4 ms·

This isn't what air superiority means. It occurs when one side is able to safely fly, and their opponent isn't. It's likely to be an obsolete concept in any sor

This isn't what air superiority means. It occurs when one side is able to safely fly, and their opponent isn't. It's likely to be an obsolete concept in any sort of peer to peer war due to widespread anti-air weaponry, yet it's very near an assumption in NATO war doctrine, because that doctrine has been developed over decades of invading countries with no ability to defend themselves.

dilyevsky 3y ago
NATOs doctrinal reliance on air is precisely the reason why russia has tremendous amount of aa systems deployed
cm2187 3y ago
Doesn't it depend on how stealthy is the F35? That will soon be almost the only game in town in Europe (outside of France).
throwup238 3y ago
> It's likely to be an obsolete concept in any sort of peer to peer war due to widespread anti-air weaponry, yet it's very near an assumption in NATO war doctrine, because that doctrine has been developed over decades of invading countries with no ability to defend themselves. That's too strong an assumption. The USAF 's bread and butter is supersonic stealth jets that can enter a territory, fire RF missiles to take out anti-aircraft radar, and leave faster than anything can catch it. Repeated hit and run attacks that wear down ground defenses until they can fly unchallenged. That's on top of the massive arsenal of precision guided missiles that will take out any static installation identified by constant global satellite surveillance. NATO doctrine has always been geared towards countering the Sovet Union/Russia, despite the counter-terrorism detour the US took.
- pigpang 3y ago
  Supersonic missiles are very vulnerable to a debris in the sky. Instead of catching of a missile, a drone can be blown up in advance on predicted trajectory of the supersonic missile.
- riku_iki 3y ago
  > The USAF 's bread and butter is supersonic stealth jets that can enter a territory, fire RF missiles to take out anti-aircraft radar F-35 can't super-sonic cruise. The choice was to be slow but stealthy.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  This is not really how it works in practice. The fastest craft ever made, by an extremely wide margin, was the amazing SR-71 Blackbird - yet another marvel from the Apollo era! [1] It hit mach 3.3 (2200 mph)! For contrast the F-35 hits mach 1.6, and Russia's SU-57 hits mach 2. Russia's workhorse anti-air system is the S-400. It has a range of 400k with a max speed of mach 14! It's also a mobile system. Even MANPADs, which are extremely cheap (relative to an aircraft) pose a major threat. For instance the now somewhat dated FIM-92 [2] can hit mach 2.2. This is why even though Ukraine's air defenses are overall somewhat limited, Russian aircraft rarely if ever go for deep missions. Air superiority is probably just impossible in modern times against a peer adversary. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger
  - kiba 3y ago
    Citing the hard specification of various military hardware does not an analysis make. You neglected entirely the soft components, which is why we see severe under performance of the Russian air force in Ukraine. It is unclear if the US will prevail against a peer adversary in an air war, but if anybody is able to achieve air supremacy, it would be the US and their allies.
  - throwup238 3y ago
    In practice by the time a frontline S-400 knows that there is something there, supersonic jets at cruising altitude already have too much kinetic energy to intercept. It doesn't matter if an anti-aircraft missile is capable of mach 14 if it's got less than the radar horizon worth of distance to accelerate and catch the target. A full AA system depends on a massive early warning radar system to launch interceptors and AA missiles, one that will quickly get destroyed by RF missiles in a real engagement. MANPADs like the FIM-92 have an effective firing range that is a small fraction of the flight ceiling of jets, regardless of the missile's max velocity. They're not a threat unless a jet is flying very low for close air support or when lacking precision munitions, and the operator gets very lucky.
    - 3y ago
kiba 3y ago
The US is the greatest air power in the world bar none, and they're trained to disable and dismantle the opposition force's air defense and capabilities. It would be a mistake to think the US is weak in their SEAD game. And that's not counting the rest of NATO. I would not say that they will succeed in a peer to peer war, but NATO have the greatest chance to achieve air supremacy against any peer opponent.

dilyevsky 3y ago

NATOs doctrinal reliance on air is precisely the reason why russia has tremendous amount of aa systems deployed

cm2187 3y ago

Doesn't it depend on how stealthy is the F35? That will soon be almost the only game in town in Europe (outside of France).

throwup238 3y ago

> It's likely to be an obsolete concept in any sort of peer to peer war due to widespread anti-air weaponry, yet it's very near an assumption in NATO war doctrine, because that doctrine has been developed over decades of invading countries with no ability to defend themselves. That's too strong an assumption. The USAF 's bread and butter is supersonic stealth jets that can enter a territory, fire RF missiles to take out anti-aircraft radar, and leave faster than anything can catch it. Repeated hit and run attacks that wear down ground defenses until they can fly unchallenged. That's on top of the massive arsenal of precision guided missiles that will take out any static installation identified by constant global satellite surveillance. NATO doctrine has always been geared towards countering the Sovet Union/Russia, despite the counter-terrorism detour the US took.

pigpang 3y ago
Supersonic missiles are very vulnerable to a debris in the sky. Instead of catching of a missile, a drone can be blown up in advance on predicted trajectory of the supersonic missile.
riku_iki 3y ago
> The USAF 's bread and butter is supersonic stealth jets that can enter a territory, fire RF missiles to take out anti-aircraft radar F-35 can't super-sonic cruise. The choice was to be slow but stealthy.
somenameforme 3y ago
This is not really how it works in practice. The fastest craft ever made, by an extremely wide margin, was the amazing SR-71 Blackbird - yet another marvel from the Apollo era! [1] It hit mach 3.3 (2200 mph)! For contrast the F-35 hits mach 1.6, and Russia's SU-57 hits mach 2. Russia's workhorse anti-air system is the S-400. It has a range of 400k with a max speed of mach 14! It's also a mobile system. Even MANPADs, which are extremely cheap (relative to an aircraft) pose a major threat. For instance the now somewhat dated FIM-92 [2] can hit mach 2.2. This is why even though Ukraine's air defenses are overall somewhat limited, Russian aircraft rarely if ever go for deep missions. Air superiority is probably just impossible in modern times against a peer adversary. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger
- kiba 3y ago
  Citing the hard specification of various military hardware does not an analysis make. You neglected entirely the soft components, which is why we see severe under performance of the Russian air force in Ukraine. It is unclear if the US will prevail against a peer adversary in an air war, but if anybody is able to achieve air supremacy, it would be the US and their allies.
- throwup238 3y ago
  In practice by the time a frontline S-400 knows that there is something there, supersonic jets at cruising altitude already have too much kinetic energy to intercept. It doesn't matter if an anti-aircraft missile is capable of mach 14 if it's got less than the radar horizon worth of distance to accelerate and catch the target. A full AA system depends on a massive early warning radar system to launch interceptors and AA missiles, one that will quickly get destroyed by RF missiles in a real engagement. MANPADs like the FIM-92 have an effective firing range that is a small fraction of the flight ceiling of jets, regardless of the missile's max velocity. They're not a threat unless a jet is flying very low for close air support or when lacking precision munitions, and the operator gets very lucky.
  - 3y ago

kiba 3y ago

The US is the greatest air power in the world bar none, and they're trained to disable and dismantle the opposition force's air defense and capabilities. It would be a mistake to think the US is weak in their SEAD game. And that's not counting the rest of NATO. I would not say that they will succeed in a peer to peer war, but NATO have the greatest chance to achieve air supremacy against any peer opponent.