Elite American Air Force

To be honest, after going to the USAF base not far from my town, going out several times with the offers, etc, they’re not that well trained. I live in-between Basingstoke, Upper Heyford and Croyton. Over the years, I’ve been to several of the ‘open days’ and ‘events’ they do. Including one at Croyton(I know the spelling is wrong, but I can’t remember it right now.) where to be honest, all of the USAF members are either A) Overweight or B) Unhealthy. Now, as far as I know…I myself don’t think I should be able to outrun nor beat any member of the USAF at this open day, yet only two out of nearly 50 could beat me and I’m not overly active or physically fit. So as far as training goes, I’d say that’s a rather large problem.

On the other hand, when I went to Basingstoke (which was the base of C Squadron.) they obliterated us at the events. The RAF gunners, etc, that were there beat me hands down almost every time. So, as far as I can see there’s a slight problem with the USAF on the fitness side of things and from what I know to fly a fighter Jet you have to be fairly fit and healthy…but this is all from my personal experience and not from what they’ve undergone. (Just what I’ve seen.)

It would have been a firing squad for these guys. I remember an enlisted man painted the SAC ensignia on his wall with one small change the iron hand was holding a huge pair of a mans balls. Article 15 immediately. I guess some where a sense of humor has developed in the Finest Air Force in the history of the world!!!!!!!!!!!!

OK, let's clear this up.

The U.S. does have the most powerful airforce. Period.

Our Air Game is a vital part of our power in the military. We heavily rely on our Air Force (And Navy and Marine fighters/bombers) to deliver a crushing blow to enemy forces before we go in on foot.

Believe me, I've seen it firsthand..

-wD

Originally posted by thejackal
wat!? the us air force is # they cant tell an insurgents camp from a red cross childrens hospital

And care to tell me when did they hit Red Cross hospital?

LMAO!!! England almost got they butts handed to them in the Falklands Fiasco.

Originally posted by Kinja
LMAO!!! England almost got they butts handed to them in the Falklands Fiasco.

"The Falkland Islands are a group of islands in the south Atlantic. The two main islands, East Falkland and West Falkland, lie 300 miles [480 km] east of the Argentina coast. About 200 smaller islands form a total land area of approximately 4,700 square miles (12,200 square km). The capital and only town is (Port) Stanley.
The government of the Falkland Islands administers the British dependent territories of South Georgia, the South Sandwich Islands, and the Shag and Clerke rocks, lying from 700 to 2,000 miles (1,100 to 3,200 km) to the east and southeast of the Falklands. The total population of the islands in 1991 was estimated at 2100.


Argentina has claimed the islands since 1820. Britain had occupied and administered the islands since 1833 and had consistently rejected Argentina's claims.

The Falklands War, chronicled below, started after Argentina invaded and took control of the islands in April 1982.

During the war, the British captured about 10,000 Argentine prisoners, all of whom were released afterwards. Argentina sustained 655 men killed, while Britain lost 236. Argentina's ignominious defeat severely discredited the military government and led to the restoration of civilian rule in Argentina in 1983. " www.amazon.com...

April 25, 1982
A small British commando force re-takes the Georgia Island. The Argentine submarine ``Santa Fe'' is attacked and disabled. The commander of the Argentine forces on the island, Captain Largos, signs an unconditional surrender document on board the British HMS Antrim. The notorious Alfredo Astiz, who is at the time, a Leutenant in charge of a small party based in Stromness surrenders with his company and signs n unconditional surrender document on board the British HMS Plymouth without firing a single shot violating the military code's article 751:
"A soldier will be condemned to prison for three to five years if, in combat with a foreign enemy, he surrenders without having exhausted his supply of ammunition or without having lost two thirds of the men under his command."

Meanwhile, the main British task force is on its 8,000 miles (13,000 km) way to the war zone via the British-held Ascension Island.

