4 ms·

Iranian friction created prohibitive operating environment that made US abandon air space dominance - that is literal loss of air superiority. There was enough

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]
  - maxglute 2mo ago
    E: below comment dead. >You still haven’t shown evidence that Iran denied US control of the air. You’re inferring that from force preservation and munitions usage. The evidence is drumroll, US no longer overflying Iran, when in every other war in recent memory US had not just air superiority but air supremacy. The evidence is also US expending high % of global interceptors, which means US is functionally not capable of defending CENTCOM land basing. If US cannot defend CENTCOM land basing, US can not operate force multipliers, i.e. tankers, awacs at scale/tempo to sustain air control. Keep in mind Iran is 5x the size of Iraq and during Iraq US had more carriers and regional coalition assets to sustain a longer / broader air campaign. Taken together signs point to Iran's continued ability to generate fires, or rather US inability to defend against Iranian fires + inability to blunt Iranian fires to make CENTOM land basing viable. The TLDR is US does not have enough stand off munition to defang Iran from hitting CENTCOM and not enough interceptors in CENTOM to blunt Iranian fires. Ergo US does not have the force posture for air supremacy anymore, and the only time it did was when it had ample standoff munitions, ample interceptors that could keep Iranian fires comprehensively suppressed. Now it has neither, so it is not in a state of reestablish air superiority let along supremacy, unless there is global stockpiles to try again, but ineffectively shifting more earth while Iranian drones and TELs chill in hardened tunnels is something something insanity doing same thing expecting different results, expect keep doing same thing undermines US global posture.
    - firesteelrain 2mo ago
      [dead]
    - maxglute 2mo ago
      >Strained interceptor stocks != Iran denied US air superiority. You still need evidence that US overflights stopped because Iran made the airspace untenable. Every analysis is inference - evidence is US stopped overflight/airspace control efforts because we can infer from operational behavior and how it relates to stockpile levels and expenditures that US cannot maintain air superiority posture. Standoff strikes is definitionally NOT air superiority strikes, mounting news of US keep draining standoff stock pile to hit Iran is not reflection US has superiority but more evidence US does not. CENTCOM CONTINUING CONDUCTING STRIKES =/= AIR SUPERIORITY, WHICH DEFINITIONALLY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ABILITY TO CONDUCT STRIKES. Go to pedantic layer and draw from formal DoD definitions (counterair operations manual), US operationally at "air parity" (below air superiority/supremacy), one can argue US has stockpiles reestablish superiority/supremacy but US operational behavior right now suggest theatre is at parity. Interceptor stocks is not strained. It's functionally finished. US unlikely move more to CENTCOM without breaking US global security architecture, everything that can reasonably be repositioned has been. The fact that Iran fires getting through regularly = what is there is not enough. This last reply, feel free to disagree.

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]
- maxglute 2mo ago
  E: below comment dead. >You still haven’t shown evidence that Iran denied US control of the air. You’re inferring that from force preservation and munitions usage. The evidence is drumroll, US no longer overflying Iran, when in every other war in recent memory US had not just air superiority but air supremacy. The evidence is also US expending high % of global interceptors, which means US is functionally not capable of defending CENTCOM land basing. If US cannot defend CENTCOM land basing, US can not operate force multipliers, i.e. tankers, awacs at scale/tempo to sustain air control. Keep in mind Iran is 5x the size of Iraq and during Iraq US had more carriers and regional coalition assets to sustain a longer / broader air campaign. Taken together signs point to Iran's continued ability to generate fires, or rather US inability to defend against Iranian fires + inability to blunt Iranian fires to make CENTOM land basing viable. The TLDR is US does not have enough stand off munition to defang Iran from hitting CENTCOM and not enough interceptors in CENTOM to blunt Iranian fires. Ergo US does not have the force posture for air supremacy anymore, and the only time it did was when it had ample standoff munitions, ample interceptors that could keep Iranian fires comprehensively suppressed. Now it has neither, so it is not in a state of reestablish air superiority let along supremacy, unless there is global stockpiles to try again, but ineffectively shifting more earth while Iranian drones and TELs chill in hardened tunnels is something something insanity doing same thing expecting different results, expect keep doing same thing undermines US global posture.
  - firesteelrain 2mo ago
    [dead]
  - maxglute 2mo ago
    >Strained interceptor stocks != Iran denied US air superiority. You still need evidence that US overflights stopped because Iran made the airspace untenable. Every analysis is inference - evidence is US stopped overflight/airspace control efforts because we can infer from operational behavior and how it relates to stockpile levels and expenditures that US cannot maintain air superiority posture. Standoff strikes is definitionally NOT air superiority strikes, mounting news of US keep draining standoff stock pile to hit Iran is not reflection US has superiority but more evidence US does not. CENTCOM CONTINUING CONDUCTING STRIKES =/= AIR SUPERIORITY, WHICH DEFINITIONALLY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ABILITY TO CONDUCT STRIKES. Go to pedantic layer and draw from formal DoD definitions (counterair operations manual), US operationally at "air parity" (below air superiority/supremacy), one can argue US has stockpiles reestablish superiority/supremacy but US operational behavior right now suggest theatre is at parity. Interceptor stocks is not strained. It's functionally finished. US unlikely move more to CENTCOM without breaking US global security architecture, everything that can reasonably be repositioned has been. The fact that Iran fires getting through regularly = what is there is not enough. This last reply, feel free to disagree.