MILAVIA Forum

Military Aviation => Air Forces => Topic started by: Raptor on October 18, 2007, 08:31:28 AM

Title: Which Air-Force is Best II
Post by: Raptor on October 18, 2007, 08:31:28 AM
I was thinking, let's do an open-ended debate on each air-force in turn, with someone giving the low-down on each air-force. For example, Webby gives RNLAF, Cobra does USAF, i do RSAF (Republic of Singapore Air Force, not Royal Saudi Air Force) and Viggen, well, you get the picture. Anybody in?
Title: Re: Which Air-Force is Best II
Post by: Globetrotter on October 20, 2007, 07:13:52 PM
I think it would be a very cool thing to do... if I could presume with my airforce, which is defenitely not the best...
Title: Re: Which Air-Force is Best II
Post by: Viggen on October 20, 2007, 09:32:07 PM
Sure, i could give it a go.  :)
Title: Re: Which Air-Force is Best II
Post by: Sergei on October 21, 2007, 12:58:16 AM
I think the best airforce in the - USAF. :(
It's a reality. Though, certainly, I very-very much would like, that the most powerful Air Forces in the world will be VVS of Russia. 8)
Title: Re: Which Air-Force is Best II
Post by: Raptor on October 22, 2007, 08:54:32 AM
Well, sounds like fun.

I'm not asking which is the best air force in terms of the most hi-tech and showy aircraft. If that's the case, this would be pointless. We all know the USAF has it in the bag. The best as in um, best pilots, crews, history, etc. So the VVS would stand a chance.

Ok. Should we just get Viggen to brief us on his country's air force before we all pounce on him, or should we wait for more people?
Title: Re: Which Air-Force is Best II
Post by: Gripen on October 22, 2007, 09:10:16 AM
Ergh fine

I willingly pledge my services to this cause.

blah

Title: Re: Which Air-Force is Best II
Post by: alyster on October 22, 2007, 10:53:06 AM
If you include the history I'm not sure Russian Air Force would stand a chance. I mean it would if you'd only count in Russian Air Force [Russian Empire and Russian Fed] not Soviet Air Force. I mean soviet air force should still be ashamed how poorly they did against nazis in ww2.

If you mean the pilots, planes and history, then I'd go with Luftwaffe. Though its best service was under the most horrible regime it's still the most outstanding. In WW1 their Fokkers outclassed the allied "Fokke Fodders" , they had the highest scoring ace, not to mention they had to fight against Russian, British and French empires at the same time with Austria as their ally. Not to mention the WW2 where they had supirior tactics and pilot training. All TOP-100 killers in the world are Germans. And today armed with the Typhoons they are still among the best. I just don't understand why they kept the F-4s on so long and sold the MiGs.
Title: Re: Which Air-Force is Best II
Post by: Viggen on October 22, 2007, 03:09:53 PM
Im working on it, hopefully i will post it during this late evening. Have to be off to do other stuff, or i would surly have had it finished by now.  :P
Title: Re: Which Air-Force is Best II
Post by: Sergei on October 22, 2007, 07:31:30 PM
alyster, what you have in view of??? Rout of Air forces of Workers and Peasants Red Army within the Second World war? Ridiculously. Germans bravely, I repeat, bravely battled, but neither Erikh Hartman, nor Gerkhard Barhorn, Gyunter Rall to the, in total, by the brought down 600 planes couldn't affect a course of war. It's impossible to forget, that Germans often overestimated quantity of the brought down planes of the opponent. For example, Hartman has brought down not 352, and about 270 planes of the opponent. The same and with the others. And many Soviet pilots simply didn't wish to protect communistic authority. Therefore also results such pitiable.

