Which Air Force is Best?

[Goose]

Wow looks like we got a lot of USAF fans here!!!! quite a fight going on, Sure the USAF is the big bad technology warrior around the block which has billions to spend. That sure does count for a lot.

Funny how they were that way back in 1965 - 1975 and had their gonads handed to them in a sack by the we bitty , crippled orphan of a North Vietnamese Air Force.


I voted RAF since WW2 proved that the country which owns the air force has what it takes to save their assets.

[Joopey]

Although I’m not a big fan of the Usaf myself, I have to disagree with you on one point.

The Usaf ‘had their gonads handed to them in a sack’ ( ) because a lot of politicians in Washington had double agendas. If the Air Force had had full authorisation to use all means possible, the outcome definitely would have been different. For instance, the Air Force had to begin at the bottom of their ‘priority-target-list’, in stead of starting with the most threatening targets (including sam-sites!). When they did have the opportunity to use full capacity, the Linebacker II bombing campaigns of 1972 for instance, they came ‘dangerously’ close to defeating their opponent.

Once again, it was the politicians who ordered the cancellation of these operations.

[Goose]

This I know, the point I'm trying to make is that the topic must be taken in a holistic view. The USAF was in a bit of a state in the beginning of the war, for instance doctrine and pilot training was totally of base (namely F-4 with no gun). Secondly the war was fought badly due to politicians thus hampering the Air Forces.

It has to be looked at holistically, it you don't you can't plan for every eventuality. As Col. Warden pointed out in his book and during assisting in planning "Desert Storm" you have to analyse the enemy and plan accordingly, hence the NVAF was better than the USAF cause they knew what to do to beat them. I'm not just talking strategic terms here, take for instance the hit and run tactics from the six O'clock position of an armada enroute to a target.

[Joopey]

Agreed, although I believe that the ‘strength’ of the NVAF was born out of budget- and technological problems and not so much out of doctrine 

[dreamer]

The US has a great aiforce but so does Europe, then again the Russians have a great airforce also so I'm picking them.  Each of the above countries have VERY unique planes.such as

US=F-16 Fighting Falcon
Europe=Eurofighter Typhoon
Russia=SU-37 Terminator

**Please correct me if I am wrong**

[Webmaster]

Russia lost their single Su-37 long time ago, it was never operational. You might want to say Su-35 instead, although that's only in service in limited numbers. So I would say for the near future:

US= F/A-22, JSF
Europe= Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen
Russia= Su-27 upgrades, Su-30, Su-35

OR if looking at the operational types

US = F-15, F-16, F/A-18
Europe = Tornado, F-16, Mirage 2000, Gripen
Russia = MiG-29, Su-27, Su-33

Basically rules out Europe at the moment, it is far from a combined air force anyway, so no point to compare entire Europe with the US or Russia. And if looking per country none of them match up to the US in strength. But that doesn't matter as long each can support their own means and coalition/allied requirements and received enough training to do so with the available means.

When looking at Russia, they are far behind with fleet upgrades compared to the US. One US squadron does probably more training flying than one entire Russian airbase...

Another great power is China, which is fastly modernising its fleets with new types, building up its inventory. The large number of aircraft makes it strong in a traditional air battle, but it doesn't make it good.

[Air Marshal]

The US has a great aiforce but so does Europe, then again the Russians have a great airforce also so I'm picking them.  Each of the above countries have VERY unique planes.such as

US=F-16 Fighting Falcon
Europe=Eurofighter Typhoon
Russia=SU-37 Terminator

**Please correct me if I am wrong**

As u say 'US has a great aiforce' but PAF also Second To None

[dreamer]

my apologies
USAF,RAF,PAF, and the Rusian AF all have great Air Forces however I refuse to comment on which one is best.

[innocentsoul]

PAKISTAN AIRFORCE IS BEST OF ALL THAT'S Y IT IS SECOND TO NONE.
"LIFE FAVORS THOSE WHO DARE WHO ARE BARELY RARE YET BELEIVE AND PLAY WITH CONVECTION AND OUTCLASS THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE BORN TO WIN THE HEARTS FOREVER"

[Webmaster]

Okay another PAF fan, no problem with that, but I wish you guys could drop the 'Second to none' thing, which is clearly just a popular term, just like "Air Power Team Power" for the RNLAF...and well I guess we can think of some more here. The PAF is not 'second to none' if you look at it from an overall perspective, let's be honest about that. Technology wise the PAF is second to a lot of nations. Don't forget the PAF is still not Beyond-Visual-Range capable, no AWACS, no Tankers...let's face it, you can't make up for these with just "better human factors and dogfight tactics".

You know, there is nothing wrong with preferring a certain air force, for patriotic reasons or not. But it doesn't mean it can be called the best of all. 

[Viggen]

Very true by our dear webmaster. I love the Swedish airforce more then any other. But i am also realistic, being the best involves so many aspects of technologi and human factors that its almost impossible to know wich airforce is really the best. And for you patriotic fans out there i just want to say..."Come back down to earth and have a fun by discussing this issues as adults". 

[Air Marshal]

Viggen tell me what thing makes Swedish AF Best