The US lost 10000 aircraft in Vietnam. 180 F-22, 200 F-15E, 20 B-2 won't last long in China Russia.

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Probably last a few days, at most a few weeks. If they don't build more to replace losses, then don't even bother to fight China Russia.

Sure, F-22 ain't F-4. F-15E ain't F-105. B-2 ain't B-52, but China Russia ain't sleeping since Vietnam either. China Russia fighter jets and SAM have come a LONG way since Vietnam. Now they got J-20, J-10B, Su-57, Su-35 fighter jets and HQ-9 and S-400 SAM which are FAR more capable and FAR more advanced than the MiG-21 fighter jets and SA-2 SAM of Vietnam. On top of that, they got KJ-2000 and A-50U AWAC. AWAC were never used in Vietnam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War

 

[Lincoln]

Unlike in Vietnam where US airbases were safe from attack, I would wager almost all the losses in a war with China Russia would be on the ground at airbases cause by airbase busters.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/meet...1-and-kh-59mk2-ground-attack-missiles.588389/

Probably last a few days, at most a few weeks. If they don't build more to replace losses, then don't even bother to fight China Russia.

Sure, F-22 ain't F-4. F-15E ain't F-105. B-2 ain't B-52, but China Russia ain't sleeping since Vietnam either. China Russia fighter jets and SAM have come a LONG way since Vietnam. Now they got J-20, J-10B, Su-57, Su-35 fighter jets and HQ-9 and S-400 SAM which are FAR more capable and FAR more advanced than the MiG-21 fighter jets and SA-2 SAM of Vietnam. On top of that, they got KJ-2000 and A-50U AWAC. AWAC were never used in Vietnam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War

Horrible analogy. That was how it was in those years.

Just take a look at World War 2.

Soviet Union lost 106400 aircrafts.
Japan lost 35000 or more aircrafts.
USA lost 95000 aircrafts.
Nazi Germany lost 119907 aircrafts.

Airborne warfare is very much different than it was in those years, from range to weapons.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Horrible analogy. That was how it was in those years.

Just take a look at World War 2.

Soviet Union lost 106400 aircrafts.
Japan lost 35000 or more aircrafts.
USA lost 95000 aircrafts.
Nazi Germany lost 119907 aircrafts.

Airborne warfare is very much different than it was in those years, from range to weapons.

True, but there will be losses, and losses will be heavy.

 

[Lincoln]

True, but there will be losses, and losses will be heavy.

Sure, but your analogy is still shit and doesn't apply. Anywhere around 500 aircrafts is considered a healthy air force, and a fleet of around 150 aircrafts is considered a healthy fleet, specially of 4.5+ generation aircrafts, not even accounting for other aircrafts. Welcome to the 21st Century, that's how airborne warfare is now.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Sure, but your analogy is still shit and doesn't apply. Anywhere around 500 aircrafts is considered a healthy air force, and a fleet of around 150 aircrafts is considered a healthy fleet, specially of 4.5+ generation aircrafts, not even accounting for other aircrafts. Welcome to the 21st Century, that's how airborne warfare is now.

500 planes won't last a week in modern warfare. China Russia each have about 5000 HQ-9 / S-400.

 

[Lincoln]

500 planes won't last a week in modern warfare. China Russia each have about 5000 HQ-9 / S-400.

In the current meta, you don't go in head first. The USA has been heavily investing in Jamming systems and laser-based weapons which are proving to be successful in their tests and we will likely see them being inducted into their military starting with the navy, soon. Not to mention their mass production and procurement of F35 from Lockheed Martin, just the other day, they ordered more for a cost of $22 billion, for 2023, I believe.

Also, 5000 HQ-9 and S-400? I am calling bullshit.

At the same time, both countries also have an air force of similar size to that of USA. USA also has a competitor to the S400 although not as advanced, but really good and a potential contester. Furthermore, if you say that S400s are enough to destroy aerial capability of USAF inside Russian territory, it would be fair to say that the aerial defense systems in use by USA would be enough to counter RAF airplanes in American territory, so that's to imply that an aerial intrusion into eithers sovereignty would be near impossible.

Most of all, what USAF has and what the RAF does not have, is immense experience for the past 18 years in its War on Terror. In my opinion, if it came to aerial warfare, USAF definitely has the edge over RAF. The biggest edge that USA has over Russia though is how concentrated and isolated its territory is in global terms although its assets are well spread through on its territory, meanwhile Russia has a rather large territory exposed to multiple countries and sides, infiltration is easier, and most of Russia's assets are concentrated in western Russia.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

In the current meta, you don't go in head first. The USA has been heavily investing in Jamming systems and laser-based weapons which are proving to be successful in their tests and we will likely see them being inducted into their military starting with the navy, soon. Not to mention their mass production and procurement of F35 from Lockheed Martin, just the other day, they ordered more for a cost of $22 billion, for 2023, I believe.

Also, 5000 HQ-9 and S-400? I am calling bullshit.

At the same time, both countries also have an air force of similar size to that of USA. USA also has a competitor to the S400 although not as advanced, but really good and a potential contester. Furthermore, if you say that S400s are enough to destroy aerial capability of USAF inside Russian territory, it would be fair to say that the aerial defense systems in use by USA would be enough to counter RAF airplanes in American territory, so that's to imply that an aerial intrusion into eithers sovereignty would be near impossible.