As to Air Forces of the Soviet Army here, excuse for expression, even Americans sucked. Probably, all have forgotten, as tens times Soviet, and now and the Russian strategic bombers flew by above decks of the American aircraft carriers. In most cases proyears of bombers above a deck of an aircraft carrier it was accompanied by a panic among American техников and the attendants which ran up as a rat with the ship. My father was the commander of crew of bomber Тu-95MS, when his plane has flown by above aircraft carrier Avraam Lincoln. At me photos of the American aircraft carrier made by photogun Tu-95MS till now are stored. If someone is interesting, I can scan and lay out on a forum.

I consider, that by 2020 VVS of Russian Federation will be one of the best Air Forces in the world. It's my opinion.

Title: Re: Which Air-Force is Best II
Post by: alyster on October 22, 2007, 08:35:57 PM
Sergei I mean that in the begining of The Great Patriotic war Luftwaffe had about 2000-3000 planes in sevice, Soviet Air Force had 12 000 - 15 000 planes[1]. Stalin had in reserves about 150 000 pilots[2]. Any air force which wanted to consider itself good should have smashed the Germans with such numbers in matter of days.   Instead of that Luftwaffe kept on battling and quite succesfully considering all they had to put up with from RAF and USAAF. All of Hartmann's kills were made after year 1942. However soviets sent unescorted bombers to attack German positions and they were quite easily taken down.[1] . In fact thing which slowed down the Luftwaffe were captured soviet air fields. Their infrastructure was so poor that Germans had to start fixing them before they could properly use them.  [3].

Soviet pilots were poorly trained. The Great purges had eliminated the pilots(or atlist made rest of them shut up) who had been to Spanish civil war. Germans learned alot from Spain. Soviet I-16 was too old at the begining of the war. The air force had to go thru the trouble of replacing it. The air fields were overcrowded, too many planes were on them and their infrastructure was below any standart. 5 times smaller Luftwaffe's major problem wasn't the red air force, but covering all of the long long front from White Sea to Black sea.

So the air force which should have crushed the Germans ran with its tail between its legs. 13 pilots scored above 200 points against the soviets. Each and everyone killed alone enough planes to smash a small air force. (Estonian air force from 1918-1940 had intotal 166 planes)

[1] - "Luftwaffe fighter aces. ..." Mike Spick
[2] - "M-Day" Viktor Suvorov
[3] - "Die Ersten und die Letzten" Adolf Galland
Title: Re: Which Air-Force is Best II
Post by: Viggen on October 23, 2007, 12:54:46 AM
Ok, here we go!  ;D

It all started back in 1926. That is when the Swedish air force was founded. Before that it was a part of the army and they conducted mostly recon flights. Back then SWAF had 18 operative aircraft. Twelve J7 Bristol Bulldogs and the rest was J6 Jaktfalken. Because of the tensions in Europe in 1937, SAAB (Svenska Aeroplan AB) was founded so Sweden would be able to construct their own aircraft. Saab 17 was the first complete Swedish manufactured aircraft to leave the plant in Linkoping the same year. But Sweden still continued to buy aircraft from Great britain, USA, Germany and Italy. 1939 SWAF had aprox 180 aircraft , from 1945 this had increased to 600 operative aircraft.

From 1945-46, Sweden bought American P51 Mustangs and the British Vampire jets. But it was time for a change, we would no longer have an air force with outdated aircraft. So during the 50´s the principle of roadbases started to take on. During this time SAAB produced three different types of aircraft for SWAF. First out was J29 Tunnan (also known as “the flying barrel”). Second was A32 Lansen (Spear). The third aircraft is well known, J35 Draken. This proves how fast the technologi and development rushed forward within the aviation community worldwide. During the mid 60´s another project was under development, project 37.

The first batch of Saab 37 Viggen was delivered to SWAF 1971. 100 aircraft where ordered at first, it ended with a total sum of 330 Viggens delivered. 1977 a decision was made that it was time to develop another new aircraft for SWAF, know now as JAS 39 Gripen.

So has SWAF ever been involved in war or real aircombat. The answer is yes. But this was for a peacekeeping purpouse. From 1961-64 under UN flag SWAF flew sorties over Congo during the Congo-crysis. They where equipped with J29´s and and shoot down several aircraft.

