4 ms·

And immediately lost it after a few weeks, hence current detente. A maximally preopositioned/prepared/postured US + Israel suckering punching Iran was able to

And immediately lost it after a few weeks, hence current detente. A maximally preopositioned/prepared/postured US + Israel suckering punching Iran was able to briefing maintain air superiority through select regions, but the minute Iran reorganized and hit CENTCOM basing, US lost sortie generation rate to maintain air superiority. Land basing / sustainment ~70% of theatre sortie generation, US carriers / long range bombers good supplementary door kickers, but they can't sustain enough fires generation to suppress Iran, hence US forced to burn standoff stockpile - because shit tier air defense network + theater level precision strike complex (missiles) allows even crippled Iran to deny US air superiority and ability to prosecute cheap dump bomb war. Reminder to get even to the temporary air superiority (which was only established on select areas) US+Israel had to expend mass amounts of high end munitions, and push high tempo logistics to shape battlefield, can't do that anymore without land basing, and US logistically incapable for sustaining / surging 6-8 carriers to backfill sortie. Now highend standoff munitions are functional substitute for air superiority for hitting targets, not whole tactic replacement, i.e. no CAS, hence it's an expensive fallback, but only if there is enough munitions to sustain, which currently there isn't.

firesteelrain 2mo ago
That’s a lot of assertions, but none demonstrate Iran denied US air operations. You’re describing increased friction, not loss of air superiority.
- maxglute 2mo ago
  Iranian friction created prohibitive operating environment that made US abandon air space dominance - that is literal loss of air superiority. There was enough manned and unmanned airframe losses over the first few weeks that it was no longer viable to try to maintain air supremacy - it was obvious after downed F15 that US can't afford to burn an entire combat SAR worth of hardware more than a few times. Hence from air supremacy -> superiority -> contested air space scale, losses vs US appetite = Iran contested air space enough that US could not afford to maintain superiority, and Iran degraded or put enough CENTCOM sortie generation under threat that US likely cannot anyway. Of course this all mediated by US risk appetite. US on paper pour enough hardware at extreme cost, eat enough losses, to reestablish superiority or even supremacy over Iran, but it's unlikely.
  - firesteelrain 2mo ago
    I get what you are saying but one aircraft loss doesn’t constitute loss of air superiority. The way I see it you are inferring “US abandoned air superiority” from losses and reduced sortie generation. That may be your assessment, but it isn’t demonstrated by the evidence you’ve cited. [1] https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PUBLIC-RELEASES/Article/4451965/us-continues-strikes-into-iran-after-successful-rescue-of-f-15e-aircrew/ https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PUBLIC-RELEASES/Article/445196... [2] https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/ https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/
    - maxglute 2mo ago
      In terms of attrition, its like 10% of reapers - 20-30% of operational fleet. 4% of CSAR MC130s, 5% of E3 AWACs, 2% of KC135s. Yes single digit %, but relative to timeframe not nothing for high value air assets/force multipliers that prerequisite/sustains air superiority. Enough to change US tactics, i.e. enough to compel US to abandon air superiority, hence US lost air superiority. Your article just demonstrate operations continued, but we now know with hindsight those operations are standoff operations i.e. they're not air superiority operations. Or else Hegseth would be bragging about #s of JDAMs dropped along with energy drinks consumed instead of articles about "virtually all" of high end precision strike being depleted. My assessment comports with reality - Iranian attrition made US abandon air space control, aka air superiority bombing campaign which US force structure can sustain indefinitely for standoff war which US can't sustain for more than a few months. Being able to standoff strike Iran =/= air superiority, overflying Iran enmass and dropping cheap bombs is air superiority. US is not overflying Iran enmass, and it's not because detente, it's because US can't operationally justify/sustain it. US can't operationally sustain air superiority because CENTCOM land based force multipliers are too vulnerable, and without force multipliers you're left with carrier aviation, that itself Iran pushed to standoff range and hence can only deliver stand off munitions.
      - firesteelrain 2mo ago
        [dead]
      - 2mo ago

firesteelrain 2mo ago

That’s a lot of assertions, but none demonstrate Iran denied US air operations. You’re describing increased friction, not loss of air superiority.

maxglute 2mo ago
Iranian friction created prohibitive operating environment that made US abandon air space dominance - that is literal loss of air superiority. There was enough manned and unmanned airframe losses over the first few weeks that it was no longer viable to try to maintain air supremacy - it was obvious after downed F15 that US can't afford to burn an entire combat SAR worth of hardware more than a few times. Hence from air supremacy -> superiority -> contested air space scale, losses vs US appetite = Iran contested air space enough that US could not afford to maintain superiority, and Iran degraded or put enough CENTCOM sortie generation under threat that US likely cannot anyway. Of course this all mediated by US risk appetite. US on paper pour enough hardware at extreme cost, eat enough losses, to reestablish superiority or even supremacy over Iran, but it's unlikely.
- firesteelrain 2mo ago
  I get what you are saying but one aircraft loss doesn’t constitute loss of air superiority. The way I see it you are inferring “US abandoned air superiority” from losses and reduced sortie generation. That may be your assessment, but it isn’t demonstrated by the evidence you’ve cited. [1] https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PUBLIC-RELEASES/Article/4451965/us-continues-strikes-into-iran-after-successful-rescue-of-f-15e-aircrew/ https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PUBLIC-RELEASES/Article/445196... [2] https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/ https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/
  - maxglute 2mo ago
    In terms of attrition, its like 10% of reapers - 20-30% of operational fleet. 4% of CSAR MC130s, 5% of E3 AWACs, 2% of KC135s. Yes single digit %, but relative to timeframe not nothing for high value air assets/force multipliers that prerequisite/sustains air superiority. Enough to change US tactics, i.e. enough to compel US to abandon air superiority, hence US lost air superiority. Your article just demonstrate operations continued, but we now know with hindsight those operations are standoff operations i.e. they're not air superiority operations. Or else Hegseth would be bragging about #s of JDAMs dropped along with energy drinks consumed instead of articles about "virtually all" of high end precision strike being depleted. My assessment comports with reality - Iranian attrition made US abandon air space control, aka air superiority bombing campaign which US force structure can sustain indefinitely for standoff war which US can't sustain for more than a few months. Being able to standoff strike Iran =/= air superiority, overflying Iran enmass and dropping cheap bombs is air superiority. US is not overflying Iran enmass, and it's not because detente, it's because US can't operationally justify/sustain it. US can't operationally sustain air superiority because CENTCOM land based force multipliers are too vulnerable, and without force multipliers you're left with carrier aviation, that itself Iran pushed to standoff range and hence can only deliver stand off munitions.
    - firesteelrain 2mo ago
      [dead]
    - 2mo ago