Most of all, what USAF has and what the RAF does not have, is immense experience for the past 18 years in its War on Terror. In my opinion, if it came to aerial warfare, USAF definitely has the edge over RAF. The biggest edge that USA has over Russia though is how concentrated and isolated its territory is in global terms although its assets are well spread through on its territory, meanwhile Russia has a rather large territory exposed to multiple countries and sides, infiltration is easier, and most of Russia's assets are concentrated in western Russia.

True, but airbases, carriers, AWACs, aerial tankers are always the first targets. The US may have prepared well for small countries like Serbia, but they don't have effective defense against stand off airbase busters. The vast majority of US aircraft losses would be at airbases and carriers, not in the air like in WW2, Vietnam, Gulf, Kosovo. Like I said, China ain't Vietnam and Russia ain't Serbia.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/meet...1-and-kh-59mk2-ground-attack-missiles.588389/

 

[Lincoln]

True, but airbases, carriers, AWACs, aerial tankers are always the first targets. The US may have prepared well for small countries like Serbia, but they don't have effective defense against stand off airbase busters. The vast majority of US aircraft losses would be at airbases and carriers, not in the air like in WW2, Vietnam, Gulf, Kosovo. Like I said, China ain't Vietnam and Russia ain't Serbia.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/meet...1-and-kh-59mk2-ground-attack-missiles.588389/

And how come the same cannot be said regarding Russia? Let me guess, it's the magical word: S400. You give too much credit to Russia to be able to deploy ground-attack missiles near the USAF bases in USA and kill, with ease.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

And how come the same cannot be said regarding Russia? Let me guess, it's the magical word: S400. You give too much credit to Russia to be able to deploy ground-attack missiles near the USAF bases in USA and kill, with ease.

If America invades China Russia both sides will have very high losses. In the first week, both sides lose hundreds of aircraft per day, mostly at airbases and carriers which get attacked by stand off cruise missiles. In the second week, both sides may have a ceasefire to rest and assess the situation. In the third way, if war continues, it'll likely go nuclear.

 

[Ultima Thule]

Probably last a few days, at most a few weeks. If they don't build more to replace losses, then don't even bother to fight China Russia.

Sure, F-22 ain't F-4. F-15E ain't F-105. B-2 ain't B-52, but China Russia ain't sleeping since Vietnam either. China Russia fighter jets and SAM have come a LONG way since Vietnam. Now they got J-20, J-10B, Su-57, Su-35 fighter jets and HQ-9 and S-400 SAM which are FAR more capable and FAR more advanced than the MiG-21 fighter jets and SA-2 SAM of Vietnam. On top of that, they got KJ-2000 and A-50U AWAC. AWAC were never used in Vietnam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War

Pathetic anology of yours @undertakerwwefan

If America invades China Russia both sides will have very high losses. In the first week, both sides lose hundreds of aircraft per day, mostly at airbases and carriers which get attacked by stand off cruise missiles. In the second week, both sides may have a ceasefire to rest and assess the situation. In the third way, if war continues, it'll likely go nuclear.

There are no chance that Russia and USA or China will go on war directly on one on one basis but most probably in similar way to Vietnam/Syrian war @undertakerwwefan

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Pathetic anology of yours @undertakerwwefan


There are no chance that Russia and USA or China will go on war directly on one on one basis but most probably in similar way to Vietnam/Syrian war @undertakerwwefan

If you think a single F-22 can take on China Russia then why don't you try it and see what happens.

 

[Ultima Thule]

If you think a single F-22 can take on China Russia then why don't you try it and see what happens.

You lives in your fairytales not me @undertakerwwefan

 

[GumNaam]

u.s. foolishly applied the brut force tactic in vietnam not realizing that in spite of america's gigantic industrial capability of manufacturing fighter planes, Russia and China combined would easily outpace the u.s. and hence, the u.s. suffered irrecoverable losses in the air...face it, China and Russia were able to build SAMs faster than america could build fighter aircraft. Fast forwarding to today, China ALONE can out-manufacture the united states in...basically ever field whether it's fighter aircrafts, missiles, tanks, ships, subs, you name it. Throw Russia in the mix and the two combined can take out the u.s. like the u.s. took out saddam's Iraq in 1991! The only that holds China and Russia back is that if they push he u.s. against the wall, the u.s. would have no choice left but to go nuclear.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

the u.s. like the u.s. took out saddam's Iraq in 1991!

Iraq ran out of SAM. US and Britain would have lost Gulf war if Iraq got more SAM.

http://www.rjlee.org/air/ds-aaloss/

The only that holds China and Russia back is that if they push he u.s. against the wall, the u.s. would have no choice left but to go nuclear.

If US goes nuclear than so will China Russia.

 

[GumNaam]

Iraq ran out of SAM. US and Britain would have lost Gulf war if Iraq got more SAM.

http://www.rjlee.org/air/ds-aaloss/



If US goes nuclear than so will China Russia.

Agreed. but these 3 going nuclear basically means the extinction of the human species...