The problem is that you can’t pull a bazillion dollar fighter or trained pilots out of your ass when you need them. You need to maintain them even when they are not needed. There are other countries out there that have fighters and pilots. We are not currently in conflict with them but do you completely trust Iran or North Korea? I don’t trust what Putin is doing in Russia and I don’t trust China. Maybe you feel better about the world than I do.
They need to be good at it because that’s all the time they have between commecial blocks.
I think that the Coalition forces launched a very effective first/surprise strike that disrupted the Iraqi radar net, communications and control net.
This left the Iraqi fighters (those that got airborne) with very poor (or no) info on which direction the enemy is at or coming from.
The Coalition air command and control infrastructure remained untouched, and were able to vector the fighter aircraft to advantageous approach vectors almost every time.
Coordination of air assests makes a huge difference when only one side has it.
Better training is certainly part of it. But a modern air battle that pits individual airplanes against an entire system consisting of fighters, AWACS planes, sophisticated radars and missiles, ground attack aircraft hitting enemy radars, and computer systems to manage it all, is going to be very one-sided against the individuals, no matter how good the individual pilots might be.
I think the Israeli air force’s first kills were flying German (or, more likely, Czech), Messerschmitt Bf-109s. (If a -109 did not get the first kill, it certainly got many subsequent kills and whatever got the first kill was a WWII era fighter. There were no Phantom IIs in 1948. (The FH-1 Phantom was flying in 1948, but all 50-60 of them were owned by the U.S. Navy.)
I’m sorry. I misread your question. I do not know whether Israeli Phantom IIs preceded US Navy Phantom IIs in scoring the very first kill by that plane.
According to Wikipedia, the first Phantom II victory was in Vietnam on 10 July, 1965. The first Israeli victory (in an Israeli named Kurnass), did not occur until 11 November, 1969. (This sounds about right. As late as the 1967 War, Israel was primarily using French Mirage fighters for air superiority.)
Hmm. May I practice my google-fu? Wiki says ( McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II - Wikipedia )
Wiki is backed up by this site: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f4.html
Air to Air was a little stretched during desert storm, concidering that one of the kills was a laser guided bomb dropped on a moving Helicopter.
Declan
If I remember correctly the USAF shot down some serbian A/C during the kososvo campaign .
Declan
Huh?
What did they have against Air Conditioning?
Because I’m sure the Serbs didn’t have any Aircraft Carriers.
The other possibilities Google brings up are Alarm Clocks and Access Control software – I doubt the USAF really shoots them down much, either.
Could you clarify what you mean by “A/C” here?
Air Craft
I know what you are saying but . . .
As we’ve seen, war at any time is possible. We’re currently in a war where about 3-4 US soldiers are getting killed per day. There is a lot of controversy about lack of armor and ground based equipment getting worn out and not replaced fast enough.
While war with Iran, N. Korea or China is a possiblity, what is liklihood that aerial dogfighting would even factor in the conflict? The F/A 18 sucks fuel so fast that its flight time is very restricted. It does some things exceedingly well but can those things be expected to realistically occur in a present day or forseeable conflict?
Assuming that all resources are finite is it reasonable to think that absolute superiority in an aerial dogfight makes any difference in the equation of military superiority? To put it more bluntly, is the military maintaining a showpiece at the expense of what is really needed?
Probably off to Great Debates but that wasn’t the intent of the OP.
Iran? a factor but not a large one.
North Korea? About 500 fighters if I count correctly. Air power would play a huge role in any conflict with NK just like it did the last time.
Red China? according to the link RC has the largest military air force in the world. So I got $5 that says in a conflict with China air power would play a huge role.
Air superiority/Air supremacy is critical. (Not the end-all-be-all, but one leg of a tripod.) You can conceivably win a ground battle when the enemy controls the air, but that is, in general, not the rule. If you do win the ground fight, you will probably have suffered many more casualties than otherwise. (The NVA in Vietnam comes to mind here.)
In Iraq, we can use a smaller patrol of infantry/armor to do the job assigned to them because they can be backed up by ground to air assets that are on call to bring the additional firepower and reconnoitering capability if and when needed. Without the air assets in theatre, we would need a lot more soldiers in the area to ensure their safety or success if they get jumped by an insurgent force.
I think the military is doing it right. The quality of the equipment, the training of the troops, and the overwhelming massing of firepower and tactics employed get the fight over as fast as possible, with as little loss of (friendly) troops as possible, given the chaotic nature of war.
Do you think all that is just for “show boating” for no good cause?
Bah! Make that Air to Ground. :smack:
The F/A-18 is not a showpiece. It is a tool that can be used to gain and maintain absolute control of the air in (hopefully) any theater that the US chooses to employ it.
If you want to win a war, you must control the air. This is not an option - it must happen. It has been true since the emergence of air power in WWII. By continuing to develop air-superiority fighters (like the F-22) the US is fighting the air war on two fronts. The first is the obvious - a single F-22 can engage and destroy multiple aircraft at very long ranges. So if it comes to an actual shooting war, the F-22 will give the US almost immediate control of the air.
The second part of the air war is deterrence: Have a few flights of F/A-18s and F-22s orbiting on the edge of some country’s airspace (like, say, North Korea) and they might never even get their fighters airborne. If they know they will be shot down, there is no point in launching them.
And to nitpick: yes the F/A-18 is a fuel hog, but it can carry external fuel tanks to extend it’s range and time on station. In addition to that the US has this wonderful system of airborne tankers that can refuel planes and keep them airborne until the engines run out of oil or the pilot falls asleep.
Another nitpick: the F/A-18 is multi-role. It can bomb ground or sea targets as easily as engage enemy aircraft. As such, it is simply more likely to be used than a pure air-superiority plane like the F-22. The F-22 is higher tech and costs more – if you want to question the need for a sophisticated, expensive aircraft, start with the F-22. 
I personally do not question the military need for air defense/air superiority, even high-tech, expensive air defense. If I were inclined to question the F-22 program, however, I’d focus on the issue of whether a piloted aircraft is needed for air superiority. Presumably pilotless fighters (which can turn at much higher G-forces without a squishy human inside) are coming some day – the question is, is that day here yet?
Sailboat
As has been mentioned, Vietnam gives the lie to this. And the Russian front of WW2 is also a counter-example, isn’t it?
Vietnam was lost because of many reasons; control of the air was not the primary one. Think of it this way: control of the air does not guarantee victory. However, control of the air is necessary for victory on any modern battlefield.
I think the Russian front in WWII would count as being right on the cusp of “the emergence of air power in WWII” that I mentioned earlier. The line is hazy there so I was deliberately vague. 