|
|
Sheer numbers of weapons
systems is a somewhat crude measure of countries military competence or
commitment to defence. No two countries have the same circumstances, social
structures, economies or geography. With this proviso it is interesting to
compare combat aircraft on per capita of population basis. While some countries
have bigger and heavier aircraft than another, they are a generic item that can
be readily counted. Of course in this information age, a more interesting
comparison might be computing power.
The following is a table
showing the number of citizens to each combat aircraft for a few selected
countries from high to low ratios:
|
Japan
|
1: 280,000 |
|
Canada
|
1: 140,000 |
|
Australia
|
1:130,000 |
|
United
Kingdom
|
1:110,000 |
|
South Korea
|
1:98,000 |
|
New Zealand
|
1:95,000 |
|
France
|
1:95,000 |
|
Belgium
|
1:71,000 |
|
Russia
|
1:60,000 |
|
Taiwan
|
1:43,000 |
|
North Korea
|
1:32,000 |
|
United
States
|
1:32,000 |
|
UAE
|
1:24,000 |
|
Sweden
|
1:23,000 |
|
Israeli
|
1:20,000 |
|
Singapore
|
1:10,000 |
Australia is
similarly ranked to those countries which we share common circumstances (Canada,
UK, NZ). As an aside, the Canadian Defence Department makes comparisons of
aircraft to land area. This is to argue that in comparison to little Belgium, Canada does not have an excessive number of combat aircraft. This is
presumably in response to political pressures to disband the Canadian air force
and transformed their armed forces into a constabulary force for peace keeping
duties. If Australia were to utilise a land area compassion we would look like a
pacifist nation.
Not surprisingly, Israeli
and Taiwan have a lot of combat aircraft – they have nearby enemies to fear.
The United States is short-changed by the table because it has so many
multi-crewed and support aircraft. Nor do the Americans bother to attribute a
nominal strike role to their fast jet trainers, as do most other air forces.
Looking at North Korea’s
ranking it should be not surprising the austerity its citizens live under.
However, many of the North Korea’s aircraft are not airworthy. They also have
poorly trained aircrews. Russia also has an air force comprising of ‘Hanger
Queens.’ NZ’s puny air strike force looks respectable; pity it is to be
disbanded. Sweden and Belgium obviously consider defence very important. The UAE
might be worried about its neighbours or simply have too much money to spend.
As for Singapore being at
the top of the league! Perhaps they should be relegated down as they are
compelled to base so many of their aircraft in other places where it is safe to
train. Maybe Australia could claim a credit because a lot of them are here.
Originally Published in Defender, Journal of the
Australia Defence Association, Winter 2001
To top of page |