Training of Swedish pilots have always been of the highest quality, among the best in the world.
I cant come up with something more to write at the moment...  :P
Title: Re: Which Air-Force is Best II
Post by: Gripen on October 23, 2007, 07:32:39 AM
My go

RAAF became independent in 1921 (making it one of the oldest independant airforces in the world)

Involved in World War 2 (Europe, North Africa, Pacific), Korea, Vietnam, Gulf 1, Timor, Gulf 2


Served in World War 1, but was still called the Australian Flying Corps, (still part of the army, i think??)

Air Strength and Future

BAE Systems Hawk - 33
BeechCraft Super King Air - 8
Boeing 707 (tanker/transport) - 2
Boeing 737 - 2
Boeing C-17 Globemaster III - 2
Bombadier Challenger 600 - 3
de Havilland Canada DHC-4 Caribou - 10
General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark- 21
Lockheed C-130 Hercules  - 20
Lockheed P-3 Orion - 21
McDonell Douglas F-18 - 71
Pilatus PC-9 - 65

Up to 100 Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II (CTOL variant) — are scheduled to be delivered from 2013.
24 Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornets. On March 6, 2007, Defence Minister Brendon Nelson announced that the Australian Government had purchased 24 F/A-18F aircraft to reduce the risk of a gap in strike capability, between the retirement of the F-111 in 2010 and delivery of the F-35A.
Six Boeing Project Wedgetail AEW&C aircraft, including another single aircraft optioned.
Five Airbus KC-30B Multi-Role Tanker Transports — to replace the dated Boeing 707s in aerial refueling and strategic transport roles.
Four Boeing C-17 Globemaster IIIs have been ordered to improve the RAAF's continental and strategic airlift capabilities. The first aircraft was delivered in late 2006 with the fourth aircraft being delivered in February 2008.
Maritime patrol aircraft to replace AP-3C Orions. The RAAF has chosen Boeing's P-8 Poseidon.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAAF)

The day World War II ended the RAAF had a total of 173,622 men and women working in 570 Units around the globe, maintaining 5,620 flying aircraft. The list of aircraft was divided equally into front-line and support machines which included 249 Liberators, 280 Mosquitoes, 378 Mustangs, 109 Dakotas, 109 Catalinas, 328 Beaufighters, 370 Kittyhawks and 367 Spitfires – war had transformed the RAAF into an immensely powerful force.

From June 1950, during the period of the Berlin Airlift, the Communist Party of Malaya commenced terrorist activities in the region. The RAAF contributed No 1 Squadron and its Lincoln bombers and No 38 Squadron Dakotas to the anti-guerilla operations (RAF Operation ‘Firedog’). They operated from Changi and Tengah, Singapore with a detachment at Kuala Lumpur, until 1958, moving supplies, passengers and cargo. The 1SQN Lincoln bombers dropped 85% of the total tonnage of bombs expended during Operation ‘Firedog’.

On 25 June 1950 North Korean troops also invaded South Korea. No 77 Squadron worked with the United Nations force to counter the invasion and commenced operations from Iwakuni on 2 July, flying mainly ground support missions, combat air patrols and escort missions. The Dakotas of No 30 Communications Unit (renamed No 36 Squadron in March 1953) also operated from Iwakuni during the Korean War, flying freight to Korea and evacuating wounded soldiers to hospitals in Japan.

Another aspect of the ‘Cold War’ was the RAAF deployment of No 78 Wing to Malta from July 1952 until February 1954. This time families, technical and administrative personnel from Nos. 75 and 76 fighter Squadrons, No.378 Base Squadron and No. 478 (Maintenance) Squadron also travelled to Malta. The Wing flew Vampire FB-9 aircraft leased from the RAF. They contributed to the air defence of the Middle East, in NATO exercises, regular air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons practices, as well as participating in the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II and the subsequent NATO Exercise ‘Coronet’ staged in Germany - an exercise with over 2,000 aircraft and 40,000 personnel.

