Europe vs US wars. Who would win - Part 2.

No one "cancelled" the F-22...they built almost 200 of them and will continue to build parts.

This is what I said:

I said it was my understanding....stop sensationalizing, lets discuss this as adults.

.

http://articles.dailypress.com/2010...f22-20100616_1_f-16-pilots-first-fighter-wing

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/07/airforce_raptor_070730/

http://www.acc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123041831



As for Price.

F-22:
Development cost: $74 Billion or $377 million a piece

Typhoon:

Development: roughly $33 Billion $206 million a piece

There are a lot of controversial numbers out there, mostly used by politicians and the media to sensationalize a point. These are the best I could find, basically R&D costs plus production costs/ number of aircraft.

 

Do youknow how much it costs to keep the F-22 in the air? It costs about £70,000 and hour for the Eurofighter.

It cost more then $33 to develop the Eurofighter, £40 billion plus. And Top Gear said the Eurofighter costs the RAF £70 million each.

 

It will take the Europeans a generation (minimum) to catch up and that's only if they get united (not likely) and jettison their welfare systems.

 

TRUE.....we spend mind boggling amounts on our welfare system!

NOT TRUE.......that we are a generation behind military (DO you konw anything about Europe?)

 

Of course, you are also talking about an encounter between the newest generation of European fighter, against one that the US built over 35 years ago. That all by itself is a huge difference.

And the aircraft really are very different. The F-15 is faster, the Eurofighter has a greater range. The Eurofighter has more hardpoints, and their range of weapons is pretty much the same.

Which would come out first? Well, there are a lot of variables here. Where they first make contact, which is the attacker, and ROE will ultimately make the largest difference I would think.

You give an example, with no real information on exactly what happened other then "locking on". Were they at range at high speed? At low and slow speeds with attempts at dogfighting? There is a lot here we simply do not know.

I will say this though. I have seen first-hand how effective the Stealth on the F-22 is. At long and medium ranges, we detected nothing. At short range, we could pick up "something" with our powerful PATRIOT radar, but nothing close enough to get a lock on with.

And our radar is a great deal moew powerful then that in your normal fighter jet. You would have to upgrade to something the power of an AWACS to come close to the system in a PATRIOT missile battery. And even then, you only get a fuzzy sense of something there, not enough of a return to actually shoot any kind of weapon at it.

If our war games had been real life, our Battery (not to mention the entire Battalion) would have been eliminated, without being able to fire a single shot in return. That is the power of Stealth. It does not render aircraft "invisible", but it prevents east detection, and even when a target is detected, there is not enough information to aim any kind of radar seeking missile at it.

And this is a technology that only the US has. And it is being used in it's 2nd (or 3rd) generation at this time. This is something that Europe can't even come close to matching. Expect in a war, the first targets will be AWACS and other air detection and air defense systems. With those gone, then it will go after the fighters.

And it would not surprise me if they used other conventional fighters as "decoys". Throw out a group of F-15 or F-16 fighters, then a short distance back a group or two of F-22s.

The Eurofighters see the incoming Conventionals, and launch missiles at it at range, causing them to abort their attack run, and turn tail. Eurofighters persue and attempt to engage the Conventionals, only to then be jumped by the unseen Raptors.

All to many times, people in here tend to get involved only in the sexyness of the aircraft, and totally forget the logistics and strategy that would be involved in their use.

 

Would the Europeans not have the F-35 by then, and try and do the same to the US. So it will some down to who has the most jets and pilots. Which is why in air terms I say there would be no winner. Also the US can't really use the F-22 or air force fighters because there refueling planes will be shot down or there jets will have little flying time over Europe, and US carrier jets and long range bombers aren't going to be good enough to beat the European air force.

And look at a map of the north Atlantic the US will need to take Bermuda, the Azores, Maderia and the Canary Islands then attack European with it's air force fighters jets.

 

Most of us that understand such things do not actually describe the F-35 as a "Stealth" aircraft, but instead as a "Stealthy" aircraft.

It is not real "stealth", it is simply the attempt to make an aircraft with the smallest possible radar signature. And the F-35 is much more detectable. As opposed to the F-22, we can see the F-35 coming at medium ranges, and can actually get enough information in return to engage them when they get to close range.

So it would not be anywhere near as effective where you have AWACS or ground based radar systems. However, it is good enough to defeat the radar is most fighter jets.

