Is US air power a farce?

there are many jets that cant even fly because one issue or another and that is in a non 'real' war scenario

I know that the US air force is no push over but what would happen if tomorrow Russia decided to have a non MAD war with the US in Europe far from assured/fast supply lines? n

I know Artical 21, but who is the MAJOR back bone of NATO.......US and the UK and France.


I know that the US has some.....sci-fi like craft but how many do we have? and would using a weapon that would tip the balances so far into NATO's balance for a real peer level(non nuclear) fight that any advisory might think 'use 'em or lose em' as far as their non conventional weapons to inflict some damage or even kill everyone just so that there are no winners?

i would imagine that we have single digit numbers to 10's of super advanced weapon systems and that does not make a fighting force, let alone the risk of one falling in to Russian hands.

Why dose Russia and the US seem to always be one misstep or even accident when there can be no no winner? whats the point of defeating a foe if the land is poisoned and therefore useless.

So this amazing tech is out there but not being used and shown off right? but than we are talking about new variants of the F15 and MAYBE a hypersonic ISR platform(s), why are we wasting 100's apon 100's of billions of dollars if tech i have seen with my own eyes exists out there and is owned by the US(or some faction of the US).


back in the days of the U2 and later on the A12 and later still the SR71 taking pictures of Russian assets but we never hear about Russian or Chinese incursions or shoot downs(think Gary Powers but Russian)?

Surely at the very least Russia or even the USSR would be running the same kind of missions with amazing aircraft but as far as i know there was nothing from the time or even now of some high speed aircraft in US airspace or just outside the boarders

do they not have these things back then and even more so more recently?

wouldn't it be the best idea to spend money on these 'aircraft' that seem ti defy normal aerodynamics rather then pretty much anything else?

i just dont think MAD is what is keeping both of us from each others neck?

i know there needs to be 'daily drivers' so to speak for just civil stuff but how can they justify trillions on defense spending when we(US) have what appears to be a true silver bullet ?

the same factories for the F35 could be made to manufacture these platforms?

Its a win for everyone that we make these super advanced platforms as fast as we can and get them out there showing what america can really do?

if the defense RD and even the funding from older aircraft and some of the navy plus the contractors it would usher in a new age of travel...

we have all these amazing aircraft but in a real war with a PEER attrition is the name of the game but extrapolating wgat i have seen with my own eyes the us could just call the world ours, and there fore there is very little need for a 'modern air force'?

No. It absolutely isn't a farce.

I retired from the USAF 9 years ago... I did over 20 years. I have seen what American airpower can do, on the ground. Our nation's Air Force is second to none. We have the finest pilots, the smartest maintainers and a support system second to none. I even trained a few of those maintainers, myself.

US fighter and bomber technology, is a generation ahead of anyone else. Period.

...however, technology isn't everything... which is why we trained constantly. USAF pilots, are the best trained fighter pilots on the planet. Hands down.

I lived in that world, for a long time... I'm not worried about any enemy air forces.

Look at how many aircraft carriers the US has. It's more than the rest of the world combined. Add to that we are the only ones that roll at night with carrier sorties with the most advanced avionics and weapons on the planet that are fully nuclear capable and some even remote capable.

What do you think is going to happen to anyone facing that force head on. Nevermind it rolls out with an entire battle group with destroyers and subs.

Have fun fighting that monster is all I can say.

a reply to: penroc3

It's vastly different having partially mission capable aircraft in a non war situation and having those same aircraft in a war situation. You don't always push your fleet as hard as you can when you don't need to.

a reply to: penroc3

I know that the US air force is no push over but what would happen if tomorrow Russia decided to have a non MAD war with the US in Europe far from assured/fast supply lines? 

Right now? In the middle of a pandemic? It would become a NBC scenario quick because people here and abroad would lap up the "Russia started a war after they released a virus first"-narrative that would follow. The optics would be horrific. Plus, from a Russian point of view, why would you import a problem by entering "hot zones". Until people get a handle in whatever is going on, I don't think military adventurism is in the cards. After it starts to settle and it becomes time for countries to pay their bills, then maybe that threat rises. It's going to be a hell of a time.

Is US airpower a farce? No. For all it's problems, noone can bring more firepower to a given point more quickly or persistently than the US. A war with Russia or China (or God forbid both) would be no cake walk, but it wouldn't be because US airpower is some sort of illusion or paper tiger.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: penroc3

I know that the US air force is no push over but what would happen if tomorrow Russia decided to have a non MAD war with the US in Europe far from assured/fast supply lines? 

Right now? In the middle of a pandemic? It would become a NBC scenario quick because people here and abroad would lap up the "Russia started a war after they released a virus first"-narrative that would follow. The optics would be horrific. Plus, from a Russian point of view, why would you import a problem by entering "hot zones". Until people get a handle in whatever is going on, I don't think military adventurism is in the cards. After it starts to settle and it becomes time for countries to pay their bills, then maybe that threat rises. It's going to be a hell of a time.

Is US airpower a farce? No. For all it's problems, noone can bring more firepower to a given point more quickly or persistently than the US. A war with Russia or China (or God forbid both) would be no cake walk, but it wouldn't be because US airpower is some sort of illusion or paper tiger.