(http://www.raaf.gov.au/history/airforce_history/postwar46.htm)

The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq on 2 August 1990 paved the way for the formation of a multinational force comprising 40,000 troops from thirty countries to enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions and drive back Iraqi forces. Over 1800 ADF personnel were deployed in the Gulf War from August 1990 to September 1991. The force comprised units from the Australian Navy, Army and Air Force. Operations were named Desert Shield, Desert Storm and Desert Farewell. No deaths occurred among Australian personnel although Coalition forces lost 166 personnel.

In addition, Army and Air Force provided personnel to Operation Habitat, the delivery of humanitarian aid to Kurds living in the UN-declared exclusion zone in northern Iraq. Air Force support also included the evacuation of Australian nationals. Boeing 707 tanker aircraft from No. 33 Squadron also flew to the Gulf during March–May 1998 to support Allied air operations in the region

The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq on 2 August 1990 paved the way for the formation of a multinational force comprising 40,000 troops from thirty countries to enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions and drive back Iraqi forces. Over 1800 ADF personnel were deployed in the Gulf War from August 1990 to September 1991. The force comprised units from the Australian Navy, Army and Air Force. Operations were named Desert Shield, Desert Storm and Desert Farewell. No deaths occurred among Australian personnel although Coalition forces lost 166 personnel.

In addition, Army and Air Force provided personnel to Operation Habitat, the delivery of humanitarian aid to Kurds living in the UN-declared exclusion zone in northern Iraq. Air Force support also included the evacuation of Australian nationals. Boeing 707 tanker aircraft from No. 33 Squadron also flew to the Gulf during March–May 1998 to support Allied air operations in the region

(http://www.raaf.gov.au/history/airforce_history/gulfwar.htm)

On 25 October 2000 the UN Mission in Support of East Timor (UNMISET) was established by UN resolution 1272/99 and was implemented on East Timor's Independence Day, 20 May 2002. Currently Australia provides about 25% of the Peace Keeping Force in East Timor, conducting a broad range of functions and tasks, ensuring stability during the establishment of independence and the rebuilding of the nation.

In October 2001, Prime Minister John Howard announced that the Australian Defence Force (ADF) would contribute to coalition operations against terrorism in Afghanistan. Known as Operation Slipper, Australia’s original contribution included two B707 air-to-air refuelling aircraft and support personnel based at Manas, Kyrgyzstan to refuel coalition aircraft. A Detachment of F/A-18 Hornets was based at Diego Garcia, providing support to the Coalition. Australia filled the leadership position of Operations Group Commander at Manas during the air-to-air refuelling deployment, with RAAF C-130 transport aircraft also transporting ADF personnel and equipment to/from and within the area of operations. Currently our contribution includes the Australian National Headquarters - Middle East Area of Operations, located in the Middle East, providing command and control for deployed Australian forces, and two RAAF AP-3C Orion maritime aircraft on patrol missions and in support of aircraft carrier operations and maritime interdiction.

March 2003 saw the Prime Minister announce that the Government had committed ADF elements in the Middle East to the coalition of military forces prepared to enforce Iraq's compliance with its international obligations to disarm. Australia's contribution to the coalition, known as Operation Falconer, has to date involved about 2000 ADF personnel including approximately 650 airmen, airwomen and support crews deployed with 14 RAAF F/A-18 Hornet fighter aircraft, 3 RAAF C-130 Hercules transport aircraft, 2 P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft, and an Air Forward Command Element responsible for coordinating air operations with coalition partners and providing national control of RAAF assets.

(http://www.raaf.gov.au/history/airforce_history/2000.htm)




Title: Re: Which Air-Force is Best II
Post by: Raptor on October 23, 2007, 09:07:55 AM
Wow. That looks like it was taken from a book. Well, you can't really say the soviet air force THAT sucked. The cold war wasn't that bad for them.

