Valid arguments against the Typhoon (go America!)

[ozzy72]

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

[Craig.]

but it does cost twice as much lol.

try 4 times as much minimum

[hatter]

ozzy72:

Oh it was impressive alright (though I was watching through CNN on some washed-out 1st gen NVD footage), but there wasn't too much air-to-air competition (not so in terms of the aircraft, even less so in terms of infrastructure).

The Iraqis had what back then? Mig-25s armed with what type of stuff?

[ozzy72]

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

[beefhole]

I would hardly consider the two Gulf Wars 'mass air wars,' though.

I would disagree

Scales have changed since WW2, Korea and Vietnam.  It requires less to do now what required a lot back then.

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!

I don't mean to be disrespectful or anything, but could you clarify what this has to do with it (honestly, I'm not trying to be rude)?  My only point here is WE'VE HAD MORE PRACTICE!  That's it! Not we have more skill, not we have better planes (which we do ), just we've been doing it much more then the Brits have.  Tis all.  Just makes a statement about our foreign policy .  And watch what you say about friendly fire, you may quash silverfoxes red flag example

[Craig.]

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

[hatter]

Well it depends, are we comparing aircraft solely in terms of performance or are we comparing Air Forces? There should be no doubt the United States Air Force is one  of the best in the world, and definitely better than Iraq's 1991 Air Force (which was practically destroyed on the ground).

In my previous response, I was talking about lack of air-to-air combat (which is what I assumed when we are discussing air superiority fighters). Sure, there were many surgical strikes against ground targets, but how many actual air-to-air encounters occured? Probably a handful, all American victories no doubt.

If you want to compare strike abilities, it has as much to do with the aircraft as the bombs they dropped.

[Hagar]

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.

a massive air campaign codenamed Operation Desert Storm: more than 1,000 sorties per day beginning early morning on January 17, 1991. Weapons used included smart bombs, cluster bombs, daisy cutters and cruise missiles.

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.

[Wing Nut]

Anyone who thinks air to air battles are passe' and the US has no serious competition, needs to take a look at China and the little beauties they have over there.

[Craig.]

[quote]Anyone who thinks air to air battles are passe' and the US has no serious competition, needs to take a look at China and the little beauties they have over there.

[Hagar]

The weapons might be different but I don't think the role of the fighter has changed that much . The primary job of the interceptor is defence, to prevent enemy bombers from reaching the target. Escort fighters are there to try & prevent this by shooting them down first. These days it all comes down to which one has the most sophisticated missile control system. I still think that the days of close air-to-air combat are gone. The MoD obviously thinks the same or the Typhoon would still have its gun.

[beefhole]

Not wishing to gang up on you Beefy but I thought this was all about air-to-air combat.

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

Anyone who thinks air to air battles are passe' and the US has no serious competition, needs to take a look at China and the little beauties they have over there.  

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

[C]

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!

In the last 15 years we've (the RAF) lost 1 (possilby) plane to enemy (insurgent) action and 1 to friendly fire...

On the friendly fire, from memory at least one of the A-10 incidents (GW1 or GW2) and the F-16 bombing of Canadian troops in Afghanistan were from the ANG...