Which one better: large air force or large navy?

Power projection: Navy

Defence: Air force

Air force has a much greater use than pure defense.


I think the specific time also needs to be considered. From 1900 to 1920s aircraft technology was relatively insufficient and so most nations would pick a fleet of dreadnaughts any day.

By WW2 (excluding carriers - which is somewhat of a large exclusion), planes have become more viable, as seen in the Sinking of Repulse and POW (battleship and battle cruiser sunk from land based aircraft).

After WW2, a larger air force would become more important than naval assets as seen by the disappearance of capital ships save for carriers which carry aircraft.

That being said, this doesn't mitigate the importance of a Navy. There is a reason that US is the world's superpower and whilst nukes and its economy play a role, so too does its power projection via the use of its navy. That being said, aircraft are indispensable in this day and age, and if I had to pick between Air force or Navy, i would pick air force.
 
As far as power projection goes, we've learned that air transport is rather inefficient for working in the abroad. Additionally a navy's transport capabilities (or ability to defend your transport capacity) allows you to bring the army into play.

Basically you can't just ferry a few squadrons over seas or drop a few infantrymen on a passanger flight with air resupply every once in a while and expect them to be capable of sustained operations for any period of time. Like, at all.

On the other hand, domestically or within the near-abroad use whatever works, and in that case a strong air force might have more particular relevance in taking direct action against whoever you're fighting.

I feel like this issue only arose due to my playing hundreds of hours of civ5. Stealth bombers are so much better than any ship that can be offered.
Although, you certainly can imagine for the sake of imagination hundreds of soldiers in the economy section, talking crap on how the officers get to sit in business seats.

OK, power projection. However how long a distance? And even if a navy is very powerful,, it might get shot by planes. And cant project power in land.
I guess the sea lion threads should say navy in many cases if its overseas, but it is very contrived. How about rephrasing it: 75/25 for navy vs. 75/25 for air force? And then some scenarios.

Cant believe I am trying to take it seriously:).

But who am I to talk about that.

lole point taken.

The serious answer here is "it depends".

What is the national strategic requirement?

The USSR/Russia, PRC, Imperial/Nazi Germany did not require a substantial fleet except as a threat to possible opponents lines of communication. None of them had/have a serious blue water force (although the PLA seems to be eyeing the capability, it is, at best, a decade away) yet there is no question that they were great powers.

The UK, U.S., Imperial Japan absolutely required a large, extremely potent, and comprehensive fleet. France falls into this category as well, although to a lesser extent.

Air forces are less a matter of inventory size as training/quality.

Syria operates nearly the same number of aircraft as the UK, there is no doubt regarding which air force is better. The DPRK Air Force is larger numerically than the Israeli Air Force yet the IAF is acknowledged as one of the premier forces on Earth while the DPRK force is rightly seen as a pile of old aluminum.

While there is clearly the need to balance quality vs. quantity, in general a well equipped and trained but smaller force is superior to a gaggle of poorly trained personnel in old aircraft.

My general imagination was a country with military bases in multiple friendly countries that guard the country's corporate interests(i.e. mines in Central Asia or the Congo basin, factory complexes in Latin America). Not standing against any particular country, but more peacekeeping and fighting off insurgencies that may endanger such infrastructure. I guessed that a navy, being generally slower than an air force, would be less useful in swift military aggression.
Also, heavy bombers are the shit. Attach missiles to them and they would become invincible(I'm obviously exaggerating).
The point on quality is interesting. Does that mean for a navy the equipment would be more important than the training, relative to an air force?

One factor is time, it is (generally speaking) quicker to establish an effective air force than an effective navy. The problem with a blue water fleet certainly is that it needs substantial bases and dry dock facilities for what are substantial pieces of kit. An air force needs space for runways but these are essentially the same technology as motorways and you only need a relatively few tens or perhaps hundred of kilometres of runway to service a nation that might need thousands or even tens of thousands kilometres of highway.

However a reasonably well designed warship can expect to provide good service for thirty years or more (super carriers seem currently to be aiming at about fifty years service life). Depending on period aircraft could be rendered obsolescent in two years even if state of the art when they were produced.

What you tend to see once air power becomes effective is that regimes without a large legacy force of some kind tend to first focus on air forces and then on naval fleets.

However if you have a big legacy navy...then flaunt it, nothing says 'in your face' like a nations warships showing the flag :D

:D:D

The air force, because it's best as destroying and infinitely faster. That's why the ruling ships on the sea are little airports.

It's ruled since WW2.

We were bombing Serbia from US airports, so air force ranges are pretty long. And the B-52 was developed to bomb Russia from here.

The guided missile is also ruling, everywhere, because they can follow enemy movements, unlike shells or even railgun.

My point exactly.

Large navy, especially if the choice is a blue water navy, because it means your country is so economically successful and powerful it can do both if it wants. A large navy also implies advanced technology base, tradition and prestige.

The obvious example is Japan. No aircraft carriers, but still some carrier-like ships in the works and one of the world's most modern economies (even with the lost decade and stagflation it still kicks the teeth out of Egypt and other countries with large airforces).

Even in edge cases like a completely landlocked or continental country, I would rather have the navy (assuming a choice between a large and good navy versus a large and good airforce). The airforce alone isn't going to stop an invasion, and the large navy can have basing rights with allies or friendly ports and continue the fight from abroad. And again, the navy means the economic might of your country is such that it cannot be ignored.

Japan does also have a large air force. Don't know how the training goes though, so that's a variable.

Air force has a much greater use than pure defense.

I think the specific time also needs to be considered. From 1900 to 1920s aircraft technology was relatively insufficient and so most nations would pick a fleet of dreadnaughts any day.

By WW2 (excluding carriers - which is somewhat of a large exclusion), planes have become more viable, as seen in the Sinking of Repulse and POW (battleship and battle cruiser sunk from land based aircraft).

After WW2, a larger air force would become more important than naval assets as seen by the disappearance of capital ships save for carriers which carry aircraft.

That being said, this doesn't mitigate the importance of a Navy. There is a reason that US is the world's superpower and whilst nukes and its economy play a role, so too does its power projection via the use of its navy. That being said, aircraft are indispensable in this day and age, and if I had to pick between Air force or Navy, i would pick air force.

Aircraft tech I'm thinking of is post-detente, in the interval between 3rd and 4th generation fighters(I think).
 
Top