Air Superiority

[NcDeuce]

We really haven't been challenged in terms of air superiority in a long time. What do you think would happen if we went to war with a country with a strong Air Force? [Probably not likely, but this just needs to be looked at]

Without the thousands of air missions in Afghanistan, how long would it have taken?

[Flagg]

I'd say it's unlikely the US will face an air-superiority problem in the foreseeable future. Here's why(in my opinion):

Against any LIKELY air superiority threats the US will dominate the sky..not just because of combat proven quality aircraft and weapons systems...but more importantly training and tactical information advantanges like a fully integrated C3I capability..knowing WHERE your enemy is at all times and the ability to DENY your enemy the same capability is paramount.

Imagine being a US fighter pilot on CAP at night.....no radar emissions setting off enemy "fuzzbusters" because you're relying solely on a datalink providing you with a "god's eye view" of your aerial battlefield.

Compare that with an opponent's MIG 29/SU 27 air superiority airframe forced to use his internal search/intercept radar which looks like a flashlight in the dark because his own C3I capability has already been smoked by SEAD Wild Weasels.

In the end the MIG or Sukhoi driver is dead even if he is the better air-to-air pilot because he can't "see" as well as the US Air Force driver.

Just my opinion

[BMF]

thats pretty much what it comes down to. we're the only military left that has both the quanitity AND quality of aircraft left. some nations (england for example) have excellent pilots and aircraft, but the sheer numbers arent there. others like N. Korea have fallen behind in the technology race. in fact, the 3rd largest standing collection of military aircraft is the U.S . militaries' "boneyard" of retired airframes (which we still occasionally resurrect, in cases such as the A 10)

[Russian Texan]

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/a50 I do believe China has multiple of those

China is also on the waiting list for http://arms.host.sk/missiles/s400.htm

Almost forgot, I think China recently bought 30 and purchased a licence from russians to build more http://www.sci.fi/~fta/Su-30.htm

[Va_Dinger]

80's technology 2nd hand Russian Weapons will not get China even five minutes of Air Superiority against the U.S. arsenal. Remember those weapons systems were designed to have a massive superiority in numbers. No way China could afford to buy enougth to get the job done. The way we are spending on defence and the way the economy is going, it would be far cheaper for the China just to sit back and watch us destroy ourselves. China is no real threat for at least another 30 years.

[Kriz]

I dont think it's likely that the USA will face a nation that has a large airforce pretty soon, why ?
I think it would be very unwise to spend several billions on creating a large airforce, I think it's much wiser to spend all that money on nuclear weapons and missile systems to launch them. That way you'll avoid a real conflict with the usa (while the nuclear treat avoids the declaration of a real war) thus making a large airforce obsolete.

Anyway just some thoughts

[Royal]

thats pretty much what it comes down to. we're the only military left that has both the quanitity AND quality of aircraft left. some nations (england for example) have excellent pilots and aircraft, but the sheer numbers arent there.

England doesn't have an Airforce (or a Navy or an Army for that matter). The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland does.

We may speak English (so so some of you, kind of ) but we ain't all English, we're Brits...

[perdurabo]

I dont think it's likely that the USA will face a nation that has a large airforce pretty soon, why ?
I think it would be very unwise to spend several billions on creating a large airforce, I think it's much wiser to spend all that money on nuclear weapons and missile systems to launch them. That way you'll avoid a real conflict with the usa (while the nuclear treat avoids the declaration of a real war) thus making a large airforce obsolete.

Anyway just some thoughts

Good AA systems are cheaper than airforce but they can't support they own troops:]
Nukes are great but when smb shoots nuke we're all ****ed up

[GazB]

"We really haven't been challenged in terms of air superiority in a long time. "

That is because you never pick on (ie invade) powerful countries. The US spends 350 billion a year of "Defence". The rest of the world put together doesn't spend that much. Even NATO is a poor second cousin and cannot really operate outside Europe without the US.

"80's technology 2nd hand Russian Weapons will not get China even five minutes of Air Superiority against the U.S. arsenal. Remember those weapons systems were designed to have a massive superiority in numbers."

The S-400 is not 80s technology, in many respects it is much better than PAC-3 Patriot. (400km range compared to 90km for Patriot for a start).
China will have enough weapons for local superiority. The US could send carriers but would have few nearby land bases to attack from.
This is all academic anyway the Chinese economy relies too much on US investment.

[ArmoredDov_D9]

Considering that the next war will be USA against a third-world-country like one of the Arab dictatorships, they'll not even try to question US air-superiority. But there is one ultimate defence against superior air-force, (it is dirty one but Arab countries doesn't have any moral values and won't hasitate to use it), the defence is to hide all of your weapon systems deep within densed high populated cities, a specially missile systems and WMD. Next to the WMD and the most important systems, they would place serveral dozens of children and if the US will atempt to air-strike them, they'll have great trouble from CNN and hypocrite French.

Yes, Human Shield is disgraceful low tactic, but the world hypocracy encourage to use it, espically by low-life scumbags.

[marktigger]

the problem with the attitude oh we'll never face an air to air threat leads to complacency. Having all the gear is great but knowing how to use it effectivley is what makes it a battlewinner. a major flaw in modern defence thinking is an over reliance on technology machines are falible and can be duped. and what happens when your opponent disables all your C3I?

