I would dispute Australia being up there. Do we really have the capabilities to carry out war in another nation? What about initial Air Cover? We could probably defeat Indonesia, because it's so close, but I don't see Australia being able to project enough force to really defeat a country.
Theres no doubt that Israel kicks ass, that wasn't my point. They are a regional power, but beyond that... I dunno.
What is your viewpoint on North Korea and Egypt, granted North Korea has older technology weapons but if you look at were their offensive drives will be, they could turn it into a real nasty conflict for South Korea.
How about singapore ? with massive man power in military training + advance weaponry.
II think you make some really good points in this post Brycec. Re the list of military budgets I agree it is a good starting point but we need to remember that you can buy a lot more manpower for your money in some countries (lower living standard, conscription, etc) and whilst it is not the dominant factor in determining military power, I don't believe that the number of soldiers you have is completely irrelevant either. Geography also plays a part. Some countries, for example don't need a navy to project power.
Germany has force projection???
As a European power I don't believe Germany needs more than a moderate amphibious capability. IMO, it has a relatively strong army and air force and a more than adequate navy. Israel has demonstrated its military strength against numerically superior enemies for more than half a century. It is also a nuclear power.Germany has force projection???
For that I know Germany hasn't aircraft carrier, lpd/lhd or special force like Marines or Royal Marines.
Germany has a lot of soldiers and equipment of cold war made for self defence, not for force projection.
In terms of force projection Spain is far superior with modern aircraft carrier, lpd/lhd, escort ships (Aegis) and special forces like 'Infanteria de Marina'.
Israel too. Israeli navy has not aircraft carriers or lpd/lhd.
As much as I respect Israeli soldiers as excellent, we have to remember that they are effectively the only military in their immediate area who have a powerful air force. I would say that yes Israel should be on the list, but the strength of its military has only been tested on weaker forces, even if those forces numerically outnumber the Israelis.
Given that, if you consider owning a real aircraft carrier and effective force projection, there would be no top 10 since less than 10 countries are able to do this...
A requirement for a country to have an aircraft carrier to be in the top ten would have excluded the Soviet Union for much of the time it was a super power and would also have eliminated Germany in the WW2 period!
I believe that you've been seduced by the photographic attraction of Carriers as tools of power projection - and hence some notion of capability.
Well India, in the future, with its large population, could be in a position to wage a continental land war against China, although the terrain in Tibet could make it very hard, I wonder if the US could conquer China if its economy goes into total war mode like in World War 2, where it spend 40 per cent of GDP on defense in 1944, in World War 2, I think the US comfortably fielded an armed force amounting to 10 per cent of its population, which means that today, if it hypothetically goes into total war mode like in World War 2, it can field a very well equipped armed forces of more than 30 million men.
Well if hypothetically Germany and France were to go to war again who do you think would win?I totally agree that germanies abilities to project power are limited but as said before by some more guys here power projection by maritime assets is not the only way to describe how powerfull the armed forces of a country are.
Thailand has an aircraft carrier...just as a hint.
If anybody besides the US would show up on the german coast with their available maritime power projection assets they would be send to hell within a short period of time.
And that our armed forces consist mainly of cold war equipment is a very curious statement. Give me an example for our forces using something else than nearly every other NATO member.
As to special forces. Since when are marines a special force? They are specialised infantry nothing more than for example airborn, airmobile, light and mountain infantry.
And while a drafted army has some setbacks when it comes to deployability it has huge advantages when it comes to defending someones own country which still is the most important (Or better should be) criteria for every armed forces.
As to naval assets. With 15 FFGs (Three of them very modern AAW units), 12 SSKs, 10 FACs, 5 FLGs (currently under construction), 10 FACs and a bunch of auxiliary units I would not rate the german navy that toothless despite the fact that we have no carrier or amphibious vessels.
If I would have to rate by myself I would also put the UK and France above Germany.
Gary, Tasman and Doc already mentioned some very important things and some guys here should listen to what they have to say if this here shall not become a "my **** is bigger because I have a shiny toy" show.
France may have a better navy, but then with only 1 aircraft carrier, it would be very vulnerable to Germany's navy.Exactly Waylander,