Modern wars aren’t even decided by that, they’re decided by who gets air superiority first. Everything works from that point onwards. Which is why the US and China are spending fortunes on stealth aircraft, power projection, and area/access denial capabilities.
Whose are better, the US or China? I don’t know, and don’t want to find out… Finding out will involve large scale high tech warfare on a scale not seen since the Gulf war, and mass casualties on both sides.
Russia doesn’t have a high degree of air superiority or air supremacy over Ukraine. Russian aircraft don’t cross the forward line of own troops, and haven’t in years, which is why they use cruise missiles, one way attack drones and ballistic missiles for attacks deeper into Ukrainian territory. And glide bombs launched 40+ km behind their forward line of own troops for air support. When Russia had air supremacy in Mariopul, they brought in the Tu-22M3 Backfire bombers to bomb Mariopul. When Russia gained air supremacy over Kursk this year just before Ukraine lost it, they had attack helicopters, close air support aircraft like the Su-25, and larger UCAVs bombing all of Kursk that Ukraine held at the time. If Tu-22M3 Backfire bombers flew over Kiev every night, Ukraine would’ve surrendered years ago.
If you mean the Russian air force is superior to the Ukrainian air force in numbers and equipment, and thus they have air superiority, then yes that’s correct. But I don’t think anyone is arguing against that. Yes Russia is superior there, but they can’t translate that into flying deeper into Ukrainian territory, Ukraine still controls the airspace behind the front lines thanks to the area/access denial enabled by their air defence network and defensive counter air missions by the Ukrainian Air Force, which has almost completely transitioned to F-16AM/BM aircraft (Soviet era airframes and the few French Mirages only make up 20% of sorties now). Russian offensive counter air and suppression of enemy air defence missions are not, at this stage of the war, inflicting significant enough losses to meaningfully degrade Ukraine’s area/access denial to aircraft. In the beginning of the war Russia inflicted large losses on Ukraine air defence and fighter aircraft, but were unable to translate that into deep strike missions.
A few weeks (or months) ago Ukraine even flew an An-124 cargo plane out of Kiev. If Russia had a high degree of air superiority, they would’ve shot it down. They didn’t.
Russian aircraft don’t cross forward because Russia’s strategy is to use long range missiles and drones to penetrate deep into Ukraine. Having air superiority doesn’t mean flying aircraft in, it means having control over the airspace which Russia does. Ukraine has practically no air force left to speak of, and they are entirely unable to stop Russians hitting deep inside Ukraine with impunity. Russia has been holding back from bombing civilian areas into the ground entirely as a choice as opposed to lack of capability to do so. Saying Russia doesn’t have air superiority because they don’t shoot down every plane that flies over Ukraine is a bit silly.
If you want to be pedantic about it, I think @MarmiteLover123@hexbear.net means air supremacy, which Russia does not have. For instance, during the Israel-Iran war Israel had air superiority over all of Iran, in that they were not under threat and could operate mostly, but only had supremacy over the western part of Iran, where they could conduct deep strikes and totally rule the skies and do anything with almost no resistance whatsoever in the air. This same situation happened in Lebanon and Gaza (obviously). Russia does not have supremacy over Ukraine, and does not conduct deep airstrikes. All of the strikes carried out in western Ukraine are by cruise missiles or missiles launched via aircraft far outside the range of Ukranian air defenses. I think Russia could gain air supremacy over Ukraine, but they don’t want to pay that price right now because it’d be costly in terms of aircraft.
No, Russia very much does have air supremacy over Ukraine. Russia literally conducts strikes all over Ukraine with impunity on pretty much daily basis right now. While jets only operate around the front. Russian strategic bombers fire missiles all the way into western Ukraine. Air supremacy doesn’t mean that you’re flying jets into western Ukraine. It means you have dominance of the sky which Russia does. Ukraine effectively has no air force to speak of at this point, and they are unable to intercept Russian strikes. There is no logical reason why Russia would try to fly aircraft deep into Ukraine either. Russian approach has always been to launch missiles from long range. It’s a different doctrine from the one US uses where they try to fly stealth bombers deep into enemy territory.
