7 ms·

So hes partly right. The reason why drones are _so_ devastating in ukraine is that there is no air superiority. that standard "modern" way is bomb the living

So hes partly right. The reason why drones are _so_ devastating in ukraine is that there is no air superiority. that standard "modern" way is bomb the living shit out of anything armoured, and then push forward with your own armour. Hence why ukraine needed so many javelins to stop armour and helicopters. Its also why despite the sheer amount of stuff that Iran et al threw at Isreal, it hardly got through. unlike Oman or UAE. (However thats not actually apples to apples.) What isn't said is guerilla warefare with drones is devastating.

notaigenerated 4mo ago
"Air superiority" wouldn't do anything in 2026 unless you're fighting an African tribe with ak47s in a fullscale war and even then your enemies would probably supply the tribe with some air defense systems that would cause trouble for the pilots.
- sofixa 4mo ago
  You establish air superiority first by doing supression of enemy air defences, then destroying any offensive capabilities they might have (air bases, fighters), and then you rule the skies.
  - swat535 4mo ago
    This didn't work with Vietnam nor Afghanistan.. and US had 100% superiority.
    - sofixa 4mo ago
      Yes, it did. Over both of those the US had, mostly, control of the skies. Hanoi had extremely heavy air defences and was left mostly alone (both because of that and because it wasn't considered a politically appropriate target).
- KaiserPro 4mo ago
  > "Air superiority" wouldn't do anything in 2026 unless you're fighting an African tribe with ak47s It means that the side without superiority has no ability to do proper logistics. Want to move artillery? its going to get blown up. Want to move troops? can't, because the transport is going to get blown up. You want to supply food to 10k plus fighters? can't because it's going to get blown up. Now, it doesn't matter what provides the air superiority, be it missiles, planes or drones. Its not without precedent, in recent times. If we look at battleships, they went from being the thing that projected power, to a liability when air carriers dominated. the effect is the same, you drive up with your battleship/carrier group and dominated the area for 300miles radius.
rainworld 4mo ago
> the standard "modern" war For the US and friends is terrorizing the enemy, his forces, his civilian population into giving up. Is feeding a civil war until he crumbles. > bomb the living shit out of anything armoured That’s absolutely not what’s missing in Ukraine. > and then push forward with your own armour. And then, as soon as you assemble let alone move in the open, you get wrecked. No one has an easy answer for this. The answer is what we’re already seeing: attrition. > Iran Iran prevailed in an highly asymmetric conflict by successfully attriting US/Israeli air defenses and surviving their attacks, depleting their arsenals. Which was their goal, not “levelling Tel Aviv”—however much they would have liked to. Finally, what Israel is facing in Lebanon right now is but a pale imitation of what’s going on in Ukraine. But bad enough. One can imagine what just a couple days of Ukraine-level losses would do to them, militarily and politically. No matter their air superiority.
- sofixa 4mo ago
  > For the US and friends is terrorizing the enemy, his forces, his civilian population into giving up The US has tried to do it a few times (most notably Vietnam), but it isn't the strategy in the slightest. The goal is always an Iraq style campaign with heavy air attacks to destroy/confuse most enemy capabilities before a swift invasion. Terrorising the population in submission has never worked. The US Air Force's own study of strategic air power after WW2 concluded so. > That’s absolutely not what’s missing in Ukraine > and then push forward with your own armour If you rule the skies, you shoot down most attacking drones / it becomes too dangerous to launch drones from short to medium distances (because you'd be found out and destroyed ASAP). It's important to remember that not all wars are the same, and a competent army from a strong military power wouldn't have gotten bogged down to trenches in the first place. Mobile warfare is all about speed and unpredictability and the enemy being unable to react in time

notaigenerated 4mo ago

"Air superiority" wouldn't do anything in 2026 unless you're fighting an African tribe with ak47s in a fullscale war and even then your enemies would probably supply the tribe with some air defense systems that would cause trouble for the pilots.

sofixa 4mo ago
You establish air superiority first by doing supression of enemy air defences, then destroying any offensive capabilities they might have (air bases, fighters), and then you rule the skies.
- swat535 4mo ago
  This didn't work with Vietnam nor Afghanistan.. and US had 100% superiority.
  - sofixa 4mo ago
    Yes, it did. Over both of those the US had, mostly, control of the skies. Hanoi had extremely heavy air defences and was left mostly alone (both because of that and because it wasn't considered a politically appropriate target).
KaiserPro 4mo ago
> "Air superiority" wouldn't do anything in 2026 unless you're fighting an African tribe with ak47s It means that the side without superiority has no ability to do proper logistics. Want to move artillery? its going to get blown up. Want to move troops? can't, because the transport is going to get blown up. You want to supply food to 10k plus fighters? can't because it's going to get blown up. Now, it doesn't matter what provides the air superiority, be it missiles, planes or drones. Its not without precedent, in recent times. If we look at battleships, they went from being the thing that projected power, to a liability when air carriers dominated. the effect is the same, you drive up with your battleship/carrier group and dominated the area for 300miles radius.

rainworld 4mo ago

> the standard "modern" war For the US and friends is terrorizing the enemy, his forces, his civilian population into giving up. Is feeding a civil war until he crumbles. > bomb the living shit out of anything armoured That’s absolutely not what’s missing in Ukraine. > and then push forward with your own armour. And then, as soon as you assemble let alone move in the open, you get wrecked. No one has an easy answer for this. The answer is what we’re already seeing: attrition. > Iran Iran prevailed in an highly asymmetric conflict by successfully attriting US/Israeli air defenses and surviving their attacks, depleting their arsenals. Which was their goal, not “levelling Tel Aviv”—however much they would have liked to. Finally, what Israel is facing in Lebanon right now is but a pale imitation of what’s going on in Ukraine. But bad enough. One can imagine what just a couple days of Ukraine-level losses would do to them, militarily and politically. No matter their air superiority.

sofixa 4mo ago
> For the US and friends is terrorizing the enemy, his forces, his civilian population into giving up The US has tried to do it a few times (most notably Vietnam), but it isn't the strategy in the slightest. The goal is always an Iraq style campaign with heavy air attacks to destroy/confuse most enemy capabilities before a swift invasion. Terrorising the population in submission has never worked. The US Air Force's own study of strategic air power after WW2 concluded so. > That’s absolutely not what’s missing in Ukraine > and then push forward with your own armour If you rule the skies, you shoot down most attacking drones / it becomes too dangerous to launch drones from short to medium distances (because you'd be found out and destroyed ASAP). It's important to remember that not all wars are the same, and a competent army from a strong military power wouldn't have gotten bogged down to trenches in the first place. Mobile warfare is all about speed and unpredictability and the enemy being unable to react in time