Ok. I'm working on an RSAF one. Sergei, any info on Russia's Air Force?
Title: Re: Which Air-Force is Best II
Post by: Sergei on October 23, 2007, 12:14:43 PM
alyster, this person on surname Rezun - first of all the traitor. That касется its "truths" it usually did so: took the underestimated characteristics of German planes and tanks and the overestimated characteristics of the Soviet planes and tanks. As to the military historian - a penny to it the price.

As a whole, I with you agree. German pilots had a high level fighting and flying preparations. Soviet - much lower. Though, there were some hundreds pilots which had experience of fights in Spain behind shoulders, and also on the Halkhin-Gole and which conceded nothing, and even surpassed Germans.

In general, I suggest to close this theme (I have in view of the Second World war) as it does not concern to this theme.

Raptor, Russian VVS very big, and I can't have patience to write about they. On scramble.nl site they have.
Title: Re: Which Air-Force is Best II
Post by: alyster on October 23, 2007, 03:19:00 PM
From Suvorov (Rezun) I think I only borrowed the 150 000 pilots. He wrote quite alot about soviet pilot schooling and its goals. 150 000 pilots was the number he brought out. And it was sourced like any normal history writting with archival records and news paper links(old news paper stories). Although his overall point of view is still to be debated about among scholars, I don't think he missed with the number that much.

But I do agree, we have gotten off topic. But i no not agree that Rezun's thesis would be less important because he defected,
Title: Re: Which Air-Force is Best II
Post by: Viggen on October 24, 2007, 03:33:31 PM
Im sorry that i get off topic abit, but i feeli have to make this input. If russian air force was as bad as some of you say, then how come the Swedish pilots had such respect for their pilots and aircraft during the cold war? Russians was a force to reccon with, if you did not respect them or think of them as bad, the parts that where left of you would end up in a closed coffin. Rest would be at the bottom of the Baltic sea.
Title: Re: Which Air-Force is Best II
Post by: alyster on October 24, 2007, 04:58:40 PM
I think I did say that "soviet air force should still be ashamed how poorly they did against nazis in WW2
Title: Re: Which Air-Force is Best II
Post by: Viggen on October 24, 2007, 08:49:14 PM
I think I did say that "soviet air force should still be ashamed how poorly they did against nazis in WW2

See, i did not get that. Im sorry for my stupidety....  :-[ :-[ :-[
Title: Re: Which Air-Force is Best II
Post by: alyster on October 24, 2007, 08:51:18 PM
Nothing to be sorry about.

I think Raptor kinda missed it also. I think Soviet Air Force did rather well in Cold war, specially the late Cold war era.
Title: Re: Which Air-Force is Best II
Post by: Globetrotter on October 25, 2007, 03:50:15 AM
oh, now I got it ;D then I can give it a try :P

let's see if this weekend I can spend some time making a nice thing to post :)
Title: Re: Which Air-Force is Best II
Post by: Gripen on October 25, 2007, 08:09:03 AM
Russian Air Forced Sucked in WW2?

Um, wasnt Russia on the winning side?

Luftwaffe was completely destroyed, while the Russian Air Force got bigger?

Oh i totally see how they sucked ^0)
Title: Re: Which Air-Force is Best II
Post by: Raptor on October 25, 2007, 08:16:44 AM
They made a few hundred to one loss in the german's favour.

I saw the point, alyster, thought you were ignoring the cold war fact. sorry. ;D

I've got something, but i need a bit more research into the matter.
Title: Re: Which Air-Force is Best II
Post by: alyster on October 25, 2007, 09:16:48 AM
Russian Air Forced Sucked in WW2?

Um, wasnt Russia on the winning side?

Luftwaffe was completely destroyed, while the Russian Air Force got bigger?

Oh i totally see how they sucked ^0)

Perhaps because Luftwaffe was being destoried from the west by anglo-american hordes?

