haavarla: I think its fair to say that Russia has a vast territory and its AWACs and tankers are limited. On the other hand, even with limited tankers, each tanker has a big impact on the capability of Russia’s fighter fleet. The numbers are looking to see by how much their present capability is multiplied because of these said assets. I’m still reducing the impact for Russia of these assets given the point you raised.

Perhaps some other salients to consider are:

1. Military strategy and posture (i.e. US posture as opposed to Brazil’s)
2. Area to be covered (vast for Russia, small for Israel)
3. Combat aircraft per respective assets

I’ll work on the last to present to this august audience the ratios for each country to help you advise me better on the numbers.

These numbers are ad hoc, preliminary numbers. Feel free to state what numbers you think they should be and why.

REVISED NUMBERS:

How about if we now move from greater generalization to narrower generalization:
AWACS Tanker EW
USA 60% 20% 10%
Russia 30% 20% 5%
China 50% 20% 5%
Japan 30% 20% 10%
Pakistan 30% 10% 5%
India 35% 20% 5%
Israel 30% 15% 20%
UK 30% 15% 10%
France 30% 10% 10%
Brazil 40% 30% 5%
Sweden 35% 30% 10%

Notes:

1. Percentages represent the increase in capability because of AWACS, Tankers or EW assets of the entire force of fighters.
2. The capability increased is dependent on:
a) Technology available to each respective country
b) Quantities available of each respective asset class
c) Ground radar coverage
d) Terrain, topography and size of areas to be covered by respective air arms
e) Nature and capability of present fighter fleets
f) Training and tactics employed
g) Nature, extent and scope of international military engagements

These are just “out of the hat” sort of numbers right now. Are these numbers too low or high? Increasing by 100% seems just too high to me. That means for instance that two forces, one with awacs and one without are equal if the latter is twice the size of the former. i.e. 500 combat aircraft versus 250.

BLAURMAX: Your link doesn’t work for me.

How about if we now move from greater generalization to narrower generalization:
AWACS Tanker EW
USA 60% 20% 10%
Russia 40% 20% 5%
China 50% 20% 5%
Japan 30% 20% 10%
Pakistan 30% 10% 5%
India 35% 20% 5%
Israel 30% 15% 20%
UK 30% 15% 10%
France 30% 10% 10%
Brazil 40% 30% 5%
Sweden 35% 30% 10%

Notes:

1. Percentages represent the increase in capability because of AWACS, Tankers or EW assets of the entire force of fighters.
2. The capability increased is dependent on:
a) Technology available to each respective country
b) Quantities available of each respective asset class
c) Ground radar coverage
d) Terrain, topography and size of areas to be covered by respective air arms
e) Nature and capability of present fighter fleets
f) Training and tactics employed
g) Nature, extent and scope of international military engagements

These are just “out of the hat” sort of numbers right now. Are these numbers too low or high? Increasing by 100% seems just too high to me. That means for instance that two forces, one with awacs and one without are equal if the latter is twice the size of the former. i.e. 500 combat aircraft versus 250.