3 ms·

I cannot help, when looking at the peer-v-peer model, to be reminded of acoup.blog's excellent analysis of WWI stalemate. The concepts put forward of "knocking

I cannot help, when looking at the peer-v-peer model, to be reminded of acoup.blog's excellent analysis of WWI stalemate. The concepts put forward of "knocking out the opponents SAM capability and achieving air dominance" might not work so well when the opponent is trying to do exactly the same thing. This is just a uneducated thought so please comment but it interests me. Its unlikely either side will throw 100% of its air assets into the mix to achieve complete dominance, so there is always some planes / batteries around, and we end up with "we dominate that area, you dominate this". At that point, no-one has air dominance, and there is a "no mans land" over which some aircraft might be yours, or theirs, but you have to go through that part. As soon as we have that situation, there will be discussions on "break out" - land forces getting through the contested area, but when you do, guess what, you have broken into the are where their air is dominant. It seems you either have air dominance, or you fight in the air till you do have. But committing all air assets to do that risks losing them all, so stalemate seems inevitable...

hef19898 5y ago
Yeah, the problem is, IMHO, that modern AA capabilities are way cheaper then the air dominance hardware you to throw at the AA to break it. That's why stealth is so important, because you can get close. As is saturation with, e.g., drones. I always wondered how often the USAF would throw multi-billion dollar worth of hardware and multi-millions and multi-decades worth of training at a specific target. Especially over enemy air space, where you won't recover personnel or hardware. I always feared that if anything in a hot war between nuclear powers one side might be tempted, or forced, to resort to tactical nukes. Or powers decide to just not do it for financial reasons. Joke was that Red Baron style wood and cloths bi-planes would be an alternative once the top notch hardware is expended. Easy to build, easy to maintain and pilot training is faster and cheaper as well.

hef19898 5y ago

Yeah, the problem is, IMHO, that modern AA capabilities are way cheaper then the air dominance hardware you to throw at the AA to break it. That's why stealth is so important, because you can get close. As is saturation with, e.g., drones. I always wondered how often the USAF would throw multi-billion dollar worth of hardware and multi-millions and multi-decades worth of training at a specific target. Especially over enemy air space, where you won't recover personnel or hardware. I always feared that if anything in a hot war between nuclear powers one side might be tempted, or forced, to resort to tactical nukes. Or powers decide to just not do it for financial reasons. Joke was that Red Baron style wood and cloths bi-planes would be an alternative once the top notch hardware is expended. Easy to build, easy to maintain and pilot training is faster and cheaper as well.