That's fantastically interesting (in case it isn't clear, there's no sarcasm there). I'd never done that analysis, I'd just taken a sentence or two in Wikipedia at face value. Your argument, flippant or not, stands up well. My take is it's an air force who likes to talk about air superiority but can't admit being the top airplane doesn't mean anything when a couple people on the ground with a decent surface-to-air missile can shoot you down with impunity. I agree with your assessment of the USAF, too. I think the same thing applies to the Army. They envision WWII conflicts. The enemy wears a uniform, and anyone not wearing a uniform just wants to stay out of the way. There is a clear front, and behind the front is effectively as safe as being in Omaha. But like air-to-air dogfights, nobody wants to play with us. The military is so much more of a mess than I realized. Thanks for the educational response.