F-22 Stealth fighter against F-35 Stealthy fighter? I put the money on the F-22.

Says who? You are totally missing gigantic parts of the equation. Once again with no understanding of what would happen if it did.

What, you think they will come storming out of the West, and invade Normandy again?

Once again, a total lack of understanding of tactics, strategy and logistics. And no need to do this at all.

You look at Europe, and seem to assume the US would attack from the Atlantic. That is simply foolish. I would expect an attack to come from the South. Africa and the Middle East. Where logistics are easier, flight times are shorter, and the with lots of both land and naval based aviation. No need to take those islands at all. After all, we are not talking about World War II, and the need of an "island hopping" campaign.

And the first target would likely not be England or France or even Spain. Expect it in Italy, or Greece.

Of course, for this to happen, there would have to be a radical shift of politics in Europe, along the lines of WWII Europe where nations were largely oppressed by either a brutal dictatorship, or a cadre of dictatorships working together. Think of Italy with the Fascist Party, Germany with the Nazi Party, the Rex party in Belguim, Sir Mosley's New Party in the UK, and a slew of others that existed at the time.

If that happened, I have no doubt that the US would also have a Popular Front helping it along.

 

Yep.

I didn't know allied states like Turkey a huge European ally or Egypt which does reall like the US any more, and the Europeans would still control the Suez canal and could get the Egyptians to force the US to leave. Then the Europeans could invade Iraq through Turkey, the EU forces in Africa would take the US bases in east Africa and the US would nolonger have the British Indian ocean territory. So even if the US does use foreign bases it would lose them. With the US cutting back it's forces in the middle east will not be a problem for the European, and what would the US fleets in the region do? They would be cut off. The same way the European territories in the Caribbean and Bermuda would be. And could the Europeans us bases in Canada?

 

Egypt? Who said anything about Egypt? Certainly not me.

Kuwait, Qatar, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. Along with other nations, like the UAE and Bahrain.

The US is in all of these places at the request of the nations involved. And the chance of an invasion through Turkey is laughable. They have enough problems of their own, without allowing themselves to become a conduit against other Middle Eastern nations.

And you would have to invade through Iraq. A country that has no US bases at all. All your idea would do is to almost totally alienate most of the Middle East against Europe. And more then likely they would all join a US coalition. You would see the "Anti-American" protests in most of these countries overnight turn into Anti-European protests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Udeid_Air_Base

This is a great example of how the US often operates in the region. Qatar is a small nation, without it's own air force. They built a gigantic air base though, purely to invite the US to move onto it. It is often called the "Field of Dreams" base, after the movie of the same name ("If you buiid it, they will come").

This was mostly done by other nations in the region after the 1991 Gulf War. Qatar and other small countries saw that they could do little to nothing to stop a larger nation from taking them over, so they started to request help from the US. PATRIOT missile batteries, Air Force bases, and Navy ports started to spring up in a great many countries in the Middle East.

The only country we have pulled out of is Iraq.

As for Europe useing bases in Canada, only with the permission of the Canadian government. And I don't see that as having a snowball chance in hell of happening. If anything, I expect Canada would stay neutral. Or possibly even join the US, not wanting to see any kind of return to being a "European Colony" again.

 

Egypt? Who said anything about Egypt? Certainly not me.

Kuwait, Qatar, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. Along with other nations, like the UAE and Bahrain.

The US is in all of these places at the request of the nations involved. And the chance of an invasion through Turkey is laughable. They have enough problems of their own, without allowing themselves to become a conduit against other Middle Eastern nations.

And you would have to invade through Iraq. A country that has no US bases at all. All your idea would do is to almost totally alienate most of the Middle East against Europe. And more then likely they would all join a US coalition. You would see the "Anti-American" protests in most of these countries overnight turn into Anti-European protests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Udeid_Air_Base

This is a great example of how the US often operates in the region. Qatar is a small nation, without it's own air force. They built a gigantic air base though, purely to invite the US to move onto it. It is often called the "Field of Dreams" base, after the movie of the same name ("If you buiid it, they will come").

This was mostly done by other nations in the region after the 1991 Gulf War. Qatar and other small countries saw that they could do little to nothing to stop a larger nation from taking them over, so they started to request help from the US. PATRIOT missile batteries, Air Force bases, and Navy ports started to spring up in a great many countries in the Middle East.

