Air Superiority in the Navy

[TurnandBurn55]

You guys are missing my point. I know it totally depends on a nearly infinite string of what ifs. I asked it in response to Insane's assertion that the US was "heads and shoulders" better than all others.

Maybe if you'd thought about the questions I'd just asked, you'd know the follow-up question I'm about to ask...

"Head and shoulders" better at what??

 

[scoober78]

Maybe if you'd thought about the questions I'd just asked, you'd know the follow-up question I'm about to ask...

"Head and shoulders" better at what??

I did read your post...did you read mine???? I never asserted that we were heads and shoulders better at anything. Insanebikerboy did. Why do I get the feeling that we are talking right past one another here...

 

[A4sForever]

.....Head to head, does the average Israeli pilot beat the average Naval aviator?? Does an Israeli F-15 driver beat the average USAF driver from a head to head merge? I don't know.

Ahhhhh .... there's that question, again.

While training and transferring aircraft, "we" went against some of the Israeli A-4 drivers on the weapons range @ Fallon --- they hammered us in strafing and rockets. Embarrassed us with @ 80% of rounds on target while we were doing @ 20% ironsight, John-Wayne style 20mm ........ :icon_rage

Around some beers that night (kosher, of course) --- we got into their heads and swapped sea stories and lies. They laughed and said: "We don't even start shooting until we cross the foul line on the range .... !!! We don't fly "training" flights in Israel. Every time we go up we anticipate it might turn into a combat hop and we're armed and flying accordingly".

Hmmmmmmmm ...... Lesson learned .....

The next day ... just for fun ..... my division did not start shooting until we crossed the foul-line .... want to guess what our scores were with the 20mm .... ????

But in reality ... I think the "best" guys I ever went up against have got to be the F-15 drivers @ Nellis @ the AF Fighter Weapons School .... the best dressed guys, that is.... they were "da' best" in their fitted flight suits and cute little ascots and shiny boots ... it made us feel really, really insecure about our 'ol Reserve green bags until we hammered them with our old Navy Reserve bodies and still older airplanes.

Tactics ... and the guys usin' them make or break the day ....

 

[TurnandBurn55]

I did read your post...did you read mine???? I never asserted that we were heads and shoulders better at anything. Insanebikerboy did. Why do I get the feeling that we are talking right past one another here...

You may not have asserted... but you asked.

Sorry, I just don't/didn't understand the purpose of your question.

 

[insanebikerboy]

That's an unanswerable question.

Brett

And that's the beauty of simulation. While it never gives a definitive answer as 100% yes or no, it does give insight as to where we might be better or worse than our counterparts/adversaries.

"Head and shoulders" better at what??

Maybe "head and shoulders" wasn't the best phrase, but then again I did say it was my own opinion. Either way, from what I've seen, read, researched, and even simulated, I feel we have a superior air component. Again, my opinion, but I think it is somewhat accurate.

 

[TuxFlier]

... and cute little ascots and shiny boots

Damn it! They're scarves. Ascots are like one of those damn things that Austin Powers wears.

Yeah I know.... I'm all strung up about it. That's what happens when you're an AF guy that's been in a Navy squadron, living with Navy rooommates that constantly rag on you for making it sound like we play dress up.

 

[MasterBates]

Damn it! They're scarves. That's what happens when you're an AF guy that's been in a Navy squadron, living with Navy rooommates that constantly rag on you for making it sound like we play dress up.

You don't?

 

[Brett327]

And that's the beauty of simulation.

That's neat for the planners and bean counters, but means squat for the operators actually doing the fighting. Let's just keep that in perspective.

@ Tux: Arguing about scarves vs. ascots is like arguing about the relative merits of "catching" or "pitching." Both are gay, and unacceptable..

Brett

 

[SteveG75]

Air Superiority is as much, maybe more so about keeping enemy bombs from falling on our ground forces than allowing our bombers to go hit targets.

We have gotten so good at it, when was the last time American forces were under air attack that we tend to lose sight of this fact.

Sorry SkidKid, I have to diagree with you on this one.

