It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

American Airpower Attitudes

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Just a couple of little points as I realise it isn't the threads main purpose and also I don't have links to back it up.

I read a book by a guy that was in Delta and in it he said they modelled their training after the SAS. I can't remember if he said it directly but the implication was that if you are starting out, you model the process on the best (meaning the SAS) out there, and then try and find ways to do it better.

Also I would like to say that although I am not American, I have known a few and a few of those have been current or ex-military. I have found them pretty humble and polite generally (lol, certainly not always), but very confident about what their military can do. I think that comes from the experience of success, but being the best doesn't make them unbeatable. Someone will do it one day, and have you thought of the implications of that. What would happen if today, right now, someone defeated the US and made them look ineffectual? What would that lead to? Who around the world would say "Ooer, we don't have to worry about them any more so we can do what we want."? Mostly I think despite the obvious deficiencies and mistakes that have been made collectively or by individuals overall they are helpful presence to have.

One other thing about the big boys on the block is that they also go eventually as the History channel will testify to, but right now I don't think anyone could knock the US off the top rung of the ladder except themselves.

I hope I haven't made that sound like I disagree with your original premise gooseuk because I don't really, but I believe the positives of the situation outweigh the few that need to go overboard on the bragging rights of being the best. It isn't across the board, most are just stating a fact and only a few are using "we are the best" as their only argument.




posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 01:00 AM
link   
It doesn't bother me at all because i know they are all just jealous of the MIGHTY CAC Boomerang, the only completely indigenously designed and built Australian fighter plane. Both Japanese and Americans alike shook in their boots when they saw it coming over the horizon (the Japanese feared it because it had guns that were sometimes working, Americans feared it because it was known to crash on friendly forces). Muhaha Terra Australis and the mighty CAC Boomerang will conquer you all! (ok i will go and take my pills now)




en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 15-2-2005 by Trent]



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 01:23 AM
link   
this is just asking for the yanks to bite your head off.

Most people think they're countries defence force is great or the best with what they have or they are the best at something, it's always been like this and it'll never change.

thanks,
drfunk

[edit on 15-2-2005 by drfunk]



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Wars Aren't Won By Talk, But By Action

What I see in this thread is a lot of talk and not much walk.

The only debate that matters in a topic like this is what goes on in the air.

The U.S. track record in that department isn't perfect, but speaking as a person whose security is dependent on the quality of U.S. air power, I'm quite satisfied with it.

You think your air power is better than ours? Fine, you are entitled to your opinion.

But ask yourself this: would you want to bet your life on it?

I, and every American, are doing just that, because every jackass and genocidal nut case in the world wants to see us take a fall.

Someday we will.

We're not gods, just people doing the best we can to get by and try to not be total bastards about it like the people we've had to swat down in the past – then build back up into something better than they once were.

So talk all you want. Talk is cheap.

When push comes to shove, my money is literally on the U.S.

My opinion, and one based on a proven track record.

Your mileage may vary.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 02:09 AM
link   
When you look at any nation, you have to realize that it's an organism; it changes and grows, and sloughs off old parts that are no longer needed. It exists in a state of dynamic equilibrium.

Americans (the knowing ones) speak of political tides that sweep through any nation as a pendulum swinging now towards license, and now toward restraint. In the same way, military doctrines have an ebb and flow to them as well.

Picture America as a room full of grandfather clocks. Some represent research, some represent factory output, still others represent civilian support for the military. For the last 50 years, many of those clocks have been chiming at once. It has happened that way in most nations. Rome, Englad, Russia, Baghdad. Some forces are on the increase, some are peaking, and others are already in decline.

One of the forces that has favored america is the great stride forward made in armor during WWII. Even though most of the innovation in strategy was at the hands of Germans like Rommel, Guderian and Paulus. Since the "armor revolution" in tech and tactic ~1940, the subsequent advances have been incremental: improvements in design and deployment. Schwartzkopf remarked that Rommel would have understood the American Campaing in Gulf War I; indeed, he was often seen with a copy of the memiors of Rommel's chief aide on his desk. Such arithmetic progression of technical improvement favors the biggest industrial power; which HAS BEEN the USA.

But new forces are coming to the for. Fire-and-forget anti-tank weapons, which home in on a tank's exhaust or outline, threaten to create a new "infantry age," when a squad of soldiers on foot can reduce a column of armor to slag. IF this new phase does come to pass, its effects will be as far reaching as the introduction of the "hand-cannone" in the 14th century. If tanks are the new cavalry, then fire-and-forget weapons may be the new musket.

