If the USAF is so all-powerful and perfect could you please explain why the town I live in was hit 4 times by US aircraft whilst the campaign against Serbia was running? I live in Hungary and a v.long way from Serbia
Then could you explain why several of my friends were killed by USAF pilots in the Gulf in '91 when their APC was attacked by A-10s whilst flying the Union Jack and in a safe area?
Think before you speak......

Quote:

They said that over Vietnam which is why the early F-4s didn't have guns Doug, suddenly they needed them. But I agree as missiles get smarter and better the dogfighting skills of yesteryear seem to be dying...

What you don't mention in your posting Beef is the fact that when being controlled by AWACS even the U.S. pilots prefer being controlled by British AWACS crews.
Yes Beef we have AWACS too.

All in all the only advantage that the US has in most  conflicts is numerical superiority. Because when it comes to technology Vietnam proved that even a technologically superior protagonist can be beaten by pesants. A terrorist with a well placed EMP weapon could write off all of our techonlogy.

My I also at this moment bring up that bomb that was dropped on Yorkshire a couple of years back by an American F15.

There ain't much the USAF can do that the RAF can't do equally well or better. And I certainly wouldn't take the word of a Marine Major on the state of foreign airforces in comparison to the USA's as absolute fact or fact at all for that matter.

Quote:

a wise man with wise words

I dont see Typhoon on the RAF lists, not sure of the exact numbers but it was in the couple hundred for orders i beleive. In the end, we just dont need the same numebrs as the US. Or to be more accurate. Cant afford the numbers.

Lets not even go into the can't afford area Craig, I'll start foaming at the mouth about the MoD again

Quote:

You and me both

Recent wars have shown the ever increasing importance of ground forces once more! The days of one army in Red and one in Blue are over.. it's red versus all kind of colours if you get my drift... Air support is needed more than air superiority I think.. The days of: "he who controls the sky controls the world"..(or something like that) are over.. I think at least..

to go into the many problems of military tactics  would take years. Perhaps if more was put into training these days there wouldn't be so many problems.

Quote:

which to avoid foaming we wont discuss

Hey everybody-I'm on my way out, so I only had time to look at the first five posts or so.

ozzy-I'm sorry to hear that, but that doesn't really pertain to my point-yes, the USAF is known for grave mistakes that cost civilian lives, however that really doesn't correlate to my infrastructure argument, or to how powerful the USAF (or any airforce, for that matter) is-the power of one's airforce can only be tested in combat with the enemy, only it's intel can be measured in the amount of innocent civilians who have been caught in the crossfire, or incorrect Chinese buildings bombed.

I'm not saying that the Brits don't have AWACS and tankers guys-I'm saying we coordinate them better.  Prefer Brit AWACS and tanker crews?

An AWACS crew is an AWACS crew is an AWACS crew.

A tanker is a tanker is a tanker.

I'll get around to the rest later

Small Correction for craigl s post:
you have
- booms
- NATO hoses
- russian hoses

Although it is possible to have a connector for both russian and NATO system (Malaysia)


One to one is and was rare even in ww2, but they still train for it as part of the NATO doctrine.

The only reason that the US trains agains the Typhoon is that the Typhoon is the closest they can get to Su-27 / Su-35 / Su-30 performance whitout having to call New Delhi or Moscow

Anything from the US and NATO is Flanker feed when the range limit of the R73 is passed anyway so most of the focus will be on long range (where the open pipes of the F-22 won't help in reducing the detection chance)

F-22 will rely on AWACS, as its cover is blown when its own radar is operating, and as stated its open pipes won't help much (except in running away at M2.0 after firing their shots which makes it light up like a christmas tree on radar)

I think Ivan, you put way to much stock in the Flanker. Its outclassed completely by anything new today. Doug the one aircraft i notice missing on the list in your quote is the Grippen. Which is better than the rafael and comparable to the typhoon. I am guessing it was not included in the simulations.

I have no idea one way or the other. I would expect someone of Air Marshal Garden's vast experience to know what he's talking about. Here's his CV. http://www.tgarden.demon.co.uk/biog/tgbio1.html

Quote:


The US Navy did during the Balkans conflict and Afghanistan - our VC-10 tankers had drogues, so they were able to use them - note the number of KC-135s now being retrofitted with wingtip drogue units!

Quote:


What people often fail to realise is that the number we are procuring (and this applies to other projects too) applies to the entire life cycle of the type in service. The Typhoon may be operational for up to forty years (or more), and will probably be looking at an operational force of somewhere between 60 and 100 (60 or 72 at a guess) aircraft at any time - the others will be kept in storage. The 232 the RAF have ordered are required to cover the whole life cycle, including attrition. If you then think you may lose 1 or 2, maybe 3 jets per year on average, plus others being retired at the end of their fatigue life, then you understand the reason for having so many on order in the first place. This is also what makes the project affordable.

