Do we still need air superiority?

[Nemisis]

I was reading some old posts(new to me as I have been kinda busy lately) and I saw a post that said we no longer need air superiority, and that strikes are the new air superiority. I disagree (they better fighters+ours old=ours go by by=their strike aircraft(fighter-bombers?) not explodei= our tanks go ka boom=us get killed by enemy tanks and aircraft=us lose=world wide empire (China)]. please note that this is in real life not in AH2, please give me your thoughts.

[Yenny]

=) we always need air superiority. W/O it nothing can be done !

[Nemisis]

I know; if we stop making new fighters then by 2030 China will be able to drag out a couple of PROPJOBS and because our fighters will be from the eighties and around 50 yrs old and will have been in a hanger in the desert somewhere in arizona on an abandoned airfield, they will totally pown us. In fact, I am supprised washington allowed the F22 to get as far as it did. And if I remember correctly then the A-10 warthog has also had production stoped, but don't quote me as I may be wrong.

[trigger2]

I was reading some old posts(new to me as I have been kinda busy lately) and I saw a post that said we no longer need air superiority, and that strikes are the new air superiority. I disagree (they better fighters+ours old=ours go by by=their strike aircraft(fighter-bombers?) not explodei= our tanks go ka boom=us get killed by enemy tanks and aircraft=us lose=world wide empire (China)]. please note that this is in real life not in AH2, please give me your thoughts.

Air superiority is always a must, however the type of aircraft we are designing are never going to be used for their "intended purpose." Aircraft now are being designed with "supermanuverability", where, as much as I hate to say it, the era of the dogfight is over... Rather what we should be focusing on is a more reliable missile that's able to pull more G's...

My $.02

[Reaper90]

Air superiority is always a must, however the type of aircraft we are designing are never going to be used for their "intended purpose." Aircraft now are being designed with "supermanuverability", where, as much as I hate to say it, the era of the dogfight is over... Rather what we should be focusing on is a more reliable missile that's able to pull more G's...

IIRC that's exactly what they were saying in the '60'sn and then we got into an actual war with an enemy that had actual fighters, and we realized that was a HUGE mistake, and started 1) adding guns back to our fighters, and 2)started teaching ACM again.

[OOZ662]

I believe that dogfights would probably be rare in the case that we got in a war with one of our allies who shares most of our equipment, or an equal. While we still keep banging on 2nd and 3rd world countries, there will be a dogfight somewhere.

[narsus]

I don't foresee a war with China. They make far too much money from trade agreements with us. It would not be in their best interest to start a war.

[slyguy]

I believe my post is the one that started this thread.  Air superiority is always necessary.  I just don't think it's the cowboys and indians thing anymore.  It's just done in a different way.

I'm by no means an air force general or secretary of defense, but I just don't see what there is to fear from "enemy fighters" at this point in time.  I'm not suggesting fighter development is abandoned, as you never fall asleep at the wheel, but it just isn't a need like it once was.  Strike is just so amazingly overpowered right now and effective.  Wars are always won by who can deliver the most big booms and the most efficiently.  Take WWII.  They didn't just go up in fighters and dog fight for decoration for the guys on the ground.  Every sortie involved either delivering a strike of some kind or preventing it.  There is nobody preventing F-22's from hitting their targets.  Nothing in the air anyway.  Nothing even close.

In time things could change and there's enemy fighters to knock out.  Whoever knows?  But unless I'm just behind the times and there is anything out there in the sky preventing the air force and navy from doing their thing I'm all ears.  I just don't see it.  Obviously the military doesn't see it either as the F-22 has been discontinued or whatever happened with it.

[Selino631]

Absolutly

[Rino]

     Wondering who spends more time training than the current ACM world leaders.  I also think air superiority
will be more remote in the near future.

[phatzo]

I watched a doco on the game Americas Army and in it it was stated that the game was being used to amalgamate the use of a joystick with their weopons systems, this in turn would be a type of training for the kids playing Americas Army to operate the real thing. Who knows, with UAV's and such we could be quite a pool of stay home remote warriors for air superiority of the future.

[BnZs]

They say alot of this equipment we have isn't designed for the wars we're fighting. But that is okay, since we can't win that sort of "war" and the sooner we realize it the better. (You can't shoot people until they turn civilized and start building shopping malls and Starbucks. You can't bribe, cajole, or "educate" them into it either.) Whereas keeping always one step ahead of those who *do* have some sort of civilization that could oppose us may prevent the sort of wars we *can* win, but really, really, really do not want to fight again.

[OOZ662]

I watched a doco on the game Americas Army and in it it was stated that the game was being used to amalgamate the use of a joystick with their weopons systems, this in turn would be a type of training for the kids playing Americas Army to operate the real thing. Who knows, with UAV's and such we could be quite a pool of stay home remote warriors for air superiority of the future.

Sometime during late Elementary school I sold a Microsoft Sidewinder to the US Navy. They responded that it would be used to control a missile system in testing and later put to other use.

[Nilsen]

IIRC that's exactly what they were saying in the '60'sn and then we got into an actual war with an enemy that had actual fighters, and we realized that was a HUGE mistake, and started 1) adding guns back to our fighters, and 2)started teaching ACM again.

I agree.. but you cant really compare the 60's to now. Solid state technology and microchips have come a long way and missiles are ALOT more dependable and advanced now than they were back in the 50s, 60s and 70s.

However there are many cases (99% id say with the types of wars we see the most) where you need to get a visual ID of the plane before you shoot, so knowing ACM and having guns is still a very good idea.

[bozon]

Having air superiority and having manned fighter planes is not the same thing. Air superiority is a must, but piloted-fighters are not the only way to achieve it and as technology advances, not the best way to achieve it.

There is less and less need for a human in the cockpit. In many cases, the human only limits the weapon. Technology is not yet in a state where the human is completely redundant though. In addition, if you rely completely on AI and/or remote controls, you run the very serious risk of being annihilated by electronic warfare (EW) measures that you did not predict.

The current situation is that the bulk of airborn combat missions are shifted toward the use of drones and manned planes are pushed to "complementary"  or backup status. Therefore there is not need to maintain a very large and expensive fleet of fighters, nor to develop new planes, as long as upgrades to the current fighters are sufficient to keep up with the competition (that is not clear who the intended enemy is exactly).