[Flagg]

MARK.TIGGER

If you're responding to my post Mark....you may be missing my point.

Yes, it is possible that ECM could disrupt US C3I capabilities....but the likelihood is quite slim...do I have any evidence to back it up? Not really....just the fact that billions have been spent perfecting secure and robust C3I systems.....but even taking into account some "wildcard" preventing US forces from relying upon C3I systems they would still win, here's why:

1.) Philosophically, US forces are taught to seize initiative if a command and control vacuum exists giving the flexibility to "work around" a C3I breakdown, whereby the old Soviet centralized command and control system is rigid and inflexible.....in a C3I vacuum...where it is fair to assume BOTH sides are lacking solid command and control US forces would have an easier time adapting to a potentially devastaing loss of C3I

2.) Flight time........Read Chuck Yeager's autobiography.......he says there are no "natural" fighter pilots.......they're built........and he claims(correctly) the best pilot is the one with the most flight hours....US pilots fly a LOT relative to any potential adversaries...especially in the last 2 years with a much higher than average operational tempo...EVERY pilot is flying a LOT now.

Compare this with China's cream of the crop Taikonaut/Astronaut....after being a fighter pilot for well over 15 years, he's only accumulated 1350 hours flight time.....not nearly enough "time in the saddle" to compete against US pilots...

So in the end......WITH C3I the US wins, WITHOUT C3I the US still wins

Just my opinion...but I think it's a reasonable one

[GazB]

So in the end......WITH C3I the US wins, WITHOUT C3I the US still wins

Just my opinion...but I think it's a reasonable one

Therefore the US is omnipotent? The US can and has been defeated before and will be again. It doesn't matter how flash your equipment is, or how much you spend on weapons development. You certainly took out the Taliban government and the Saddam government, but your ability to win hearts and minds is still at the level it was in Vietnam. The Soviets were just as arogant in Afghanistan when they were there... like the US in Iraq they claimed to be helping the locals, building schools, allowing women to be treated as equals and go to school and work and even drive cars... they weren't after oil either as there was none. At the end of the day the afghans didn't want to be ruled by foreigners... They got their wish and the soviets were kicked out of the country and they have enjoyed peace and prosperity since... NOT.

So in the end......WITH C3I the US wins, WITHOUT C3I the US still wins

If this were true then the issue of the Israelis and palestinians, the Tibetans and the Chinese, the IRA and the British, the Russians and the Chechens, and the north and south koreans could all have been solved through US military might... and we all know that isn't going to happen.

In Kosovo the US had to resort to bombing Serbia to stop serbian troops in Kosovo to stop so called ethnic cleansing... the result was a reverse ethnic cleansing.

Need I bring up Somalia? Instead of getting the local warlords together and create an interim government the US picked out those they liked and created a potential for civil war. (Ironically the same female US diplomat that gave Saddam what he thought was a green light to invade Kuwaite was the same person who appointed one of Addaid's (spelling) sworn enemies to help organise a government... talk about setting yourself up to fail...)

[Flagg]

GasB


A couple of things:

Therefore the US is omnipotent? The US can and has been defeated before and will be again. It doesn't matter how flash your equipment is, or how much you spend on weapons development. You certainly took out the Taliban government and the Saddam government, but your ability to win hearts and minds is still at the level it was in Vietnam.

1.) I'm not the US mate...I'm located in Australasia...so vent your spleen away from my general direction.

2.) This topic is Air Superiority.......which has absolutely nothing to do with the taking & holding of enemy ground territory...and all of the many inherent problems that frequently coincide with that...some of which you were accurately describing.

3.) If my post gave you the impression of arrogance that the US is the guaranteed victor in an air superiority situation it was not my intention...but the fact remains that no potential adversary to the US faces even a reasonable chance of success in an air superiority situation......the current environment of one global superpower outspending the entire planet on defense is too lopsided for it to be a "fair fight".

[96B]

The S-400 is not 80s technology, in many respects it is much better than PAC-3 Patriot. (400km range compared to 90km for Patriot for a start).

The true range of the PAC-3 is classified and could very well be much greater than 90km. Also, the S400 is mid-late 90's technology and although I am not sure how it fares with the PAC-3, it is certainly more effective than the older Patriots.

The situation in Afghanistan has improved dramatically since the fall of the Taliban and I wouldnt say that the US is running the country anymore. The Soviets went there to conquer whereas America intended on ousting the Taliban and eliminating AQ while restoring long lost freedom.

There was no way that the warlords in Somalia would join forces or agree on any kind of government. They all wanted supreme power and the heads of their rivals. Originally the US was welcomed and the tension was minimal but after a series of raids etc where "noncombatants" were injured or killed, the tension began to rise. Once the 20,000 Marines were pulled out all hell broke loose once again.

That is because you never pick on (ie invade) powerful countries.

Well it just so happens that none of the "powerful" countries on your list (assuming China, Russia, NK) have done anything to provoke an attack. War with the first two would likely result in nuclear war which in itself is a good enough reason to use diplomacy. America does not invade any nation simply to gain territory, there is always a reason behind it.