Air Superiority is about freedom of action. Preventing air attack on ground troops is a byproduct of the fact that enemy does not have freedom of action. True air defense of the ground troops belongs to Patriot, Hawk and Stinger units. The best way that air force prevents attacks on ground troops is by going deep and destroying the enemy aircraft on the ground.

 

[pourts]

I went to work and this thread grew from an awkward pre-teen into a hot chick with a huge rack (and ribs showing, Brett).

Definitely a zillion? Maybe we really should get the Raptor. Yeah...definitely if there are a zillion...

This is where A4s post a picture we all know and love...

Yeah, I put that in there to be funny. Good work, right? Still a valid question though.

That's not really the purpose of air superiority/supremacy, although the ground forces might benefit in an incidental way. It's about being able to conduct an offensive air campaign without interference from the enemy, not the prevention of an enemy to conduct defensive operations against your advancing ground forces.

Brett

I didn't mean preventing their grunts from shooting at our grunts, I meant preventing their planes from bombing our grunts and supply lines. Disagree with your idea of air superiority. The purpose is freedom of action on the ground and the sea. Once Japan lost carriers at Midway, we could take the iniative. Germany needed air superiority before it could invade Britain, not so that it could bomb the island better w/o losses. Never got it, never did. The end is control of sea or ground. The means is the air, and it is necessary but not sufficient.

We have gotten so good at it, when was the last time American forces were under air attack that we tend to lose sight of this fact.

This was what I meant but you elucidated it better.

Air Superiority is about freedom of action. Preventing air attack on ground troops is a byproduct of the fact that enemy does not have freedom of action. True air defense of the ground troops belongs to Patriot, Hawk and Stinger units. The best way that air force prevents attacks on ground troops is by going deep and destroying the enemy aircraft on the ground.

Maybe not just keeping bombs off ground troops, but off supply lines, Command and Control, civilian targets (you know how sensitive our media can be about that).

Regarding Patriot units, can they always keep up with armor and mech infantry? Is it feasible for them to protect every target (mentioned above)? Doesn't a combined arms strategy (SAM's and aircraft) make more sense?

As for destroying their aircraft on the ground, what if that isn't possible (fly-over rights, not creating another belligerent)? It has happened before.

 

[Brett327]

Disagree with your idea of air superiority.

It's not my idea, that's how the entire US warfighting community defines it, along with NATO. We (you) don't get to redefine established terms just because you don't agree with them. These terms are operationally defined so that a large group of people can proceed with an unambiguous understanding of what they mean.

Brett

 

[Catmando]

It's not my idea, that's how the entire US warfighting community defines it, along with NATO. We (you) don't get to redefine established terms just because you don't agree with them. These terms are operationally defined so that a large group of people can proceed with an unambiguous understanding of what they mean.
Brett

Bingo!!! We have a winner!

[And to think I was starting to worry that maybe the defintion might have changed over the years. :icon_wink ]

 

[Brett327]

Bingo!!! We have a winner!

[And to think I was starting to worry that maybe the defintion might have changed over the years. :icon_wink ]

Kids these days.

Brett

 

[FlyinSpy]

It's not my idea, that's how the entire US warfighting community defines it, along with NATO. We (you) don't get to redefine established terms just because you don't agree with them. These terms are operationally defined so that a large group of people can proceed with an unambiguous understanding of what they mean.

Whenever there is a question about a term or definition, there is one (and only one) definitive source: JCS Pub 1-02. In this case,

Air Superiority: That degree of dominance in the air battle of one force over another that permits the conduct of operations by the former and its land, sea, and air forces at a given time and place without prohibitive interference by the opposing force.

Pretty close to what Brett said, which is an indication on his part of either a vise-like analytical mind, or a Rain Man-like neurological disorder...

Don't like this defintion? Have a different version? Tough - this is it; take up your differences with the J7. There is a process for changing/revising definitions, but it is as bad as it sounds.

 

[Brett327]

Pretty close to what Brett said, which is an indication on his part of either a vise-like analytical mind, or a Rain Man-like neurological disorder...

Do I have to choose? I like them both. I love you, man (in a hetero, non-Fatsley kind of way).

Brett