Comments by "Luredreier" (@Luredreier) on "Grid 88"
channel.
-
@jawarakf The US advantage is simply the amount of resources, support for them and maintenance.
Yes, the rest of NATO would lose vs the US in a straight up fight if the US actually had a foothold in Europe not relying on European support, because the country is just more militarized, something that's actually the main reason why the US is slipping further and further behind the rest of the world in actual capability for a long term war.
The country is wasting resources better spent on education and infrastructure on it's military industrial complex, so much so that their long term capabilities is in question.
Europe is on the other end of the scale.
Only using what's needed on military research and relying more on civilian research that's we'll founded.
Yes, the US has better stealth materials, but that doesn't make their planes invisible, just makes their return signals smaller, and it does do so in different amounts from different angles.
The more radars you got in an area be they ground based or air based in different locations the lower the likelihood of stealth being maintained.
Also the wave length matters.
Ground based radars are able to use wavelengths that you just can't use with the small radars in fighters.
As a result they can defeat stealth and detect the presence of a enemy stealth fighter.
These wavelengths comes with a disadvantage in that it's harder to identify exactly what kind of plane you are facing and exactly where it is.
But with European efforts in coordinating data from multiple sources stealth can still be defeated.
And a landing on European soil D-Day style is impossible today without a several decade long war where radars are taken down and European fighters are taken down faster then they and their pilots can be replaced.
So yes, given 60+ years of fighting or the use of nukes the US can undoubtedly defeat Europe.
And in a 1 v 1 with no ground radars or other planes providing additional intelligence about the location of the US planes the US would undoubtedly have a significant advantage in the air vs European fighters.
But that's not how these planes have been designed to operate.
In a 20 vs 20 fight over European soil (and radars) the US fighters would most likely draw the short stick.
And 20 vs 20 on soil hostile to both parties the US would have an advantage but would most likely still have significant losses even if they'd probably win in the end.
That said, given the cost of the American fighters...
There's European fighters that would pose a threat to US fighters like the F35 when in equal numbers, that would be equivalent to the F35 when matched based on purchase price and that I'd probably superior when you factor in the average number likely to be in good enough condition to fight and and has enough fuel for a given amount of money.
So while a long lasting war would probably end with a US victory and with slightly more European pilots downed both sides would lose a increasing number of the expensive planes, the cheaper replacements in Europe would probably be better then the cheaper US alternatives from what I can tell.
(Although who knows what secret projects either side of the pond has behind closed doors that might tip the balance)
But yeah, it takes less effort to make a European planes capable of challenging the US ones in the air then the other way around.
But the US would probably still out produce Europe in the end despite inferior low cost mass production solutions and harder to produce high cost solutions that just isn't that much better.
That said, Europes capabilities would have issues with the alpha strike of the US because a lot of our militaries are quite frankly mothballed...
And only recently getting the maintenance and training required to be effective.
3
-
2
-
1
-
1