Can go on and on, it infact wasn't a 'Fiasco' as you put it. 3/1 is a good ratio, especially while invading an island. Plus the fact the British sank more ships and destoryed a hell of a lot more Air Craft. Yep...that was a damn 'fiasco', winning a war, having the least amount of casualties and having control of the Islands. Along with the fact that since Leopoldo Galtieri lost, it forced him to resign and helped Argentine gain democracy at last. (Depends on your view if this is a good point or not.)

David Rock: Argentina 1516-1987
One Hundred Days: The Memoirs of the Falklands Battle Group Commander
The Battle for the Falklands / Hastings and Jenkins
The History of the South Atlantic Conflict (an Argentine Perspective by commander Ruben O. Moro)
Margaret Thatcher: The Downing Street Years.

Go read something, before you make a comment like that 'Kinja'. Shame the admins don't do a good job and ban/delete stupid posts.

Originally posted by WeBDeviL
OK, let's clear this up.

The U.S. does have the most powerful airforce. Period.

Our Air Game is a vital part of our power in the military. We heavily rely on our Air Force (And Navy and Marine fighters/bombers) to deliver a crushing blow to enemy forces before we go in on foot.

Believe me, I've seen it firsthand..

-wD

In your opinion, does that air power come mainly from technology or pilot skills?

I mean the US airforce have performed well in recent wars but against vastly inferior forces, it's hard to compare they pilot skills. I mean, how many Iraqi aces were there?

In your opinion, does that air power come mainly from technology or pilot skills?

Yes, this is the key question. I mean how can you gauge pilot skill when they're all flying different aircraft? If a p-51 shoots down a Stuka, was the American better pilot? Does "best trained" imply survival ratio of pilots or is training reflected in kills inflicted upon the enemy?

I have another question, only partically off-topic: How does the USAF get a total pass when it comes to 9/11? Would the Brits have allowed four airliners to buzz disobediently around the UK for an hour? I don't know if this has anything to do with training, but I thought I'd ask.


[edit on 2-3-2005 by smallpeeps]

From what I know, they'd of been shot down if they tried to enter a City, in the U.K. they don't run the risk. But, America didn't 'scramble' jets in time to get to some of the planes. (Bullsh*t.)

And the way in which you work out if some nation has a good Air Force is the ratio, of how many they kill compaired to get killed. Although, as you said putting them against an un-equal Air Force, isn't a way of measuring this.

Although, soon enough we'll find out how worthwhile the Air Force is, once a lot of the 'Axis of Evil' have got the S-400, etc.

'Fraid not! Most definately not! How utterly absurd!

What the USAF has, is what is called Air Superiority. In Gulf War 1, it was the Royal Air Force of this tiny little island that flew the majority of the sky to mud missions against the Iraqi airfields because the yanks were not up to it. Period!

Why? Because during one of the very first USAF missions into Kuwait, an F-16 Fighter jock got his bum creamed. After that, USAF pilots were not allowed to fly below a certain height!

As if that's not enough, we Brits - or at least our brave Vulcan, Jaguar, Tornado and Buccaneer pilots have, consistantly scored higher than their US counterparts during Exercise 'Red Flag' in Nevada.

These exes are designed to test navigation, stealth and weapons accuracy and the yanks with all their computerised aircraft can't do what the Royal Air Force pilots are still trained to do - that is Dogfight - using cannons or guns!

Even the Chel Ha'Avir pilots are now trained to close and attack enemy aircraft with guns rather than use missiles.

Any cretin can acquire a missile lock with over the horizon medium ranged missiles (AMRAAM) and shoot it down.

No my friends, it requires skill, cunning, a good eye for deflection shooting and a little bit of luck to get on a guy's '6' and shoot him down using guns. No way can you yanks do that!

And please don't tell me that your so called 'Top Gun' fighter school produces shedloads of Tom Cruze lookalikes - because it don't. Faillure rate is way too high - as it should be and I reckon in your 'bestest ever air force', you ain't got more than 1% in all air forces (Navy, Army, Marine or USAF) can can be truely called a 'Top Gun'.