Every Empire begins at the 'borderlands' of civilization. The new conqueror eventually strikes at the heart of the old order. And then, as H.G. Welles remarked, history is the sound of hob-nailed boots marching up the staircase, and silver slippers tiptoeing back down.

Greece may have been a Minoan colony. Roma was a Greek colony. Byzantium was a Roman Colony. So were Paris and London. And America was itself a colony. What colony today is watching the birth of a new Emperor, or the innocent child's-game that will be the next weapon of terror? Gunpowder was originally for fireworks. Who knows? perhaps the ouija board will be the cradle of tomorrow's weapon of terror.




posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 02:22 AM
link   
Okay, That Was Just Plain Cool


Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
When you look at any nation, you have to realize that it's an organism; it changes and grows, and sloughs off old parts that are no longer needed. It exists in a state of dynamic equilibrium.

That was a just plain cool post. I am a sucker for big-picture analogies, and used my second vote for this month in response because I simply love the way you write.

Ironically, however, I am left wondering: U.S. airpower -- Are we wrong to think we're #1 in this department as things currently stand?

We have some powerful friends and some powerful allies, but I'm pretty sure that despite all the bluster, when you get down to it, everyone knows who has the mojo in terms of air power.

Some just don't want to admit it, and bristle when we point it out, even if it's true.

I'm not saying "in your face", but I am saying that you name a patch of sky anywhere on the planet, and if the U.S. wants to control it, we will control it.

The fact that we only do that when we have a damn good reason to is a fact that should receive greater recognition from some people on this board who really should know better.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
What people also need to realize is that the United States designs such great military equipment through lots and lots of painstaking research; test pilots who risk their life to test new aircraft, and so forth.



Yeah, 'cos nobody else in the world ever thought of doing that.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
What people also need to realize is that the United States designs such great military equipment through lots and lots of painstaking research; test pilots who risk their life to test new aircraft, and so forth.



Looking at the recent F/A-22 crash, it isnt only test pilots that are risking their lives....... Did the USAF spend enough on testing?!



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 01:05 PM
link   
GooseUK, I salute you for standing up against this behaviour, it's not fair that the americans spout their "USA and our F-22 pwns j00 411 f00l5"

The F-22 is a great plane, the best, but does this automatically make the USAF the best? Perhaps the training does, but not their equipment.

Does the M1A2 SEP make the US Army the best? Again it's training.

The UK spends more time training their pilots than the US.

UK Tank training is the best in the world, it set the standards for all.

The UK is better than MANY are willing to admit.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 02:08 PM
link   
All this arguing about which country has the best latrine facilities and which can sport the more advanced undergarments and the like makes me glad we (the US and UK) are allies.

Now let's get on to the important facts such as does UK right hand drive or US left hand drive increase combat survivability. Seriously folks both nations have their plus and negative points, but in the heat of combat I doubt either side is going to be boasting to the other that the dessert in their rations is more tasty.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   
GooseUK i think it needed to be said! and i'm glad someone finally did. yeh i'll admit our friends over the ocean are sometimes a little big headed.. but at the end of the day.. were there closest ally and our military works very closley with theres in training and aircraft.

So basically to any americans out there if your going to bad mouth the uk or any another european country's airforce for that matter, it's pretty short sighted, as were on the same side.. and it's like insulting yourself.

In my opinion the US air force has more planes more funding therefore it's the largest in the world. But in all fairness at red flag training exercises, other countrys are still able too do good and hold there own, so basically what i'm saying is, your not IT, your good, maybe the best.. the only way we'll ever know is in real combat.. but that's not going to happen.. so all this bickering is pointless, and saying oooh the usaf no one can beat them..you just don't know...cause no one big has ever tried in modern times.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by clashrock
So basically to any americans out there if your going to bad mouth the uk or any another european country's airforce for that matter, it's pretty short sighted, as were on the same side.. and it's like insulting yourself.


Here is the thing - no one in the US is bad mouthing the UK or anyone in Europe when we say we are the best.

It is just simple fact.

If you were to say that Michael Jordan was THE BEST basketball player, that would not mean that Allen Iverson is BAD, just that Jordan is better.

It is the same thing. The UK has VERY well trained pilots, and with the Typhoon has a VERY good front line fighter. Unfortunatly (for both our coutries) the UK simply does not have the numbers the US has, just as Iverson is 6 inches shorter then Jordan.

They also do not have some of the more exotic technology such as stealth, just as Iverson can not dunk a basketball on Jordans level.

Is the UK a world power to be reckoned with? Of course - I don't think too many people would say otherwise.

Would the US kick the snot out of the UK in a head to head matchup? Of course, the US simply has too many aircraft for the UK to hande. Just as the US has too many good planes for China to handle.

