Blowing up unarmed civilians isn’t “combat”. How often have they actually engaged other air forces in the last few years, besides Iran?
Air-to-air combat isn’t a goal. The best air forces in the world can accomplish a mission objective (such as destroying a strategic target) without once being detected, let alone engaged.
“Who wins the dogfights” is just outdated wang-waving.
I’m not just talking about dogfights, I’m talking about AA stuff as well. Basically, when have they been engaged in actual combat, as Velocity said?
Same rule applies. Aerial combat occurs as a complication of mission accomplishment, not an objective.
Precision strikes on military targets like Hamas and Hezbollah is combat.
Sure. Take it up with Velocity, he was the one saying they regularly engage in combat.
So, destroying a nuclear research facility isn’t combat? I’m sure the people on the ground thought it was, briefly.
Air power is the ability to impose a nation’s will on other nations through the air. Absolutely nothing in the definition requires engaging the enemy’s armed forces if they can be neutralized or avoided.
Blowing up tents and ambulances is not.
And if I declared that the only thing Israel ever fought was clowns on unicycles armed with rotten bananas, that would also not sound like combat. My declaration would have no connection to reality, though.
I’m pretty sure I already covered Iran.
The tents and ambulances are very real.
If Israel blows up a ambulance or tent was a Hamasnik inside, that is indeed combat. If Israel blows up a hardened bunker with Hamasniks inside, that is also combat. Both are things that have occurred. Both are examples of combat.
No first-world well trained force has fought another first-world well trained force since 1945. Not Israel, not the U.S. So what’s your point? That Israel is untested? Well, who isn’t?
I think his point is he doesn’t like Israel and has an agenda to push.
Which brings me back to my point. A nation of 10 million people with a military budget of 25 billion manages to have an air force on par with the UK, has a world class intelligence system, has more world class tanks than every nation but the US.
Israel has destroyed Iran’s Russian made air defenses. They’re fighting a war on multiple fronts right now. In the past they’ve fought against multiple arab nations at the same time.
Would Israel beat the US? No. But they could probably hold their own against France in a land invasion. Plus they always have the nuclear card.
Spare me.
No such agenda.
I object to mythology in place of reality.
By your logic, just about every single non-American military in the world is unproven or subpar. When’s the last time the Dutch or French military fought against a peer adversary?
By your logic, just about every single non-American military in the world is unproven or subpar. When’s the last time the Dutch or French military fought against a peer adversary?
Actually, that doesn’t go far enough. Using his arguments all militaries on Earth including the US are unproven and subpar. Using his logic, even the US military is unproven and subpar as the US hasn’t faced a first-class adversary since WWII.
I think this is overly generous. From Wikipedia:
Israel - 66 F-15, 174 F-16, 45 F-35
France - 108 Rafale, 85 Mirage
UK - 102 Eurofighter Typhoon, 39 F-35B
Luftwaffe - 85 Tornado, 141 Typhoon (F-35’s on order)
Individually the nations have somewhat fewer fighters than Israel, but those air forces would never be fighting alone. 280 vs 193, 141, and 226 isn’t notable numerical superiority,
Ok 2 points. First, I don’t understand how you can say that having 145%,198%, and 126% is not notably more. One of them is almost double, the other two are also significantly more. I also find it weird when you list Germany having F-35 on order, but don’t list the same information for Israel.
Second, the thread is why is the Israeli military is so much stronger than the military spending and national economy should be able to support not can Isreal defeat a coalition of NATO countries. The Israeli Air Force is stronger than all 3 of those countries individually, despite being dwarfed by those countries’ populations and economies.
The post I was responding to had the “more and better jets” as the next line after pointing out the 10:1 ratio in main battle tanks, so I thought it was worth clarifying that “more” in the case of jets meant something rather different. And I pointed out that Germany’s Tornado’s are being replaced by F-35 because they’re the only fighters in any of the three air forces that the balance of Israel’s air force are better than (And at that I’m just presuming that the Tornados aren’t as modernized as Israel’s F-16’s; I don’t actually know that.) You’ll note I also didn’t point out that the UK has a bunch more F-35 on order. The “better” part of “more and better” is just false. France, UK, and Germany have mostly 3.5 gen fighters, with a few 4th gen and more on order, and a few 3rd gen on the way out. Israel has mostly 3rd gen fighters with a few 4th gen and more on order.
Nothing in my post disputes in the slightest that Israel’s armed forces are disproportionately huge relative to their population and economy compared to western European forces. All I was doing was contextualizing the “more and better jets” comment, and outright disputing the “better” part.
You do you. However Russia can’t even get a favorable air situation over Ukraine despite Ukraine being right on their border.
Meanwhile Israel has achieved air supremacy in Iran which is over 1000 miles away.
Also Israel was able to shoot down nearly 99% of the missiles Iran fired at them.
I’ve been wrong before. I do not know the nuances of the issue (I was mostly referring to Israel having additional F-35s on order).
However Israel does modify their jets with their own technology, so I am not sure how that plays into the calculation of whether Israel’s jets are closer to 4.5 gen in capability.