The only country we have pulled out of is Iraq.

As for Europe useing bases in Canada, only with the permission of the Canadian government. And I don't see that as having a snowball chance in hell of happening. If anything, I expect Canada would stay neutral. Or possibly even join the US, not wanting to see any kind of return to being a "European Colony" again.

 

The problem is that foreign bases mean it's nolonger a Europe Vs the US war, but allies vs allies, which is why going from the name of the thread the US couldn't use those bases, and then would have to move it's power to the Atlantic to take the places I said. And if we do want to go by allies the Europeans will win, Turkey and Egypt are about as powerful as the rest of the middle put together. Canada would support the UK, but I am not sure about Europe, it all really goes on who leads the Europeans if it's the UK and France then Canada will support the Europeans, but if it's other nations say Germany then they will support the US.

Could you just tell me again who invaded Canada? And Canada was Britain same as the US was.

 

You keep moving the goalpost here.

Egypt? This is a nation that is still wracked by civil war, or have you not been watching the news? I expect them to sit this out.

And no, Canada would likely sit it out and remain neutral. If you think they would take a role in a war against the US, you really do not understand much about foreign relations and foreign policy. They are an independent nation, and are in no way obligated to go to war simply because England does.

 

They have done befor when the UK was threatened, I see no reason why they wouldn't do so again. But in this case their only real opsition is to be neutral.

Egypt wants to pay Israel back, so they would back Europe.

 

Canada does significantly more trading with the United States than U.K....actually in some years, U.S./Canada trade is greater than U.S. trade with ALL OF EUROPE. Secondly, Canada shares several military alliances with the U.S. and trains extensively with them. Their naval forces are actually trained/designed to be integrated into U.S. task forces. The U.S. and Canada have a very close relationship.

Finally, it makes little sense to attack a country the shares a massive border with you that is many times larger and much more powerful. If Canada did such a thing it would be completely cut off from its European allies, which lack the ability to transit a USN dominated Atlantic ocean, and forced to defend against a U.S. onslaught.

 

Yes, but all that doesn't take away from the fact the Queen is there head of state. As I said Canada would sit the war out. Like what the US tryed to do in WW1 and WW2.

 

You need to look at the reality of the situation.

Asking Canada to join in a war against the US would be like asking North Korea to join in a war against China.

Not only is Canada closely tied both politically and economically with the US, the two nations share a large border, with the major Canadian cities mostly a short distance from this border.

And attack from or through Canada into the US would be quickly turned back, and will see as a response attacks into Canada from multiple angles. And to get an idea how outweighed Canada is, it is ranked 56th in the world in military members with 68k active service members.

The US is ranked 2nd, with 1.464 million active service members.

No, Canada would no declare war against the US. That would be absolutely suicidal. They would most likely remain neutral as I said, or possibly even ally with the US.

And if the UK or the Commonwealth tried to force Canada to join in against the US, odds are you would then see Canada leaving the Commonwealth of Nations.

 

There isn't only the Type 45 in EU navyies that is equal or superior to the US counterparts, also italian and french FREMMs and the dutch De Zeven class, navy is a sector where England, France and Italy have a huge experience and technology, even US ships use italian or swiss technologies apparates. But there is no match against a bunch of carrier groups, but carrier wouldn't enter the mediterranean or stay in range of ground bases, there are no stealth aircrafts in a CG, f-18 w'd be sweeped out of skyes by Eurofighters and Rafalesand and strategic bombers alone are too easy to shot.

 

The Astute class submarine built at Barrow in Cumbria is as good as the Virginia class, the Rafale M is as good as the F/A-18 Super Hornet. It's only the British and French that have independent ship building and technology to rival the US, even then their missiles are miles behind the US missiles. I wouldn't be so sure the Eurofighters flown by Spanish pilots or the F-16's flown by Portugese pilots could defeat the F-18's. Once the US started attacking France, UK and Germany they would be stopped by their pilots and aircraft.

 

One thing many people tend to forget is that in modern Naval tactics, you do not simply line up one ship with another, and say which is best. This is especially true in regards to the US Navy, as it rarely ever operates as a single ship. They operate in fleets, in which each ship has a specific role, and they all work together.

If you take a single US and Foreign ship, one may be superior over the other. But in what way? This all falls back to a great many things, including doctrine, strategy and tactics.