To be fair, nuclear fallout would probably kill the Wutang Flu(Covid-19)...

a reply to: madmac5150

The way 2020 is going, rads would probably mutate it terribly into something more virulent with a higher mortality rates

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: madmac5150

The way 2020 is going, rads would probably mutate it terribly into something more virulent with a higher mortality rates

It could also make public figures insanely flatulent. The WHO hasn't ruled that out.

a reply to: madmac5150

It'd just be all the hot air that usually escapes orally when they are finally left speechless.

but in a real war with a PEER

a reply to: penroc3

US has no peer. No one even close.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: penroc3

It's vastly different having partially mission capable aircraft in a non war situation and having those same aircraft in a war situation. You don't always push your fleet as hard as you can when you don't need to.

A Partially Mission Capable "PMC" aircraft, can still fulfill a wartime mission... an F-16 with a faulty bombing system, for instance, could still fulfill an air superiority role... it depends on the wartime tasking. Fully Mission Capable "FMC" rates, also depend on the mission tasks assigned to a specific unit. An "FMC" aircraft in one major command, could be only "PMC" in another... it depends on the mission assigned...

Statistics can be wildly misleading...

a reply to: madmac5150

Exactly. We used to occasionally park a PMC jet, because it wasn't a critical mission. In a wartime scenario it would have flown without a second thought. Our readiness rates suck right now, but that's at least in part because they don't need to fly every mission. Let someone decide to take advantage and that can change pretty quickly in most airframes.

Just because there are weapons banned by the Geneva Convention doesn't mean the US wouldn't pepper the Earth to protect the West if they needed to. Russia doesn't even have the infrastructure or force projection capability to support any type of major offensive, the same with China. We're still in a good period where US hegemony is safe.

there are many jets that cant even fly because one issue or another and that is in a non 'real' war scenario

That is the case for all militaries in the world.

Maintaining high combat/operational readiness is not cheap, would be wasteful in a non "real" war scenario.

Also wars don't just happen from one day to another. There is a lot of logistics involved.

i guess my point was that we have all this amazing tech but are still flying F-18's and pretty much every other aircraft.

there are clearly platforms out there that people have seen that from the 80's all the way untill today so there is no way some of these super super advanced systems are not IOC and a handful of them.

my point was why not funnel most of our resources into these 'air craft' that seem untouchable and could easily dodge SAM launches and other fighters.

maybe these hypersonic missiles and lasers being rolled out might be a defense for more advanced craft....

the Yellow light people see is clearly a sub orbital platform that can come back down and god knows what the green lady really is.


i say other than the commitments we have with contractors for F35 and other things already being built we should just poor all the money into these new platforms.

all you would have to do if fly a few over a major population center and claim it as yours and then show pics and video of it on the news.

maybe even a demonstration

originally posted by: madmac5150
No. It absolutely isn't a farce.

I retired from the USAF 9 years ago... I did over 20 years. I have seen what American airpower can do, on the ground. Our nation's Air Force is second to none. We have the finest pilots, the smartest maintainers and a support system second to none. I even trained a few of those maintainers, myself.

US fighter and bomber technology, is a generation ahead of anyone else. Period.

...however, technology isn't everything... which is why we trained constantly. USAF pilots, are the best trained fighter pilots on the planet. Hands down.

I lived in that world, for a long time... I'm not worried about any enemy air forces.

Seconded. I did 13 years in the Air Force. It's no joke. And I absolutely concur about training being everything. I remember being TDY at RAF Leuchars in Scotland one time, talking to some British pilots. They were so jealous about how often our pilots get to fly their planes. Our guys are in their planes so much it becomes like driving a car, it's second nature. That gives you much more ability to be able to focus on tactics and what you're doing when you're on a mission.

And of course technology helps. Look at the Gulf War. Saddam was said to have the 4th strongest military in the world at the time. We #ed Saddam's army so bad our media was calling us bullies and making us look like the bad guys by the end of it.

a reply to: penroc3

Yes. Some of the power claimed by the usa military is propaganda.

Same with all militaries

All of our PMC A-10's would still get airborne for a war time mission, same for the b-52, B-1, KC-135, and Awacs.

While we do have our problems our MC rate looks golden compared to the majority of the worlds air power nations.

Keep in mind the PMC status can cover a wide variety of things, I have seen a B-52 put in PMC because the Pilots seat wouldn't adjust and we did not have parts on hand.

a reply to: Irishhaf

I saw more than a few PMC(S) jets that had me scratching my head. Really stupid things like the navigator's lights being inop, and being on order.

a reply to: madmac5150

My experience was with helicopters. Our primary mission was Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW). We had secondary missions of Search and Rescue (SAR) and Logistics/Transportation. An aircraft with a downed sonar could still perform the SAR or Logistics/Transportation mission. An aircraft with a downed hoist could still do ASW or Logistics/Transportation missions. I a pinch we could mix them. We could take an aircraft with a bad sonar, arm it up with torpedoes and sonobuoys and pair it with an aircraft with a good sonar. The combinations were endless. We had six aircraft and on a lond deployment it wasn't unusual to have an aircraft in the hangar bay that was robbed for parts to keep other aircraft flying. I'm not even going to get into what happened when we got a bad batch of engines. (we got REAL good at engine swaps). Other squadrons with different aircraft types had the same issues.