like they have previously, i think perhaps the government expects war with countries with large and advanced air forces.

There is a different dynamic in the RAF to the FAF because the UK is designing its air warfare doctrine around two fighters which will likely operate together in an expeditionary scenario. The Typhoon and F-35. The government still wants the Typhoon to be as multi-role as possible but not so it sacrifices the A2A capability because the F-35 will become the bomber of choice after it gets going.

Yup some C17 were lended to bring VABs from France and Chad to Mali. The delays in the A400M program sure did hamper their force projection for a while.

As I said in my initial post, they are mostly comparable militaries, French currently have more equipment, and they used to be better. UK invested more recently and will be better equipped in the coming years.
Honestly today its a tie for me, and UK will take the advantage soon.
The French invested in too few projects and lacked the tech advantage the UK is retiring from its cooperation with the US (the astute is an excellent example).

My initial remark was more about the criteria behind the ranking, which seemed inconsistent to me. If it was on number of equipment only France should be ahead, if quality and other power were considered China would be ahead of Russia.

why are Bulgarians always so pro russian?

>The delays in the A400M program sure did hamper their force projection for a while.

The A400M, after all its problems are sorted, is a first class tactical airlift but is not strategic airlift. French force projection will suffer until they get something bigger.

not always, we have plenty of brainwashed russophobes including on Cred Forums

But I know my history and we have deep cultural, religious and blood ties with the Russians.

Plus I have communicated with quite a few Russians both in real life and online and that only confirmed my feeling that they are bros.

>#14

Not bad.

This is indeed true. They are relying on other European nations for refuels and heavy payload indeed.
From.what I know they are not planning any investment on that regard, and try to compensate by having troops available locally on close by base and increase rotations. Not optimal.
Same, no 5th gen multirole in the pipe.

That's why UK will take a strong lead over French military for years to come

>If it was on number of equipment only France should be ahead, if quality and other power were considered China would be ahead of Russia.

I think it's meant to be a combination of both. Anyway it lists HMS Ocean as an aircraft carrier, which is dodgy, for the UK it should say 0 aircraft carriers

I'm pretty sure the Illustrious was still in service when this chart was made.

>From.what I know they are not planning any investment on that regard, and try to compensate by having troops available locally on close by base and increase rotations. Not optimal.

This is related to why I criticised your saying "globally nearly identical doctrines". What this shows to me is that the French are limiting their serious military activities to Africa and the Middle-East, where you can maybe get away with just A400Ms (although it is much less efficient)

The UK seems to be trying to remain truly global, however what we have right now is a skeleton force we badly need meat on the bones, i.e. greater numbers. At least the increased activity in the Asia-Pacific by the UK is encouraging

>I'm pretty sure the Illustrious was still in service when this chart was made.

Maybe, but Lusty lost her fighters in 2010 and I'm pretty sure the chart is from 2014

You can fight against third world countries anywhere in the world. Aircraft carriers would be absolutely useful against any country with decent cruise missiles. AEGIS might be a decent system, but it won't withstand a saturation attack.

I think that we agree, just we aren't speaking of the same timeframe.

Up until very recently France and UK had extremely similar doctrines. Some slights difference on what was more strategic but globally the same mix:
Medium sized specialized military with strong projection capabilities worldwide. High techs devs to remain relevant and get some sales while retaining industrial knowledge and strategic capabilities.
Nuclear disuasion, mainly through submarines
Strong Intel, yet relying on the US for most specialized things (drones, some cyberwarfare, local agents etc.)

But today things are taking different paths. I'd say that up to the early 2000s the French were slightly more successful at it, but today they drastically cut their spending and have lost any vision.
The Brits knew to enter the cyber game alongside the NSA and have a better strategic vision as well as higher spending.

I don't see the situation change, the French will have to rely more and more on a potential European army, a project that they have repeatedly killed in the past.

I assume you were saying "useless". And that's exactly what AEGIS is designed to do. It's only getting harder to penetrate as upgrades come in.

Yeah we pretty much agree. The UK going heavy into cyber was a really good decision, I believe we were the first Western country to publicly, explicitly, announce that we would use cyber for attack if necessary. Which shows confidence.

However we have a serious manpower/quantity problem, which bothers me, and also we should be careful not to get too reliant on the US. The F-35 decision was the right one, but in other things we should start being more independent.

>I don't see the situation change, the French will have to rely more and more on a potential European army, a project that they have repeatedly killed in the past.

They've historically been against it for good reason - the rest of Europe isn't much interested in funding and dying for French neocolonialism in Africa. An EU military will be focused purely on defence of the continent and maybe very small peacekeeping missions.

Can you imagine Poland being asked to send troops into Mali while the Russians are doing some military exercise near their eastern border? What a mess.

>123 tanks
>30 modernized T-72
>109 aircrafts
>12 modern fighters
>21060 active personnel
>nearly no reserves
>superior to the best Korea

>14 000 active personnel
>6,215,000,000 budget
How do we do it?

I am.confident for the future of UK defense. Your gens and admirals have a Good vision ans the politics follow properly.
On amounts, I think you'll have to accept a small force unless you wish to slash strongly on other areas (welfare state first in line)