|Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 43):|
guess that is why Europeans bought so many F-86s, F-104s, F-4s, and F-16s? France also bought several F-100s. Also, what is the actual kill ratio of European pilots over enemy pilots vs. US pilots over enemy pilots? That is the true standard for fighter pilot performance world wide.
Common, let's put things in perspective here,
The kill ratio of both US and European pilots is next to negligible post WWII and Korea, fact is that most
important big aerial wars have been fought outside of Europe and the US and without the use of their respective pilots.
The US almost had air dominance from day one over most of Vietnam during the entire span of the conflict, besides
Vietnam there hasn't been one serious War that needed the full force of both the USAF
and the NAVY/MARINES.
Same can be said about Europe, besides the Falklands and the UK and a number of small interventions their hasn't
been one serious War European nations where involved in until the 2nd Gulf War in '91.
That War was a joint effort between many nations whereby we had such an overweight against the Iraqis that an "air-war" would be serious overstatement, it was more an air-bombardment campaign that lead to a 100hr ground campaign and a subsequent overwhelming victory.
In the 3rd Gulf WAR between the USA/UK and IRAQ there wasn't even talk of IRAQI airborne resistance anymore.
Most post WWII full scale air-wars where fought between IRAQ-IRAN, ISRAEL and its neighbours, INDIA-PAKISTAN
and some other smaller conflicts around the globe, none of them directly involving both US and EUROPEAN forces.
Making a comparison as to their effectiveness is virtually impossible, if not completely absurd knowing that training
methodology, weapon systems, and level of available technology is as good as on par, besides I don't think the US
perceives any real threat coming from its European partners, it sure hasn't restructured its military so that they plan
for another war on European soil.
|Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 43):|
The US flies to the edge of the envelope so Europe doesn't have to.
The US is willing to fly/fight to the edge if their own interests are at stake, same as other nations they do nothing
or the least possible if there is nothing to gain or protect something they would otherwise loose, eg Oil-Gas or other important supplies, strategic locations, important trade opportunities-partners.
What's true for the US and before the collapse of the Warsaw pact also the USSR
is that the US is bend on setting
up big important strategically placed military posts outside of the US, they realize that being a superpower means
that you want to bring the fight to the opposers territory, preferably fighting its wars as far away as possible from US soil, best on the opposers grounds and if need be on an allie's territory.
Just look at how they now invest in tighter relations with Australia as such being able to set up a new big military
base on Australian ground ,again strategically placed to fight new conflicts protecting its interests in the new rising
economical centers of SE
Don't get me wrong, I don't object to the US being in so many locations outside of its own borders, they are good
friends and good allies and I must admit that usually we all can count on you guys if needs be.
However I think we all need to realize that the umbrella they provide is always dependent on its own interests therefor
a healthy level of skepticism is a sound approach (Eg the last IRAQ war).
There are always a number of nations that want to be "the boss" and all things being equal I believe that the US is a better "boss" than many other candidates.[Edited 2011-12-17 11:46:02]
[Edited 2011-12-17 11:46:30]