Again, this isn't a lack of respect for China, the UK, or any other country - it is just a combination of factors which include technology, training, support, and numbers which makes the US clearly superior to any other country in a head to head comparison.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Well, I wouldn't say the U.S. would "kick the snot" out of the UK in a battle, maybe in a WAR, but a battle would depend.

UK was the motherland of the original U.S. and one thing both countries show is they always exhibit bravery and professionalism in their fighting, whether they are the best or not.

The UK military is very very professional, most definitely.

I think what some people are getting confused with though is in saying the U.S. military is "the best" and the U.S. military is "the most powerful."

OVERALL, the U.S. is the best, I'd say, with UK a very close second (and only then because their military simply doesn't have as much funding as the U.S. military). In terms of POWER, no question there, the U.S. military is the most powerful.

But I mean, no question, if the United Kingdom had a navy, army, and air force the same size as the United States of America, they would be equal, or very very very close to the U.S. in terms of power most definitely.

Remember though, comparing these two militaries is fishy, because they differ a great deal in size. Comparing the skill of a small military or air force to a very large one is difficult, because the large one has a lot more people in it. Having a lot more people can result in a lack of quality overall.

This very same thing even happened in the British military in its empire days; a lot of the soldiers were of low quality, just in there for the money. Some were even tricked into it (recruiters would take a potential out for dinner, get him drunk, and he'd awake the next day to find he'd joined the British infantry!)..

It is sort of like trying to compare the U.S. Marine Corps and British Royal Marines. You just can't do it. The U.S. Marine Corps is its own little self-contained military, with its own air force (or air wing) and ground force.

The Royal Marines have none of this. A Royal Marine is more or less a type of special operations soldier, a very highly-trained one, which means comparing a Royal Marine to a standard American Marine is just unfair.

You have to compare Royal Marines to American Recon Marines to get a better comparison, and in that case, both are very, very professional.

As for people who say, "The U.S. would crush so and so, yada yada yada...." well, in certain cases that is true, in other cases it isn't, but I mean IGNORE THOSE PEOPLE, BECAUSE THEY ARE TROUBLE-MAKERS!!!!!! PEOPLE WHO TALK LIKE THAT GIVE AMERICANS A BAD NAME!!



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
Well, I wouldn't say the U.S. would "kick the snot" out of the UK in a battle, maybe in a WAR, but a battle would depend.


Dude, thats what I said - the US military (or army, or airforce etc) would kick the snot out of anyone elses in a head to head matchup.

Thats what it means. Ones whole power vs the others.

You can stack a battle any way you want - I am saying both at their full power.

I am getting sick of this though, everyone knows that the UK has a great military as dose Russia, and everyone also knows that overall the US is the best/most powerfull/whatever means superior.

So I will leave it at that. US = most powerfull over all and in most specific cases do to it's size, technology, training and funding. No one else can compete with those factors.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 10:28 PM
link   
I dont want to start a flame war or anything but I would like to point out a few things

1) I don't think anyone in the modern world has seen the full force that the US military can project if need be. There are probably some exceptions if you count US warplanners playing with computer simulations etc... I mean even in WWII the US was fighting 2 fronts at once!!

2) Most people agree that the US has superior air power and thats based off of only taking into account what we want the world to see


3) As others have said its military power is a combination of lots of variables like training, intelligence, equipment and technology, leadership, command & control, logistics and supply lines etc.. When all that is taken into account as a whole the US is unmatched.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Greece may have been a Minoan colony. Roma was a Greek colony. Byzantium was a Roman Colony. So were Paris and London. And America was itself a colony. What colony today is watching the birth of a new Emperor, or the innocent child's-game that will be the next weapon of terror? Gunpowder was originally for fireworks. Who knows? perhaps the ouija board will be the cradle of tomorrow's weapon of terror.



Australia, so watch out. Here we come!


This is a very interesting viewpoint.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 03:02 AM
link   
Yeh..im from the uk and i'm happy to say the usaf is most liikley the most powerful, but only because of numbers and funding.

However in ww2 the RAF showed that numbers don't really matter, i mean we only had what 300 or so planes against 5000- 6000 german ones

Oh and american madman the uk does have stealth technology, they've been working on a stealth concept fighter that was acknowledged about 2 years ago. Also remember the uk developed stelath technology after ww2 and passed over the research to the USAF case the americans didn't think it was of much use at first.

"kick the snot out of the uk" see that kind of comment is what starts all these stupid arguments, i bet you wouldn't like it if a chinese person came on and said, yeh "we'll crush the usaf"

[edit on 16-2-2005 by clashrock]

[edit on 16-2-2005 by clashrock]

[edit on 16-2-2005 by clashrock]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join