Quote:


Over the past decades training has got easily realistic enough to simulate real warfare (Even to the point of survival and conduct after capture). If you're arguing the point that the US has been at more wars, you may be forgetting the the UK was in Korea, Germany until recently (not strictly a war, but it was Cold), Suez, Belize, the Falklands, both Gulf Wars and the Balkans throughout the 1990s. Arguing that the USAF may be better Air to air, then that's not suprising considering that since the mid 1980 the RAF has only had a long range interceptor. Thats why during both Gulf wars you saw more of our air to ground assets, as the F3s generally performed CAPs around the southern edge of the theatre. During GW1 you will also notice that one of the RAFs major fast jets (the Harrier) played no part, due to the fact that the GR5 was just being phased into service.

In the end, i'll take the opinion of the guy whos ass is in the seat of one of her majestys planes, over anyone elses.

Quote:


Beefhole,

Hum....... realtive to the above...... I would like to know what first hand experiences you have had with the US Air Force (or other US military aviation branch), as well as your expereinces with the military aviation branches of say Britian, Israel, Russia, Austrailia, Germany, France and maybe other countries upon which you base your obviously strident comments?

best,

.....................john

Quote:


Look up COMAO, and you'll see that most of the nations were involved in the very same operations...

Let me try to make some sense out of this argument.


#1 - The US has had more "hands on" experience in large scale operations since the end of WW2.

#2 - The US has had more resources - material and personnel - to carry out the operations (see #1).

#3 - The US has had the political clout to make itself the lead in said operations (as well as being the main bankroller)

#4 - The US has developed more command and control systems and experience to carry out large operations.

#5 - Given the above, this is not to say that other nations are not as good (or better) than the US in specific areas/limited operations, and a good argument can be made that systems/tactics/equipment first developed elsewhere have been adopted and adapted for US use (ex.  Canberra, Harrier, Hawk, and a host of others)

Basically, the US is "better" in the sense that they have more resources and money to spend, and have had more opportunities to be in action.

No, I have not been in the military, and my sole qualification to making these statements is old age, and (hopefully) an analytical mind.

And if we're going to drop names, I know a fellow that works in the Office of the Director of Marine Intelligence in Washington DC.

In spite of this experience in war the USAF has had I still think we should look back to Ozzy's first post in this argument.

In Gulf II there were two seperate incedents I can remember where British forces were engaged by US air forces. One such occasion was even captured first hand by John Simpson a BBC reporter. It was a convoy that was absolutely plastered with British flags. The other one involved a RAF tornado being shot at by a US missile.

How can the system be so fantastic if fighters are directed to engage friendly or nuetral targets, this clearly shows a failure in the "infrastructure" of the airforce.

Also the fact that these systems can be disrupted on exercise by other supposedly "inferior" nations also shows that there is a problem with the infrastructure. I'm sure that someone who is in the Marines is going to think that his airforce is the greatest but so will somebody in the RAF or the IAF. I'm also sure they could all go on for hours with "valid" arguments why that is the case.

I have no idea which air force is "the best" and I don't much give a damn but no-one has tried to develope their argument here and all that has happened is alot of repetition.

The first step to failure is arragonce.


Pete (waiting for the flames.)

Quote:


Quite simply because ther isn't a "best" air force. As the latest RAF slogan says though, "Person for person, Pound for Pound, second to none". The RAF, along with all the UK armed forces is used to punching above its weight with its minimal (thanks to several government) resources...

Quote:


Beefhole,

So if I understand it correctly now, you're saying that  the rather "hard line position" you are taking here is based on no personal experience...... but on the second hand quoting of the the experiences of a single individual who is a member of the forces that you are saying are "better" than everyone else.

As to the America military being the "best" at things...... as a lawyer in a court trial would say.... "Now we'd expect him to say that, wouldn't we."  

If you think about it a bit you might find that you are basing a lot of your strong judgements here on a very narrow sampling pool of information that you have no real first hand knowledge or confirmation of.  Also that that second hand info is, of course, Amerio-centric in it's orign.  While it might be very true, it might also not be.  But until you open yourself to looking at other possibilities........ you can't see them.

Before you get so entrenched in black/white ideas, my friend, you might want to have a broader experience pool yourself, and in particular do some long range world traveling getting out of the sphere of "American influnce".  It is a very enlightening experience.  I'm a pretty educated guy...... and it certainly changed my views a lot.

I discovered how big this darn planet is and how many other people there are, and how their experiences are nothing like the ones that formed me as a person, and how good they are at many things that I didn't expect.  I discovered that many things that I always thought were "immutable truth".... maybe had other interpretations.  

The recent post by Felix has a lot of merit...... and shows what happens when you have a far broader and experienced world view.

And as to "having more practice".........

Yes ... I would give you that one.  But as any teacher will tell you that old familiar saying "Practice makes perfect"..... does not necessarily work.  Because if you are not "perfect" in what you are practicing....... you are practicing stuff that reinforces imperfect performance.

So "more practice" does not necessarily follow that it makes something "better".  But it does make the statement that "we've had more practice" true.


best,

..................john