US Navy generally works in a multi-layered format, with some ships doing one rold, and other ships doing others. Frigates providing screening and initial ASW, Destroyers providing Air Defense and point defense, Cruisers providing long distance Air Defense, ABM defense and long distance strike capabilities through cruise missiles. Then finally in the large fleets you have the carrier, providing long range screening and strike capabilities.

So in the US Navy, you will rarely see destroyers rushing out to engage other destroyers. Aircraft and long range missiles will be doing that role, not the destroyers.

And for the comment that strategic bombers would be of no use, that is a very narrow view. Let me give you an example.

You can have a flight of B-52 bombers flying to within range of their Tomahawk missiles then launching. Sine the Tomahawk has a longer range (1,000-2,000 km) then any of the defensive weapons on a Type 45 Destroyer (130 km), they could do this all day long without any risk at all. And with only around 20 missiles with that range, they would soon be reduced to the use of their 30km defensive missile, then nothing.

Meanwhile, B-1s could be spreading large numbers of naval mines around said destroyers. So either they slow down to creep through the new minefield and become a bigger target, or go through at high speed trying to get out of the kill range of the Tomahawks, only to risk hitting a mine.

These are the kind of tactics that would really be happening in real life, not one destroyer going against another. So those claims were pretty much invalid.

And also numbers must be considered. France has a total of 12 frigates as their largest class of combat ship. The UK has a total of 18 frigates and destroyers.

So combined, that is 30 ships, largest are destroyers.

The US has 62 Arleigh Burke class destroyers alone, outnumbering that combined force by over 2 to 1. There are also 22 Cruisers, a class the UK or France does not even match, 42 LA class submarines, etc, etc, etc.

So while somebody can claim that "this is better then that", they can't forget the old saw, "quantity has a quality all it's own".

 

Yeah, Spain right now has the most powerful air defence destroyer in Europe because it has US missiles. I wish the UK would buy US missiles rather than the Aster 15 and Aster 30, that's if the US missiles are compatible with our launchers and PAAMS.

It's even better if you have quality in quantity which the US has. It doesn't include the ships the US has in reserve or awaiting disposal.

The best that the Europeans could do is try and pick off the US replenishment ships, slow the fleet down and make it harder for it to fight.

It seems the US Navy only has 14 mine countermeasure vessels, where as the UK has 15, is this right?

 

Your senario is idiotic. France and Britian have nukes, along with the US, thus there would be no land invasion by either side. Granted, the US has a larger nuclear arsenal, than France and the UK combined. But, show me any nation even with a limited number of nukes that has been invaded, and I'll show you a pig that flys. If a conflict would arise between the EU and the US, it will likely be more at the economic and cyber fronts, compared to conventional conflict. World War type conflict are a thing of the past, and is pretty much irrelevant.

 

It is also possible that the UK would be on the side of the US fighting against Europe. The UK would most likly us the war to take back Ireland, take Iceland and the Norwegian oil fields maybe even Norway, I am also sure the British would love Malta back.

 

Nope, PAAMS is completely incompatible with the VLS system the US uses. Although France is promising to convert the SCALP (a cruise missile) to work in them, but I have not heard much of how that is going.

And the US does have 14 mine countermeasure ships. However, you also need to add the 3 LCS (Littoral Combat Ship) to that as well, since that is another important roll they have. So that makes the total in the US of 17, 3 of them being highly modern ships (and 4 more under construction). Also remember that in the US Navy, a lot of that role is also taken up by helicopters, such as the MH-53E Sea Dragon. The US Navy has 2 Helicopter Mine Countermeasures Squadrons, HM-14 and HM-15.



The US Navy has a total of 50 MH-53E Sea Dragons, helicopters specifically built for detecting and destroying mines.

 

There is no way England, Canada, Australia wouldnt side with the US, all the British colonized countries will always fight side by side. The only way would be in the distant future, say England, Australia become Muslim countries (very possible with England) and/ or America becomes communist/ socialist marxist scum which is the ways its currently heading.

 

Well I as a British person would side with the US against Europe, that's the best way if the UK wants more power, as there is no chance of Europe taking the US. The UK, US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are part of an allies, it's not on paper, but everybody know it's their, we share the same ideals and language. I wish it was down a paper.

The rest of what you said was just rubbish based on nothing.