Didn't you read my previous posts at all? Luftwaffe killed soviets like flies, although Luftwaffe was out numbered at best days by 4-5 times, at worst days alot and alot more.
Luftwaffe's standart fact was that once a fighter pilot had been transfered to eastern front, he shouldn't be transfered to west anymore, because he'll get lazy due to the untrained soviet pilots and would be easily killed by RAF or USAAF.

That their numbers grew is way over simplification and is due to their vast industry not their success. Like I said, Stalin had reserves, 150 000 pilots ready by 1941.

It's not [edit :) ]about Luftwaffe alone. Finnish Air Force did very succesfully against red air force aswell.

Raptor, my point is that Cold war factor alone wouldn't make that the best air force if we include history, like it was said above. Think if you can send 5 planes against one and you're being constantly blown out of the skies, does it really make you any good?
Title: Re: Which Air-Force is Best II
Post by: Viggen on October 25, 2007, 03:15:57 PM
After checking out some history about Russias air force during WW2. I must agree with Alyster, russians where still flying Bi-winged fighters until the Brittish and US help them out with selling them more modern fighters of the era. Which they started to massproduced under licence.
Title: Re: Which Air-Force is Best II
Post by: Webmaster on October 25, 2007, 03:44:17 PM
Guys, if two members start a discussion and then close it saying it's going off topic, why are you opening it up again.

If you would like to read about the RNLAF, pls go here : http://www.milavia.net/airforces/netherlands/rnlaf.htm and http://www.milavia.net/airforces/netherlands/rnlaf_his.htm for the history.

I've written it once, not want to do it twice. I'll just do some bragging here:  ;D

Not air force, but something you might find interesting: The Netherlands had an aircraft carrier! Karel Doorman, sold off to Argentina. The Navy also had P-3 Orions until recently...sold to Germany/Portugal.

Let me know if you want to know more.
Title: Re: Which Air-Force is Best II
Post by: Globetrotter on October 26, 2007, 03:29:51 AM
Yep, that's the carrier that we had (rename 25 de Mayo here) until it was sent as junk to Southafrica, where it is still,  I believe, a disco. It was carried by other ship, didn't even function on itself. :-X
Title: Re: Which Air-Force is Best II
Post by: Gripen on October 26, 2007, 07:47:08 AM
if the luftwaffe was that good then they should have still won, no matter how many planes were being used AGAINST them

Title: Re: Which Air-Force is Best II
Post by: alyster on October 26, 2007, 09:04:07 AM
No one is saying Luftwaffe was some supernatural air force. But soviet air force was just way worse. Like I said soviets out numbered Germans 5 to 1, Germans had to battle the RAF at the same time and pretty soon the USAAF also. Anglo-American forces were able to put up more heavy bombers against Germany than Luftwaffe was able to put up fighters in operation Barbarossa. The fact that Soviet Union won the war had little to do with their air force.

Like I said Luftwaffe wasn't only one fighting sucesfully against soviets, but also finnic air force. With little over 500 planes which weren't always the top of their class, they scored over 1600 kills while losing bit over 200 planes themselves and while succeeding at their primary goal - keeping air supiriority above Finland. With old F2A Buffalos they managed to achive 32 to 1 kill ratio against the soviets. [I'm talking of the Continuation war not Winter war here]

BTW it's really impossible for an air force to win a war if the army fails.

I understand you may have issues with it, because Luftwaffe was serving a nazi regime. I don't like the regime neither, but the air force deserves some credit. Although Luftwaffe and Soviet Air Force both served horrible terror regimes, allied air forces were more hostile to civilians. In Europe alone they killed 300 0001-500 000 cvilians, in Japan they killed in one night alone 100 000 civilians.

1 - Strategic Bombing survey - Europe.
Title: Re: Which Air-Force is Best II
Post by: Raptor on October 27, 2007, 10:35:37 AM
I see. Hm. Ok. Now which air force do we pit at each other first? ;D

jkjk. On the RSAF. We started out with a bunch of cessnas. Trainers actually.