It is men and not machines that make an air force great. Great Britain 1940 - Battle of Britain and 1982 Falklands, Israel's Chel Ha'Avir 1948 to present day - nuff said!

USAF - Korea (as part of UN forces) Viet Nam don't really count - VC had no airforce and North Viet Nam only had Mig 17s, MiG 19s and a few MiG 21s and they certainly didn't put up much of a fight.

And another thing. Some previous poster hit the nail on the head when they said you yanks have a very BAD 'Gung Ho' attitude. The 'Lets kill 'em all and let God sort them out!' attitude does not belong on a modern battlefield. 'Shooting first, asking questions afterwards', seem to be the mantra of the US forces in Iraq.

And as for the cretin who said that the Blue on Blue where A 10s shot up a Brit convoy of Warrior APCs because there were no computers on board the A10s, what the hell are Mark 1 eyeballs for? When in doubt - pull out!

But that statement just about sums up the yank attitude - more or less like the two vultures sitting alone in the tree, watching the animals below. One turns to the other and says, 'Patience my ass. Let's go and kill something!'

Ok, Korea doesn't count, where Americans faced Russian pilots in superior, or at the very best equal planes, and had an overwhelming advantage, but the Falklands does? Right...

If you Brits are so god damn well trained, how come the Falklands was so costly? Honestly, you had superiority in every way, just like we did against Iraq during the first Gulf War (really more). How come you didn't have the same dominance?

Even if you thought your pilots were better trained, it wouldn't make a difference. We still have the better technology, the numbers, and the cash. And we're not going to be dogifghting, either. You'll be picked out of the sky by F-22's without ever knowing they're around, or maybe a lot of your planes will simply be destroyed before they even get off the ground.

Originally posted by Odium
Go read something, before you make a comment like that 'Kinja'. Shame the admins don't do a good job and ban/delete stupid posts.

Yeah a bunch sheep on a few of crap islands 1000's of miles away from your mainland and it only cost you 7 ships. Brilliant strategy.

HMS Fearless
HMS COVENTRY
HMS ANTELOPE
HMS ARDENT
HMS SHEFFIELD
RFA SIR GALAHAD
ATLANTIC CONVEYOR

Fiasco.

Originally posted by Kinja

Originally posted by Odium
Go read something, before you make a comment like that 'Kinja'. Shame the admins don't do a good job and ban/delete stupid posts.

Yeah a bunch sheep on a few of crap islands 1000's of miles away from your mainland and it only cost you 7 ships. Brilliant strategy.

HMS Fearless
HMS COVENTRY
HMS ANTELOPE
HMS ARDENT
HMS SHEFFIELD
RFA SIR GALAHAD
ATLANTIC CONVEYOR

Fiasco.

Not to mention they would have lost many more ships if the Argentine ground crews had fused their bombs correctly. The Brits could have very easily been wiped out - they were lucky.

Originally posted by fritz
These exes are designed to test navigation, stealth and weapons accuracy and the yanks with all their computerised aircraft can't do what the Royal Air Force pilots are still trained to do - that is Dogfight - using cannons or guns!

Even the Chel Ha'Avir pilots are now trained to close and attack enemy aircraft with guns rather than use missiles.

Any cretin can acquire a missile lock with over the horizon medium ranged missiles (AMRAAM) and shoot it down.

I can tell you one thing if a plane tries to close on a missile armed oppponent with guns then he'd be knocked down very quickly indeed. What a stupid way to train a pilot, is it because they can't afford missiles
Guns are a last resort in case you didn't realize.

oh yeah BTW, British pilots are in no way superior to the US. If you were ablr to scale up the RAF to US size and put it in a combat zone then you can be damn sure there would be blue on blue engagements.