Quote:


It would be impressive though...

... a good target for subversive types too.

Quote:

Sorry Beefy. Like any patriotic Brit I can't accept that. The RAF might be much smaller but it's just as capable in all respects. In fact they probably invented some of the procedures you're using now.

As I said before, the main advantage of the USAF is in sheer overwhelming numbers - both aircraft & manpower. No conventional air force can fight against that for any length of time no matter how skilful the pilots are or which aircraft they're using .

I'll say this about tanker crews...

During the Gulf War USN pilots in an F-14 definitely preferred Canadian tanker crews over USN.

The reason is simple...a tanker configured CC-137 crew went north to get them when nobody else would. The F-14 was leaking fuel badly and would not have exited hostile territory unless fuel was available.

The CC-137 was low itself, but the crew elected to extract the F-14 to a position where other tanker assets were available. The Canadian tanker then made an emergency landing with fuel reserves below minimums.

As for the concept that logistically the US handles the air war better...

That's a joke.

At exercises like Red Flag, Maple Flag and many others integrated C3I operations are conducted...Allied as well as US operators learn how to do their jobs in the exact same way, modified only for national assets. The NATO AWACS at Geilenkirchen uses and teaches AWACS tactics and uses to all NATO members. Exchanges between Allied nations ensure that the knowledge base gained by one country is shared across allies.

I conducted many exercises with USAF or USN units...their performance was acceptable, nothing more. The one advantage they had over us was numbers...a much bigger budget granted much higher force levels.

One last point for beefhole.

As a former technician and Technical Air Crewman in 414 (EW) Sqdn, CAF I found nothing to indicate that US aircrews communicated any more or less than Canadian crews, British crews or anybody else's. The only deciding factor was how well they responded to disruptions in communications caused by our jamming efforts. On that point British and Canadian crews worked better...they had more practice working against EW Aggressors. Both forces had access to their own training forces, which the US military lacked (one of 414's most common calls for deployment came from Tyndall AFB to work as the primary during Copper Flag or Green Flag Exercises).

It was fun though watching the USAF commit to "blue on blue" kills during an exercise.

Forget to validate a target instruction and the bad guys can send you where they want, point your weapons where they want...and have you expend weapons and freindlies when they want.

Nothing better than listening to the exercise over the Gulf of Mexico and hearing:

"LA 24, that's a kill. LA 21, steer 175 for 75, flight level 210 to regenerate. Confirmed kill by LA 24. LA 21 contact Blue control before turning inbound."

It was worth about 15 seconds of dead silence on the radios monitoring Blue freqs.

It was also worth a case of beer from both LA crews.  

Surely the fairly frequent news of friendly fire incedents shows that there is a problem with the communication infrastructure.

Craploadsamoney & big toys make not an awesome force.

I think the USAF is probably about as skilled as any other airforce in the world but not head and shoulders above the rest.

On an equal numbers battle with most Western European airforces and ground battles the US is around the same but that rarely happens.

Battles at the moment take place with vastly superior numbers against usually technologically inferior forces.

Amen to that.

I was talking about the popular music group ???

Quote:

With or without your glasses Felix?

Just got back home, the ethernet cord petered out in the hotel room

Well, not to start anything again, just let me say this-

errmm, hehe, I talked to Jeff again and it appears as though I made a minor mistake-the superior US communications he was refering to was during the Korean and Vietnam wars, when the enemy more often than not had better aircraft, but we had better pilots (our pilots recieved WAAAAAY more training hours) and comms.

hehe

silverfox, call me crazy or sick or something, but for some odd reason I don't find fratricide funny, simulated or not.  I dunno, maybe I should go lay down...

And I wouldn't agree that red flag really proves anything-it's an excellent exercise that can really show the strengths/weaknesses of an AF, but how many of the countries that take part have actually been engaged in combat on a mass scale several times in the last 15 years?

And, even more notable, exactly how much fratricide do you see being commited by US (actually, pilots of any country for that matter, not just American) pilots?

I can think of one single case since the beginning of the Iraq war, where an A-10 pilot took out a British truck.  That's it.  Jeff didn't hear of a single case for the entire duration of his deployment-and he keeps track of it, since his job in the states is with the 49th MAG (somehow he got assigned to CA in Fallujah-go figure ???)

Red Flag is great, but it doesnt translate into performance in the real world on some things.  Once youve made the mistake of shooting down your buddy, YOU DON"T MAKE IT AGAIN.  I can guarantee that.

So sorry about the comms thing.