Nah Russia would do that too if they could. That’s the strategy they pursued in Syria, and it’s what they did in Kursk. Close air support is always really helpful. Plus, if Russia really had air supremacy and total control of the skies, they’d be able to take out Ukraine’s missile launchers before they get missiles in the air (like Israel was doing to Iran in the western part of Iran during the war). Ukraine still has vast capability to strike Russia through the air; you’re right their air force doesn’t exist, but their air defenses and ability to still operate with relative safety in Western Ukraine shows Russia doesn’t have total control of the skies.
Russia would obviously not carpet bomb large civilian areas because they need a stable Ukraine after the war. Meanwhile, there’s zero evidence that I’m aware of that any large scale bombing campaigns were done in Kursk or that it was the decisive factor there. Even western media openly admits now that Ukraine isn’t able to intercept something like 90% of Russian missiles. Western Ukraine is being hammered on daily basis right now.
Missiles do not equal air superiority. Iran was able to lob dozens of missiles at Israel and achieved a good level of hits, even with Israel’s advanced missile defense systems. Under no circumstances did they have anything approaching air superiority over the skies of Israel. There’s a difference between carpet bombing large civilian areas and surgical strikes, but regardless Russia is currently not able to do either in Ukraine even if they wanted to. I don’t think this is due to lack of capability; if Russia wanted to, they could achieve air supremacy over Ukraine and bomb at will. I don’t think they’re willing to pay the price to establish that because they’ve calculated they can win without it, which I tend to agree with.
Yes, being able to launch missiles and drones on daily basis with vast majority of them hitting their targets while the enemy is not able to do the same in response is literally the definition of having air superiority.
but regardless Russia is currently not able to do either in Ukraine even if they wanted to
I’m not sure where you get this notion given that Russia is hitting precision targets every day. That’s why Ukrainian energy grid is collapsing as we speak. This is what air superiority looks like
Modern wars aren’t even decided by that, they’re decided by who gets air superiority first. Everything works from that point onwards. Which is why the US and China are spending fortunes on stealth aircraft, power projection, and area/access denial capabilities.
Whose are better, the US or China? I don’t know, and don’t want to find out… Finding out will involve large scale high tech warfare on a scale not seen since the Gulf war, and mass casualties on both sides.
Russia very clearly has air superiority in Ukraine, the war is in its fourth year now.
Russia doesn’t have a high degree of air superiority or air supremacy over Ukraine. Russian aircraft don’t cross the forward line of own troops, and haven’t in years, which is why they use cruise missiles, one way attack drones and ballistic missiles for attacks deeper into Ukrainian territory. And glide bombs launched 40+ km behind their forward line of own troops for air support. When Russia had air supremacy in Mariopul, they brought in the Tu-22M3 Backfire bombers to bomb Mariopul. When Russia gained air supremacy over Kursk this year just before Ukraine lost it, they had attack helicopters, close air support aircraft like the Su-25, and larger UCAVs bombing all of Kursk that Ukraine held at the time. If Tu-22M3 Backfire bombers flew over Kiev every night, Ukraine would’ve surrendered years ago.
If you mean the Russian air force is superior to the Ukrainian air force in numbers and equipment, and thus they have air superiority, then yes that’s correct. But I don’t think anyone is arguing against that. Yes Russia is superior there, but they can’t translate that into flying deeper into Ukrainian territory, Ukraine still controls the airspace behind the front lines thanks to the area/access denial enabled by their air defence network and defensive counter air missions by the Ukrainian Air Force, which has almost completely transitioned to F-16AM/BM aircraft (Soviet era airframes and the few French Mirages only make up 20% of sorties now). Russian offensive counter air and suppression of enemy air defence missions are not, at this stage of the war, inflicting significant enough losses to meaningfully degrade Ukraine’s area/access denial to aircraft. In the beginning of the war Russia inflicted large losses on Ukraine air defence and fighter aircraft, but were unable to translate that into deep strike missions.
A few weeks (or months) ago Ukraine even flew an An-124 cargo plane out of Kiev. If Russia had a high degree of air superiority, they would’ve shot it down. They didn’t.
