8 ms·

US pilots havent really been engaged in a war against a peer since ww2. It might be true. But we probably shouldnt extrapolate from bombing terrorists in the de

US pilots havent really been engaged in a war against a peer since ww2. It might be true. But we probably shouldnt extrapolate from bombing terrorists in the desert to actually fighting against say China.

sofixa 2y ago
> US pilots havent really been engaged in a war against a peer since ww2 Maybe Korea, where there were Chinese and Russian-trained and sourced jets?
- HPsquared 2y ago
  Still, Korea was >70 years ago.
cdot2 2y ago
The US air force fought significant enemy air forces in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and in the Balkans. Their doctrine has not remained untested since 1945.
- Prbeek 2y ago
  Take Vietnam for instance where the Soviets supplied the Vietcongs with AD systems and at times manned them The Americans lost over 10,000 aircrafts over a 10 year period which is an average of 3 per day. The US airforce cannot survive the attrition rate that a war with Russia or China would bring.
  - elashri 2y ago
    For completeness most of these losses were UAVs and Helicopters. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_losses_of_the...
  - refurb 2y ago
    While 10,000 sounds like a lot, about 25% were accidents, and 75% in combat, so 7,500. That's 7,500 aircraft lost over 5.25 million sorties, or 14 lost per 1,000 sorties. The loss rate was 5 times higher in Korea and 25 times higher in WW2. And as the other comment mentioned, most were helicopters (5,600) and UAV's (1,000). Only 3,400 fixed wing, manned aircraft were lost.
    - dylan604 2y ago
      After reading this, I thought the opening music for Top Gun was about to start playing
  - pjc50 2y ago
    > The US airforce cannot survive the attrition rate that a war with Russia or China would bring. Nuclear exchange by ICBM would destroy most aircraft, their crews, their maintenance crews, and the factories for the replacement. There will be no dogfights.
- elashri 2y ago
  The closest wars are the Iraqi and Balkans ware. For the first the vast majority of Iraq air force were destroyed on the ground or fled to neighboring countries, there were rarely any meaningful air to air fights. For Balkans, there were minimal air activities for Serbian air force. They were up against NATO (not only US) and all of the little opposition they had were using air defence systems which managed to down a couple of Nato air Jets. I wouldn't describe each of these two as significant in any meaningful way. Just to give example on scale. In Balkans, serbian air force had like a dozen modern air craft against ~ 1000 NATO aircrafts. One can say that the it was a little bit different in Korea and Vietnam but this was much closer to 1945 than nowadays.
  - Spooky23 2y ago
    Huh? The US was essentially fighting the Soviets in Korea and Vietnam. It was a contentious, significant conflict. Vietnam in particular saw the cost of allowing the SAC/bomber mafia from dominating strategy. The Soviet and Vietnamese pilots were pretty badly mauling the US Air Force and Navy, whose armament and tactics were built around bomber interception.
    - bluGill 2y ago
      Korea has been in cease fire since 1953. Vietnam ended in 1975. There has been a lot of changes since then. Not only have people studied and tried to learn lessons, but technology has changed significnatly. We have no clue how the current military would approach Vietnam or Korea if they happened today (both sides would be different!)
    - elashri 2y ago
      Regarding these two wars my comment was exactly that. > One can say that the it was a little bit different in Korea and Vietnam but this was much closer to 1945 than nowadays. Korean war started almost five years after the end of WWII and Vietnam war is 50 years old now. The two wars in Balkans and Iraq is much relevant in experience compared to the earlier two. And while the soviets provided the Vietnamese with AAA and aircrafts, there were little soviets engagement in the actual fighting (regarding the air).
actionfromafar 2y ago
On the other hand, specifically with China there's nothing to extrapolate from at all really.
FrustratedMonky 2y ago
Maybe that is more what is happening. We've been at 'peace' for too long. This is making an example for the rest of the team to get ready for things to 'get real'.
kjellsbells 2y ago
I imagine this is one reason why the current Ukrainian war is so interesting to belligerents other than the Ukrainians themselves. The US is taking copious notes on what modern land wars could look like, how drones can and can't be used in place of conventional air cover, etc. Ditto the other side, eg the North Koreans. One might say, crudely, that US military superiority is based on an overwhelming advantage in materiel, plus troops skilled in the use of advanced weaponry (so that one soldier has the impact of 10, say). That might work in large scale massed battle against a mid range opponent, but is untested against a true industrial peer like China, and has been shown not to work especially well against highly dispersed, low tech adversaries such as in Vietnam and Afghanistan.
- Spooky23 2y ago
  The American military is world class in every respect, but its weakness the by design lack of integration with civil and intelligence functions. Vietnam and Afghanistan are examples of how when faced with overwhelming military might, asymmetric conflict ultimately rules. The anti-colonial movements in India, Ireland and other places underlines that. I think what Ukraine demonstrates is that we collectively don’t realize that Ukraine is a segment of a larger conflict. The long term influence campaign by the Russians to destabilize NATO and the US has been phenomenally successful. They have managed a brilliant operation in the UK and US to sow chaos internally.
  - josefresco 2y ago
    > Vietnam and Afghanistan are examples of how when faced with overwhelming military might, asymmetric conflict ultimately rules. Afghanistan was an evolution in American military strategy. Post 9/11 the Americans did what no one thought was possible - They (using the CIA and then JSOC) infiltrated Afghanistan secretly, forged alliances (bribed) with local militias/tribal leaders and within weeks had significantly degraded Taliban/Al Qaeda's fighting ability. The world (and Al Qaeda) expected cruises missiles and "death from above". That they got was "death from within AND above". Whether this was a positive development for the US military is up for debate, but it certainly wasn't the traditional "big military pound small military with might" approach until later in the war. It's the 20+ year long occupation which failed and clearly, like Vietnam or Afghanistan for the Soviets, or Russia's current efforts to destabilize, American patience is shorter than the enemies will to fight.

sofixa 2y ago

> US pilots havent really been engaged in a war against a peer since ww2 Maybe Korea, where there were Chinese and Russian-trained and sourced jets?

