A) Europe is connected by land with both the arabian peninsula and russia, which have some of the largest oil reserves in the world. No need for sea transport. Plus, several european countries are net exporters of oil and don't need to worry about that at all.
There's no land pipe route. It comes in by ship. People have been trying to build a land route for years, but it's never worked. Good luck finding enough tanker trucks. Even if there was a land route, it wouldn't be particularly difficult to cruise up the Persian Gulf and cut it at the source. Besides, oil isn't the only thing. Making the economy collapse due to loss overseas trade has been used to bring the Continent to its knees before.
B) Europe doesn't need carriers to defend those from US carriers, as there's, you know, land. With airbases on it.
Already invalidated by the above.
It is furthermore instructive to consider that in the few times this has been studied by professionals, 6th Fleet, the USN's Mediterranian force, has generally been considered able to blast its way out of the Med using the resources of a single CVBG. This is in the face of combined opposition from Greece, Turkey, Spain, France, and Italy. The Med is a lake to a carrier, and there is no safety from shore-based air attack to be found anywhere in it.
I don't think you fully grasp just what you're dealing with here. A single US CVBG is fully capable of sending any country into the world back to the Industrial Revolution; it would just take longer for some then for others. A single CVBG has more combat power then the airforces of all the Scandinavian countries combined. If they were all to turn on the EU, it would have a serious problem, and you're telling me a carrier battlegroup, let alone two or three, isn't? A carrier alone has more aircraft then all but the largest of land bases. Its escorts add further striking power in the form of cruise missiles, against which there remains no seriously viable defense. If your runways and aircraft are destroyed by Tomahawk strikes then it doesn't really help, y'know? Now that the Improved Spruance is in regular service Tomahawks have gotten pretty common. You could shut down half the airfields in Britain with a single strike-loadout Spruance. Only for a few hours perhaps, but you could do a lot of damage then.
A CVBG has defenses superior to any land base. They were designed to stand off multiregiment Backfire raids, which is about as scary as modern air attack gets. Compared to 50-odd Backfires with AS-6 missiles anything the EU can muster comes across as a joke. Yes, they have some good strike aircraft, but they are not supersonic bombers packing missiles with one-ton warheads. The best maritime strike aircraft the EU can currently muster is the Tornado when equipped with Sea Eagle missiles. Assuming you could get them all together at once, that'd be a fairly impressive force even in a carrier skipper's eyes. But they will not, of course, be all together at once. Finding sixty of them in the same place would be difficult. Their payload is considerably less then a Backfire and their weapons less powerful, but they carry the same absolute number of missiles: two. It is to be noted that the Sea Eagle has a shorter range then the SM2-MR SAM used by almost all US surface ships currently in service, much less the SM2-ER that is the province of a carrier's main escorts. Even if not intercepted they will take losses before launching their weapons. It is also to be noted that several countries don't even have that option. France relies on the air-launched version of the Exocet for its needs, which is even shorter ranged then the Sea Eagle. Several countries like Spain and Turkey don't even have dedicated maritime strike weapons in their inventory.
C) While the combined european airforces do not stand up to the USAF, they don't need to. They only need to stand up to carrier based aircraft as the atlantic is too great a gap to bridge for fighters with a combat load. And then we're suddenly talking a 10:1 advantage to europe, as well as a technological edge as Eurofighters are far superior to any carrier based aircraft.
Advantage is less then you think. A lot. Operational realities dictate that you would have difficulty bringing more the 150 aircraft to bear against a single carrier, which itself has about seventy planes. Slightly more then two-to-one, with the advantages of the carrier being not vunerable to cruise missile strikes and possessing superior defenses to a land base.
Good as the Eurofighter is, it is not as good as you think. It exists in relatively small numbers. There are only about 200 in squadron service spread across multiple countries. The majority of any air-defense effort would fall into the hands of Tornado ADVs or Mirage 2000s. France shouldn't have been allowed to have a say in the design, either, as the Eurofighter inherited the Mirage series' poor look-down shoot-down capablity.
Worth remembering that the B-52H and B-1B can still make it across the Atlantic with a full weapons load. Technically however they don't even need to do that. Equipped with AGM-86C missiles the B-1B or B-52H can reach 800 nautical miles. A B-1B can deliever 24 of these missiles in a single mission. The B-52H can only carry half as many. Each is only slightly inferior to a Tomahawk as a weapon. With six B-1Bs you can deliever 144 missiles in a mission from beyond a range at which you would be detected, let alone intercepted.
D) European military radar systems are good enough to detect stealth aircraft. Or more specifically, they can detect the air turbulence created by them. So little advantage there.
At short range. Regardless stealth aircraft would play a small role anyways, so this is rather moot.
E) And let's not forget that just as the US possesses the means to disable the Galileo sattelite network once that becomes operational, so do european forces possess the ability to disable GPS at will.
I severely doubt that's true. They can probably tap into it if it goes encrypted still (probably), but in any case the loss would not matter too much. GPS is nice but all US ships and aircraft have backup inertial gear that's really just as accurate.
F) The US has exactly jack and ****'s worth of troop landing capability these days. Europe would actually be more capable of invading the US than the other way around, as at least it still retains the ability to land several divisions' worth in a short-ish time.
I have already proved that such an invasion would not be necessary. However, just to prove you wrong, sitting here in the harbor at San Diego is enough trooplift for a Marine brigade. There is an Army mechanized infantry divsion's more at Pearl Harbor. Then there is a Phibron always available for the Med, the Pacific, and Atlantic (the Med one has currently been occupied with Iraq) for another three brigades. Little Creek has enough members of the Gator Navy for an Army heavy division.
That's four Marine brigades and two divisions of Army troops. Counting the predeployment ships you could add another three brigades of Army troops as well. Not enough perhaps to go head to head with the combined might of the European powers, but they would not be asked to. (The most likely use of any of the Gator Navy would be the capture of Gibralter and Iceland, which they have more then enough trooplift to accomplish.
Europe by contrast has little in the way of trooplift. The French can lift about two brigades of light troops, RN about a division and a half. Spain, Italy, and the Scandinavian countries have no amphibous capablity worthy of the name. Turkey and Greece can lift about a brigade and a half each, but only for short distances. Call it two divisions, then. Just to make things worse nobody in the EU is capable of over-the-horizon landing ops (via LCAC) like the USN is.
they've got 2000+ state-of-the-art land-based fighters to contend with.
You vastly overestimate the size and quality of the European airforces. 700-1000 frontline fighters backed up by about 500 second-rate ones and another thousand or so attack aircraft is a much more realistic estimate.
In short, sir, I really don't believe you have a damn clue what you're talking about. I have long made a study of naval and air matters. You're just blowing smoke.
