General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWe don't control the fucking airspace?
The first fucking rule for an offensive is dominate the sky! How is it we dont? Where the fuck are our invincible F-22s?
Abnredleg
(1,252 posts). The fact that we are operating Reapers in Iranian airspace means we are well on our way to achieving it. And doctrinally, the purpose of stealth is to enter contested airspace and degrade air defenses to achieve said air dominance, which is what is happening.
jimmy the one
(2,789 posts)Not sure if reaper drones would count towards air superiority since bombers do not. The reaper does have air to air sidewinder missiles or two, but appears these are reserved for defensive countermeasures rather than hunting for bear as a fighter plane or interceptor would.
Reapers appear to operate primarily at high altitudes waiting for a target to appear so as to bomb it. If an unknown fighter or drone came near the reaper it might unleash its sidewinder in self defense, but this tactic would not establish air superiority.
Prior to air to air missiles, only fighters and interceptors counted towards establishing air superiority, within reason. A fighter bomber does.
I do not know how surface to air missiles or patriots come into play these days, I suppose contribute in a sense; during a battle tho, dunno.
A scout plane with a pilot armed with a rifle could have air superiority if he were the only aircraft within a hundred miles of the battle, but this of course is not a valid argument.
The way I remember it from last century, pertaining to battles, air superiority is over 5 to 4 ratio of fighter and interceptors of roughly equal quality. Air supremacy is over 5 to 1. Air dominance is over ten to one. Air inferiority is less than 3 to 4. Air parity is self explanatory.
With superior aircraft which generally exists today between first world and second world countries such as US and Iran, air superiority takes on a different interpretation as we can well imagine.
EX500rider
(12,380 posts)Mobile SCUD launchers launching IRBM's are more for Patriot missiles and other interceptors rather then fighter planes.
underpants
(195,963 posts)Were avoiding the news but I just read a recap of counter attacks. Dont we have at least one carrier group there?
Fiendish Thingy
(22,820 posts)Although one of them, The Gerald Ford, has malfunctioning toilets (all 600 of them).
ananda
(34,835 posts)Pee in the sea?
Fiendish Thingy
(22,820 posts)It costs $100s of thousands each time they do it, and it only gets about a third of the toilets working at a time, for a short time.
The Ford was supposed to be in for repairs lasting up to a year.
Response to Aviation Pro (Original post)
jfz9580m This message was self-deleted by its author.
Greg_In_SF
(1,205 posts)established complete air dominance within 36 hours?
Iran has thousands of anti aircraft missile launchers. Dominance cannot be achieved until they are destroyed.
Happy Hoosier
(9,497 posts)I am a bit surprised they managed to get some fighters up (apparently) to conduct a strike. I would have assumed anything leaving the Iranian airspace bubble would have been intercepted and destroyed immediately. This is NOT the slam dunk the MAGAts are trying to portray it as so far. And as far as I know, the Iranian ground forces are still firmly in control of the country. Did they not coordinate with dissident groups beforehand?
The onyl reason Venezuela went like it did is because there was a compliant dissident already highly placed in the government that wanted Maduro out as well.