Originally posted by Odium
To be honest, after going to the USAF base not far from my town, going out several times with the offers, etc, they’re not that well trained. I live in-between Basingstoke, Upper Heyford and Croyton. Over the years, I’ve been to several of the ‘open days’ and ‘events’ they do. Including one at Croyton(I know the spelling is wrong, but I can’t remember it right now.) where to be honest, all of the USAF members are either A) Overweight or B) Unhealthy. Now, as far as I know…I myself don’t think I should be able to outrun nor beat any member of the USAF at this open day, yet only two out of nearly 50 could beat me and I’m not overly active or physically fit. So as far as training goes, I’d say that’s a rather large problem.

On the other hand, when I went to Basingstoke (which was the base of C Squadron.) they obliterated us at the events. The RAF gunners, etc, that were there beat me hands down almost every time. So, as far as I can see there’s a slight problem with the USAF on the fitness side of things and from what I know to fly a fighter Jet you have to be fairly fit and healthy…but this is all from my personal experience and not from what they’ve undergone. (Just what I’ve seen.)

Originally posted by fritz
As if that's not enough, we Brits - or at least our brave Vulcan, Jaguar, Tornado and Buccaneer pilots have, consistantly scored higher than their US counterparts during Exercise 'Red Flag' in Nevada.

These exes are designed to test navigation, stealth and weapons accuracy and the yanks with all their computerised aircraft can't do what the Royal Air Force pilots are still trained to do - that is Dogfight - using cannons or guns!

LOL...so you are saying that you went to some "open houses" and air shows, and you witnessed unfit U.S. fighter pilots...that were generally "unhealthy?" Let alone, all of us? As a matter of fact, US fighter pilots have very strict flight physical requirements, and PT standards. Personally, I do not know any overweight or 'unhealthy' USAF fighter pilots, and I happen to work directly with them on a daily basis (and witness in the gym/at the track on a daily basis, right on up to the wing commander). There is even a re-vamped PT regimen for all enlisted folks also. You sure sound like an expert to me.

As for best trained/worst trained air forces...well, I can't speak for other nations' flying hour programs, but I do know that the USAFs are extreme and extensive. For all those hours spent up in the aircraft, turning and burning, and all the hours spent by those on the ground, keeping the pilots up there, all for the sake of training, I do not believe there could possibly be any more training done.

So you say, "the USAF hasn't faced a quality adversary, so how could we know that they are any good?" Well, all I can do is hope that all these rigorous hours obsessively training are contributing to our status as a great air force. If you claim to testify as to the quality of this training, well, unless you are directly involved, your opinions/remarks have to be regarded as quite dubious.

Please provide some SOURCES, as to how exactly "we Brits - or at least our brave Vulcan, Jaguar, Tornado and Buccaneer pilots" consistently outdo the U.S. counterparts!!! Let me ask you, how many Red Flags have YOU, or anyone you know, directly participated in, and how many classified ops briefs did you get while you were there? Me personally? At least 4 on several Red Flag trips, never witnessing what you boldly claim....

I do realize that my posting is quite futile in a forum like this, for most members have an exact, fixed opinion or viewpoint on any given issue, calling anything that differs ignorance, and I expect most of you to go on believing and assuming that we're all a bunch of moron cowboys that have no idea what we're doing, operating our equipment, or running a couple miles at the track....

But of course, lots of you have the real picture, right? Having gone to airshows, and such. Anyways, it's literally time to go suit up for my 12 hour shift today-training- so, happy plugging.

[edit on 2-3-2005 by Kyle325is]

Hey dude - I can count 10 but that was in 70s and 80s. I was a member of team who - well if you take part, you'll know what I mean. I was not a pilot, I hastily point out.

But I'm so glad you brave yanks decided not to reply about the blue on blue between the A10s and the Warriors. That single, mindless, bloodlusting act of agression cannot be justified. So how come Brit aircraft never shot up any yanks in GW1? Simple - RECOGNITION TRAINING! How many hours a week would you say you fighter jocks spent on recognition training?

