Comparison of NATO and Asian air forces

The conversation on this thread has swung widely off topic but is still worthy of debate. Continuing on a dedicated thread.

TOPIC – NATO airforces vs JASDF/ROKAF/RSAF/IAF (/ROCAF)

JASDF is politically and thus operationally restricted to defensive operations only. The vast majority of its combat fleet is the superb but air defence only F-15C/D. I’m not sure if the F-4EJ has any serious ground attack capability (unlike say Turkish, Israeli or former Israeli F-4s). That leave the F-2 which as far as I am aware is multirole but was procured in limited numbers and mainly as an anti-shipping platform using ASM-1 and ASM-2.

However the defensive nature of the force makes it less versatile than most NATO forces that are truly swing role even if they operate less airframes.

Having a defensive doctrine doesn’t not imply that the force is incapable of, or at a disadvantage during, offensive operations.

With about 80 units operational, the F-2 is hardly serving in ‘limited numbers’. And while it is has an anti-shipping role, its still very much capable of ground attack with JDAMs and domestic munitions.

I’m not sure how much CAS, interdiction or other offensive ground attack missions the JASDF trains for – I’d be happy to hear otherwise.

You’re assuming that they’re handicapping themselves by limited the scope of their training?

– South Korea is also interesting:

1. It’s a force designed around a very specific mission – i.e. defeating the North Koreans.

2. It’s fleet is remarkable in that at least 50% of the fleet is 3rd generation F-4E and F-5E/F and none of those have been significantly upgraded that I am aware of.

Both are to be replaced by FX-III and F/A-50 respectively.

I’m not sure how capable the F/A-50 is. It seems fine for smashing ancient MiG-21s and J-6s out of the sky but I’m not sure how effective they are in a modern environment.

1. Does the ROKAF need the FX-III (F-35, EF, F-15SE) to defeat KPAF MiG-21s? Is the K-FX program an effort to stay a step-ahead of the North Koreans?

2. F-4E is 3rd generation yes, but is it so much worse than the Tornado GR.4/IDS that equip the RAF and Luftwaffe, that it condemns the ROKAF to a second tier force? Half of the RAF and Luftwaffe fleets (the ADV having retired) have minimal air defence capability by virtue of fielding the only fourth generation aircraft unsuitable for air combat. For that matter, how much superior to the ROKAF is the Italian Air Force with two thirds of its fleet consisting of the Tornado and AMX Int?

Is the generation of the aircraft more important than its utility? In 2006, the Fleet Air Arm retired its older Sea Harriers leaving it with the newer generation Harrier GR.7/9 (equipped with only Sidewinders). Did stripping away the Royal Navy’s air cover make the FAA a ‘world class’ force?

Furthermore none of these two or RSAF have any combat experience whatsoever, unlike many Western NATO squadrons that have seen anywhere up to 20 years of continuous combat ops over Balkans, Middle East or Afghanistan.

I can understand and appreciate the value of combat experience, but are you suggesting that bombing Libyan technicals and Taliban mules from 20,000 feet have battle-hardened those air forces? Because the scope of those operations doesn’t even remotely resemble the challenge posed by a real opponent. The best (maybe only) way to simulate that is through exercises. Best illustrated by the Desert Storm veteran who described it as being ‘almost as intense as Red Flag’.