Remind me again why we are comparing the Eurofighter to Eagles/Vipers/Hornets? I guess for that rainy day when Eurofighter powers decide to declare war on the United States?

Certainly that will not happen before at least F-22 is 'in' service. That's being really dark about it.

The comparison would be more appropriate, perhaps, with Chinese Su-27MMKs or J-10s, or current Russian frontline models available for export, like Ivan pointed out oh so long ago. Even that scenario is unlikely.

In any case, we should be happy that our pilots get to train against 'superior' platforms. That way, they'll really kick ass when they get the F-22, however much money we do spend it to get it in the air. I won't say anything about JSF.

Perhaps a more suitable comparison would be in BVR missiles; the us scrapped the Ramjet Pheonix in favor of   AIM-120C-5 (which I believe Eurofighter utilizes). How does that compare against MICA, Meteor, the ramjet Adder, R37M? I wouldn't really be too concerned about the Russian models though.

Quote:

Not sure where you got that idea Beefy. I would say that this is simply a case of national pride. The old schoolboy boast that mine is best or biggest, whether it is or not.

Hatter makes a very good point. Not much use having the best aircraft on the planet if the other side has better armament. The RAF Typhoon 2 has no gun so the missiles & weapons control system better be pretty good or it's no use at all.

PS. Quote:

I hope I never see the day. I suggest that this is very unlikely & they are more likely to operate alongside each other. We should be comparing both to real potential opponents, not boasting whose is biggest.

Quote:

Precisely my point. I suspect most Europeans on this forum or anywhere else prefer any home-built product to the US equivalent. I also suspect know the reverse is true. It's the perfectly natural national pride I'm talking about. My team is better than your team - so there. Which one is actually best doesn't come into it.

Quote:

Beefhole Britain has lost far fewer planes per operation than the US in the last 15 years. In fact we've lost more planes to friendly fire than enemy action!

Quote:

With any luck my neighbours, especially the one with the two psycho Yorkies that attack anyone walking along the pavement minding their own business

Speaking as someone there in '91 I have to say they were pretty impressive!

Believe me Pete if they were chocolate I'd have eaten them. Sometimes I'm tempted to pick one of the little buggers up and bite it to see how it likes it, but one look at the owner and I'm scared I might contract some horrible disfiguring skin disease

Quote:

try 4 times as much minimum

They had a variety of stuff, most of it ran off to Iran to hide for the duration

You do know some examples of friendly fire given, Wernt red flag exercises

Not wishing to gang up on you Beefy but I thought this was all about air-to-air combat. I'm not sure how much experience any air force has in this over the last 15 years. Using the 1991 Gulf War as an example, the first priority for coalition forces was destruction of the Iraqi air force and anti-aircraft facilities. Quote:

These were by no means all fighter aircraft. This would be a combined operation with all coalition aircraft under the control of a single commander. NATO forces practice this all the time in exercises & all use the same basic system or infrastucture as you put it. 38 Iraqi aircraft were destroyed by coalition forces & the rest of the Iraqi Air Force fled to Iran, leaving the Coalition air forces unchallenged. I don't know the type or how many of these aircraft were destroyed in aerial combat but the Iraqi Air Force was obviously inferior to the Coalition (in experience & numbers) & was quickly defeated. The biggest threat was the SAM missile sites & other types of anti-aircraft weapons. Once these had been neutralised the coalition had virtually total air superiority.

Quote:

plus there was an article in the washington post about china and possible problems in the future. But i wont say more as it could get me in trouble.

Quote:

I stopped there

If you reread my first post, you'll see this entire thread was about INFRASTRUCTURE and PRACTICE, not about air-to-air.  That would explain a lot, hehe

Quote:

China's about the only country I'd be really, really afraid to tangle with.  They're probably the number one threat AF-wise, not to mention the hundreds of millions of troops they have at their disposal

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

Quote:


Naturally, although I would be biased...

Quote:
He knew with typhoon being soooo popular, no other aircraft would have gotten the same interest
I'm out this is turning into a never ending topic

Quote:


Hes's stuck to his guns over nothing .......... apart from the fact that the Americans are good at keeping 100s of aircraft in the air ....... That's only true because they have 100s to do it with...... What they do with them is still open for debate. 

I thought the US and Great Britain were supposed to be allies here.  Why do we even need to argue about who is better at what?  This whole thread is argumentive and pointless.

Quote:


Aha........ you have a future in public life.   


best,

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

If a recent documentary on Discovery was accurate, pilots are well on the way to being taken out of the equation as unmanned craft become more efficient.     Which raises the question of which country would have the most "flight simmers" to fly them ?    I might come out of retirement ?

Quote:


I agree. Although they are a big part, with aircraft that are as closely matched as any modern western frontline fighter, they clearly do not mean everything.