gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
I had this debate yrs ago, at RAF Upper Heyford when I was on the F-111 and at MacDill when I was on the F-16.On the other hand, some countries can fight well in their home-turf but they cannot project power in other parts of the world like the US and fall short in a number of areas.
The debate and question is this...
Using sporting analogy of home and away games. If an expeditionary air force, assuming powerful enough to transport itself out of familiar territory, was defeated in an 'away' game, how should we rate the two air forces ?
Believe it or not, the debate was split quite even. Some say that the ability to transport itself to an 'away' game should be a positive and permanent standard, and I am in this camp, to rank the air forces of the world. Some say combat capability should be the final determinant. Not exactly even. One squadron would have opinions one way, the other squadrons would have opinions the other way. Some were fixed, some changed their views after closer examination of the factors involved. So overall, it was somewhat even.
I am of the opinion that the ability to carry -- or force -- the fight away from home turf should be a significant factor in assessing the offensive capability of an air force, even if the expeditionary air force was defeated over someone else's airspace. An army on the offensive set the combat tempo and it is no different in an air campaign. The defense is always on uncertainty. The defeated air force may temporarily cease operation or even withdraw completely, but it can always return with a new air strategy and combat tactics to counter the tactics that defeated it the first time.