The history is basically pretty boring, but there are some really funny anecdotes, such as one in which a pilot got a coconut tree stuck on his Hunter's wing while flying low.
He was ordered to eject. He ignored and tried to land.
And he landed with the entire plane, coconut tree and pilot intact.
Unfortunately, he was court-martialled. ;D

There's another one where one of our pilots crashed in Taiwan or Thailand. Can't remember.
Anyway, the USA tried to get it out. Brought a bunch of chainsaws there.
Tried to saw off the Hunter's wings. Unfortunately, the chainsaws broke down before they could make much of a proper dent. ;D

In the end, the sawed down all the trees around it to drag it out. ;D

That says more about the maker than the air force, but still, it happened here. *shrug* ;D
Title: Re: Which Air-Force is Best II
Post by: Sergei on October 28, 2007, 10:40:23 PM
Strange... I thought, this theme is devoted to Air Forces of the various countries of the world, and it turns out, that here discuss opposition VVS RKKA with Luftwaffe.

Let's finish with this discussion. Start up everyone remains at the opinion. I shall tell so: Soviet Union has won, and the Third Reich has lost. The communistic authority is opposite to me, but it does not mean, that I should underestimate merits RKKA as it's done by many modern historians.

As to Rezuna - that he the traitor, and he in every possible way deformed historical the facts (about what to speak if rough imagination Rezuna has invented one million Soviet parachuters). Another matter Mark Solonin. Нe the statements supports all sources and references. I suggest to close this theme.

Raptor, how the Singapore fighting planes are located on such small territory as Singapore? Always it was interesting to me.
Title: Re: Which Air-Force is Best II
Post by: Raptor on October 29, 2007, 03:17:40 PM
Hm. I had no idea about that, Sergei...

About the fighting planes being based in Singapore. We have a considerable number of F-16C/D/D+s;F-5S/Ts, etc. It surprises me that we already have ammased so many aircraft to be on-station in Singapore for most of the time, but we apparently have many many more sitting in the USA for training, or whatever.

The most ironic thing is that we have probably more tanks than enough to conquer our neighbours, somewhere 'underground' here, and our aircraft are scattered all over the world.
Title: Re: Which Air-Force is Best II
Post by: Sergei on November 11, 2007, 08:33:20 PM
Yes, with the area of territory at you obvious problems... But Air Forces of Singapore, certainly, are very strong. Anyway, more strongly, than at Indonesia and Malaysia. However, it's temporary, but all.
Title: Re: Which Air-Force is Best II
Post by: Raptor on November 17, 2007, 10:59:41 AM
Thank you, Segei. Btw, from what i can see you're probably using an online translator to read and post. My father discovered a way to make translation extremely accurate. If you're interested, drop me an e-mail or PM me. It's not very complex. but for topic's sake, i won't deviate.
Title: Re: Which Air-Force is Best II
Post by: Sergei on December 20, 2007, 12:48:57 AM
All greetings! Very long ago I here didn't happen...
Raptor, I use the translator (Promt 7) only for translation some separate words and terms. My level of English allows me to communicate tolerably more or less at English-speaking forums. Excuse, if I incorrectly write something. :-[
Title: Re: Which Air-Force is Best II
Post by: Gripen on December 20, 2007, 01:41:57 AM
Sergei, you English is better then Terminator's, and hes from the USA
Title: Re: Which Air-Force is Best II
Post by: Raptor on December 22, 2007, 01:19:47 PM
Haha yes i agree with Gripen on that. Extremely intelligible, but it does have a slight transliteration look. Don't worry i'm from Singapore. You're an english scholar compared to them. The people here don't even speak english! It's called Singlish. And i must say it sounds horrible.
Title: Re: Which Air-Force is Best II
Post by: Gripen on December 23, 2007, 04:33:10 AM
True, i dont know what half the words he wrote mean :$