HPsquared 2y ago
Still, Korea was >70 years ago.

cdot2 2y ago

The US air force fought significant enemy air forces in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and in the Balkans. Their doctrine has not remained untested since 1945.

Prbeek 2y ago
Take Vietnam for instance where the Soviets supplied the Vietcongs with AD systems and at times manned them The Americans lost over 10,000 aircrafts over a 10 year period which is an average of 3 per day. The US airforce cannot survive the attrition rate that a war with Russia or China would bring.
- elashri 2y ago
  For completeness most of these losses were UAVs and Helicopters. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_losses_of_the...
- refurb 2y ago
  While 10,000 sounds like a lot, about 25% were accidents, and 75% in combat, so 7,500. That's 7,500 aircraft lost over 5.25 million sorties, or 14 lost per 1,000 sorties. The loss rate was 5 times higher in Korea and 25 times higher in WW2. And as the other comment mentioned, most were helicopters (5,600) and UAV's (1,000). Only 3,400 fixed wing, manned aircraft were lost.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    After reading this, I thought the opening music for Top Gun was about to start playing
- pjc50 2y ago
  > The US airforce cannot survive the attrition rate that a war with Russia or China would bring. Nuclear exchange by ICBM would destroy most aircraft, their crews, their maintenance crews, and the factories for the replacement. There will be no dogfights.
elashri 2y ago
The closest wars are the Iraqi and Balkans ware. For the first the vast majority of Iraq air force were destroyed on the ground or fled to neighboring countries, there were rarely any meaningful air to air fights. For Balkans, there were minimal air activities for Serbian air force. They were up against NATO (not only US) and all of the little opposition they had were using air defence systems which managed to down a couple of Nato air Jets. I wouldn't describe each of these two as significant in any meaningful way. Just to give example on scale. In Balkans, serbian air force had like a dozen modern air craft against ~ 1000 NATO aircrafts. One can say that the it was a little bit different in Korea and Vietnam but this was much closer to 1945 than nowadays.
- Spooky23 2y ago
  Huh? The US was essentially fighting the Soviets in Korea and Vietnam. It was a contentious, significant conflict. Vietnam in particular saw the cost of allowing the SAC/bomber mafia from dominating strategy. The Soviet and Vietnamese pilots were pretty badly mauling the US Air Force and Navy, whose armament and tactics were built around bomber interception.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    Korea has been in cease fire since 1953. Vietnam ended in 1975. There has been a lot of changes since then. Not only have people studied and tried to learn lessons, but technology has changed significnatly. We have no clue how the current military would approach Vietnam or Korea if they happened today (both sides would be different!)
  - elashri 2y ago
    Regarding these two wars my comment was exactly that. > One can say that the it was a little bit different in Korea and Vietnam but this was much closer to 1945 than nowadays. Korean war started almost five years after the end of WWII and Vietnam war is 50 years old now. The two wars in Balkans and Iraq is much relevant in experience compared to the earlier two. And while the soviets provided the Vietnamese with AAA and aircrafts, there were little soviets engagement in the actual fighting (regarding the air).

actionfromafar 2y ago

On the other hand, specifically with China there's nothing to extrapolate from at all really.

FrustratedMonky 2y ago

Maybe that is more what is happening. We've been at 'peace' for too long. This is making an example for the rest of the team to get ready for things to 'get real'.

kjellsbells 2y ago

I imagine this is one reason why the current Ukrainian war is so interesting to belligerents other than the Ukrainians themselves. The US is taking copious notes on what modern land wars could look like, how drones can and can't be used in place of conventional air cover, etc. Ditto the other side, eg the North Koreans. One might say, crudely, that US military superiority is based on an overwhelming advantage in materiel, plus troops skilled in the use of advanced weaponry (so that one soldier has the impact of 10, say). That might work in large scale massed battle against a mid range opponent, but is untested against a true industrial peer like China, and has been shown not to work especially well against highly dispersed, low tech adversaries such as in Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Spooky23 2y ago
The American military is world class in every respect, but its weakness the by design lack of integration with civil and intelligence functions. Vietnam and Afghanistan are examples of how when faced with overwhelming military might, asymmetric conflict ultimately rules. The anti-colonial movements in India, Ireland and other places underlines that. I think what Ukraine demonstrates is that we collectively don’t realize that Ukraine is a segment of a larger conflict. The long term influence campaign by the Russians to destabilize NATO and the US has been phenomenally successful. They have managed a brilliant operation in the UK and US to sow chaos internally.
- josefresco 2y ago
  > Vietnam and Afghanistan are examples of how when faced with overwhelming military might, asymmetric conflict ultimately rules. Afghanistan was an evolution in American military strategy. Post 9/11 the Americans did what no one thought was possible - They (using the CIA and then JSOC) infiltrated Afghanistan secretly, forged alliances (bribed) with local militias/tribal leaders and within weeks had significantly degraded Taliban/Al Qaeda's fighting ability. The world (and Al Qaeda) expected cruises missiles and "death from above". That they got was "death from within AND above". Whether this was a positive development for the US military is up for debate, but it certainly wasn't the traditional "big military pound small military with might" approach until later in the war. It's the 20+ year long occupation which failed and clearly, like Vietnam or Afghanistan for the Soviets, or Russia's current efforts to destabilize, American patience is shorter than the enemies will to fight.