State of the US Air Force

[GregP]

We've had a new member, Johnny45, assert that the US Air Force would be overcome by the Russian hordes of fighters and beaten in a war.

First, the USA is not going to attack Russia, unless WE are attacked. Therefore, any Russian fighters would be coming to attack us. Thjey aren't the best at mounting long range missions, at least from Russia to the continental USA. That's beyong their unrefuelled range mostly, except Alaska. If they DID decide to attack, we'd certainly know they were coming and be ready with a response.

Second, US pilots get about 10 times the flight hours or more that Russian pilots get. As a result, our average pilot is experienced, aggressive, very comfortable with his aircraft, and is probably no more than 2- 3 days from pulling some heavy g-forces. Sure, there are some very excellent Russian pilots, too. But the AVERAGE Russian fighter pilots doesn't get the flight time to be really comfortable and good in the aircraft in a combat environment.

Third, we have a large Naval presence in out ports with aircraft, surface-to-air missiles and a lot of long range radar / satellite coverage. Again, we'd KNOW they were coming and that they didn't have much fuel to play with, and none for escape. We know the range of Russian jets as well as they know ours. So, they'd be met by a large, well-fueled force, with air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles in the hundreds. Despite the Russians having, maybe, thousands of fighters, they cannot get them all to US shores. The ones that get here would be met by well-motivated pilots flying technologically superior jets in large numbers.

My take on it is that the Russians really don't want to attack the USA any more than we want to attack them, so this is all probably so much poppycock anyway. In fact, we ought to flying in each other's airshows.

Now if we managed to fight at equal distances from our bases and if we both managed to get a good number of tankers airborne, we 'd have a good scrap.

If the USA DID decide to attack Russia, I'm pretty sure that none of us in here are aware of the exact tactics we would use. I know I'm not since I have been out of the US Air Force since 1976 and was not a pilot while I was serving. I worked on ICBM missile site.

There are a LOT of arguments, and I touched on the most basic only. I wish you could have heard all the USAF fighter pilots I've talked with that have done exchange mission in the former Soviet Block countries. Universally, they saw the former Soviet Block forces as maintrenance-challenged and less than aggressive.

In one case I recall, I spoke with three AIr Force pilots who had just come from a 3-week exchange mission in Sweden. While there, they were tasked with hitting a former East-German airfield every other day, twice a day. The US team had 12 F-16's and the German Air Force had thirty MiG-29's. The US team was supposed to attack in and 8-turn-4-turn-4 mode. That is, send 8 fighters in the morning, refuel and send 4 in the early afternoon, refuel and 4 in the late afternoon.

On the very first day, they were met by 8 MiG-29's, punched through, and made the attack. They were never again met by 8 or 4. The best they could muster was 6 or 7 in the morning and 2 or 3 in the early afternoon and late afternoon. While they were there they were told by the former East German Base Commander, who was retained in the German Air Force, that they have never been able to get even half of the thirty MiG-29's airborne at the same time. Now that was in the year 1998. By now, they surely have repalced the MiGs with more reliable aircraft, probably Eurofighters.

There is NOTHING wrong with the German Air Force. The above is an example of the former Soviet block equipment issues that were seen by people flying it.

The Russians don't HAVE hordes of modern fighters. Yes, they have many SU-27's and MiG-29's. None are very new except a few. Most are the age of our f-15C's. They have many MORE older fighters, a good deal of which are not airworthy and do fly often enough for their pilots to be current, aggressive, and comfortable in a combat environment.

At this moment, I think the Indian Air Force is more potent than the Ruissian Air Force, and that is NOT a knock on the Russians ... it is a compliment to India. Their MiG's are well cared-for and they are good pilots. Again, if they decided to attack us, they'd meet a hailstorm. Good thing we aren't active enemies. They aren't experienced at long-range attack (at least as long as India to the USA) and we aren't interested in attacking India. If we WERE interested, we have a lot more Naval resources and carrier task groups than they do.

Anyway, maybe someone else should chime in to tell our new member, Johnny45, that the USAF is not a toothless defense force.

[Wuzak]

We've had a new member, Johnny45, assert that the US Air Force would be overcome by the Russian hordes of fighters and beaten in a war.

First, the USA is not going to attack Russia, unless WE are attacked. Therefore, any Russian fighters would be coming to attack us. Thjey aren't the best at mounting long range missions, at least from Russia to the continental USA. That's beyong their unrefuelled range mostly, except Alaska. If they DID decide to attack, we'd certainly know they were coming and be ready with a response.

I think he was probably referring to the Cold War era.

And I understand that the Soviets never had as many aircraft (or other weapons) that the intelligence agencies thought or relayed to their superiors.



Second, US pilots get about 10 times the flight hours or more that Russian pilots get. As a result, our average pilot is experienced, aggressive, very comfortable with his aircraft, and is probably no more than 2- 3 days from pulling some heavy g-forces. Sure, there are some very excellent Russian pilots, too. But the AVERAGE Russian fighter pilots doesn't get the flight time to be really comfortable and good in the aircraft in a combat environment.

That is probably because former soviet states can't afford to run them all the time. This is a consequence of the way the Soviet Union was dismantled.