Russian aircraft don’t cross forward because Russia’s strategy is to use long range missiles and drones to penetrate deep into Ukraine. Having air superiority doesn’t mean flying aircraft in, it means having control over the airspace which Russia does. Ukraine has practically no air force left to speak of, and they are entirely unable to stop Russians hitting deep inside Ukraine with impunity. Russia has been holding back from bombing civilian areas into the ground entirely as a choice as opposed to lack of capability to do so. Saying Russia doesn’t have air superiority because they don’t shoot down every plane that flies over Ukraine is a bit silly.
If you want to be pedantic about it, I think @MarmiteLover123@hexbear.net means air supremacy, which Russia does not have. For instance, during the Israel-Iran war Israel had air superiority over all of Iran, in that they were not under threat and could operate mostly, but only had supremacy over the western part of Iran, where they could conduct deep strikes and totally rule the skies and do anything with almost no resistance whatsoever in the air. This same situation happened in Lebanon and Gaza (obviously). Russia does not have supremacy over Ukraine, and does not conduct deep airstrikes. All of the strikes carried out in western Ukraine are by cruise missiles or missiles launched via aircraft far outside the range of Ukranian air defenses. I think Russia could gain air supremacy over Ukraine, but they don’t want to pay that price right now because it’d be costly in terms of aircraft.
No, Russia very much does have air supremacy over Ukraine. Russia literally conducts strikes all over Ukraine with impunity on pretty much daily basis right now. While jets only operate around the front. Russian strategic bombers fire missiles all the way into western Ukraine. Air supremacy doesn’t mean that you’re flying jets into western Ukraine. It means you have dominance of the sky which Russia does. Ukraine effectively has no air force to speak of at this point, and they are unable to intercept Russian strikes. There is no logical reason why Russia would try to fly aircraft deep into Ukraine either. Russian approach has always been to launch missiles from long range. It’s a different doctrine from the one US uses where they try to fly stealth bombers deep into enemy territory.
Nah Russia would do that too if they could. That’s the strategy they pursued in Syria, and it’s what they did in Kursk. Close air support is always really helpful. Plus, if Russia really had air supremacy and total control of the skies, they’d be able to take out Ukraine’s missile launchers before they get missiles in the air (like Israel was doing to Iran in the western part of Iran during the war). Ukraine still has vast capability to strike Russia through the air; you’re right their air force doesn’t exist, but their air defenses and ability to still operate with relative safety in Western Ukraine shows Russia doesn’t have total control of the skies.
Russia would obviously not carpet bomb large civilian areas because they need a stable Ukraine after the war. Meanwhile, there’s zero evidence that I’m aware of that any large scale bombing campaigns were done in Kursk or that it was the decisive factor there. Even western media openly admits now that Ukraine isn’t able to intercept something like 90% of Russian missiles. Western Ukraine is being hammered on daily basis right now.
Missiles do not equal air superiority. Iran was able to lob dozens of missiles at Israel and achieved a good level of hits, even with Israel’s advanced missile defense systems. Under no circumstances did they have anything approaching air superiority over the skies of Israel. There’s a difference between carpet bombing large civilian areas and surgical strikes, but regardless Russia is currently not able to do either in Ukraine even if they wanted to. I don’t think this is due to lack of capability; if Russia wanted to, they could achieve air supremacy over Ukraine and bomb at will. I don’t think they’re willing to pay the price to establish that because they’ve calculated they can win without it, which I tend to agree with.
Yes, being able to launch missiles and drones on daily basis with vast majority of them hitting their targets while the enemy is not able to do the same in response is literally the definition of having air superiority.
I’m not sure where you get this notion given that Russia is hitting precision targets every day. That’s why Ukrainian energy grid is collapsing as we speak. This is what air superiority looks like
Is this implying that what I’ve been hearing about logistics is old shit and it’s really air superiority that matters most nowadays?
Everything builds on logistics, air forces are probably the most resource intensive part of warfare in terms of both offence and defence
No, logistics is still very important. Especially for the air force, in fact it’s probably most important for the air force.
I mean, let the US have air superiority long enough and I’ll threaten to airstrike itself.