Another of your countrymen bangs on about how good your training is. No so my friends. In order to engage targets, you must first identify it as being hostile. It's easy when your thundering across the sky in air to air, but so difficult when flying air to mud missions.

Tanks and trucks and APCs don't have those little transponder thingies to stop you blowing the hell out of them. Mavericks are good because they've got those cute little tv cameras in the nose so you can see what you're doing, but without them and the computers you all rely on, you're up to your neck in a cess pit!

Anyway with modern technology and the coming of unmanned arial combat, what you guys gonna do?

In your opinion, does that air power come mainly from technology or pilot skills?

Pilot skill is by far more important then technology. For example take a look at the flying Tigers they were able to take it to the Zeros (cant remember the name of the army equivalent the japs flew) because they adopted tactics the P 40 was still the same aircraft. A computer cant change the fact that "the Hun is always in the sun."

Originally posted by Kyle325is

Originally posted by Odium
To be honest, after going to the USAF base not far from my town, going out several times with the offers, etc, they’re not that well trained. I live in-between Basingstoke, Upper Heyford and Croyton. Over the years, I’ve been to several of the ‘open days’ and ‘events’ they do. Including one at Croyton(I know the spelling is wrong, but I can’t remember it right now.) where to be honest, all of the USAF members are either A) Overweight or B) Unhealthy. Now, as far as I know…I myself don’t think I should be able to outrun nor beat any member of the USAF at this open day, yet only two out of nearly 50 could beat me and I’m not overly active or physically fit. So as far as training goes, I’d say that’s a rather large problem.

On the other hand, when I went to Basingstoke (which was the base of C Squadron.) they obliterated us at the events. The RAF gunners, etc, that were there beat me hands down almost every time. So, as far as I can see there’s a slight problem with the USAF on the fitness side of things and from what I know to fly a fighter Jet you have to be fairly fit and healthy…but this is all from my personal experience and not from what they’ve undergone. (Just what I’ve seen.)

LOL...so you are saying that you went to some "open houses" and air shows, and you witnessed unfit U.S. fighter pilots...that were generally "unhealthy?" Let alone, all of us? As a matter of fact, US fighter pilots have very strict flight physical requirements, and PT standards. Personally, I do not know any overweight or 'unhealthy' USAF fighter pilots, and I happen to work directly with them on a daily basis (and witness in the gym/at the track on a daily basis, right on up to the wing commander). There is even a re-vamped PT regimen for all enlisted folks also. You sure sound like an expert to me.

And as I said this is 'just what I've seen', I never made it out to be gospel. Now did I? Did I ever claim to be an expert or go off of personal experience alone? Now you might want to calm down and stop getting so defencive about something I stated was a 'personal opinion', if I knew it as fact/had access to full training for every Air Force, I'd of linked it for you.

Originally posted by fritz
Hey dude - I can count 10 but that was in 70s and 80s. I was a member of team who - well if you take part, you'll know what I mean. I was not a pilot, I hastily point out.

But I'm so glad you brave yanks decided not to reply about the blue on blue between the A10s and the Warriors. That single, mindless, bloodlusting act of agression cannot be justified. So how come Brit aircraft never shot up any yanks in GW1? Simple - RECOGNITION TRAINING! How many hours a week would you say you fighter jocks spent on recognition training?

You do realize Fritz that all A-10 squadrons are part of the Air National Guard not the US Air Force. They are part time pilots not full time.


Let's face it years ago blue on blue's were not an uncommon occurance it happened all the time. Just look at WWII.

Originally posted by rogue1
You do realize Fritz that all A-10 squadrons are part of the Air National Guard not the US Air Force. They are part time pilots not full time.

You do realize that you are wrong. The Air Force still has mulitple active duty A-10/OA-10 squadrons in the ranks. According to the AF website they have the following:

Inventory: Active force, A-10, 143 and OA-10, 70; Reserve, A-10, 46 and OA-10, 6; ANG, A-10, 84 and OA-10, 18