Third, we have a large Naval presence in out ports with aircraft, surface-to-air missiles and a lot of long range radar / satellite coverage. Again, we'd KNOW they were coming and that they didn't have much fuel to play with, and none for escape. We know the range of Russian jets as well as they know ours. So, they'd be met by a large, well-fueled force, with air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles in the hundreds. Despite the Russians having, maybe, thousands of fighters, they cannot get them all to US shores. The ones that get here would be met by well-motivated pilots flying technologically superior jets in large numbers.

The US Navy is so much bigger than any other Navy. In fact I recall a stat which says that the US Navy is larger (tonnage) than the next 13 largest combined.

I am not sure that US fighters being technologically superior is a good thing, or necessarily true.

Throughout the Cold War the US anaylists always dismissed the enemy's aircraft as being technologically inferiror. The reality was that Soviet aircraft may have not had the fancy features of western aircraft, but they were extremely functional.

The debut of the MiG-29 is case in point. It was said to have inferior radar and weapons than its US equivalents, but when they saw it close up tehy discovered it to be more capable than they thought. And when they saw it do the Cobra manouvre.......


My take on it is that the Russians really don't want to attack the USA any more than we want to attack them, so this is all probably so much poppycock anyway. In fact, we ought to flying in each other's airshows.

Now if we managed to fight at equal distances from our bases and if we both managed to get a good number of tankers airborne, we 'd have a good scrap.


Who in their right mind would want to confront the US directly? The US spends almost as much as the rest of the world combined! The US and its allies spend over 2/3 of the World's military spending. Who would feel up to attacking the US.

Certainly not Russia.

The USA is responsible for 41.5 per cent of the world total, distantly followed by the China (5.8% of world share), France (4.5%), UK (4.5%), and Russia (4%)

http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending


There are a LOT of arguments, and I touched on the most basic only. I wish you could have heard all the USAF fighter pilots I've talked with that have done exchange mission in the former Soviet Block countries. Universally, they saw the former Soviet Block forces as maintrenance-challenged and less than aggressive

I bet they would be more agressive when defending their home lands.


The Russians don't HAVE hordes of modern fighters. Yes, they have many SU-27's and MiG-29's. None are very new except a few. Most are the age of our f-15C's. They have many MORE older fighters, a good deal of which are not airworthy and do fly often enough for their pilots to be current, aggressive, and comfortable in a combat environment.

They probably never had hordes of fighters.

But, if they were to attack they would do it with bombers, not fighters, using cruise missiles or bombs.


During the Cold War it wa sperceived by the Western World that the Soviet Union was a military threat to them, that the Soviets would be the agressors in a future war.

Yet, looking at each side's aircraft one cannot help but come to the conclusion that everybody has it wrong. US aircraft tend to be more offensive in nature, Soviet aircraft more defensive.

Stealth technology, for instance, really is offensive technology.

I'd be interested to know what justification the US has for such expenditure on "defence" to its own people.

[GregP]

Wuzak,

In the USA, our government is elected. SOme people think the government is elected by the people, and in most cases, they are right. The President is elected by the Electoral College, not by popular vote.

Unfortunately, there is no accountability in the US Government. If they promise to do something during a campain, and later decide not to do it, or vice versa, we have no recourse in most cases. We DO have a way to remove the President, but it is used only rarely.

Bottom line is, when the government makes a decision to SPEND, we citizens can't do much about it.

So, although I love my country, I have very little say other than a vote when we have an election in how it is run. In fact, the lobbyiasts and political action committees probably have more say since they are able to give millions of dollars to the lawmakers.

My bet is that we citizens aren't any happier with some of our government's choices than anyone ELSE in the world is. One can probably say the same in most countries. We DO have mor freedoms than a lot of places, but not particularly, more say in what our government does.

[Wuzak]

Wuzak,

In the USA, our government is elected. SOme people think the government is elected by the people, and in most cases, they are right. The President is elected by the Electoral College, not by popular vote.

Unfortunately, there is no accountability in the US Government. If they promise to do something during a campain, and later decide not to do it, or vice versa, we have no recourse in most cases. We DO have a way to remove the President, but it is used only rarely.

Bottom line is, when the government makes a decision to SPEND, we citizens can't do much about it.

So, although I love my country, I have very little say other than a vote when we have an election in how it is run. In fact, the lobbyiasts and political action committees probably have more say since they are able to give millions of dollars to the lawmakers.

My bet is that we citizens aren't any happier with some of our government's choices than anyone ELSE in the world is. One can probably say the same in most countries. We DO have mor freedoms than a lot of places, but not particularly, more say in what our government does.

Our government is elected to the house of representatives, the party that wins majority government then picks the executive government - Prime Minister, Treasurer, etc.

We do not have a direct way of removing our PM. But we recently had a change of PM due to opinion polls - the former PM, Kevin Rudd, had his popularity sink so low that his party, the Labor Party, decided to replace him with Julia Gillard - our first female PM.

The PM has to a member of the House of Reps. He is elected, like everyone else in the house of reps in a one member electorate (ie there is one representative per electorate). We had the unusual situation where at the last general election the incumbant government not only lost power, but the former PM was not even elected by his electorate.

Our Federeal government terms are flexible, with a maximum time between elections of 3 years. The government can and will call an election early if it thinks that would help it retain power.

Our government, like yours, does make some bad decisions. But we only have to wait 3 years, instead of 4, to change that.