[rsj_hn]

I didn't realize that air dominance prevented enemy missiles from hitting surface ships. That's a rather unique definition of air dominance.

If your enemy has access to satellites, long range sensors, submarines that can fire hypersonic anti-ship missiles, and modern air defense systems, then a strategy based on the assumption of air dominance will fail.

Let's also not forget that the U.S. has never achieved air dominance over any nation with sophisticated air defense systems. The last time the U.S. actually tried to fight an air war against an enemy with access to relatively modern air-defense systems was in Vietnam, where 3700 US planes were shot down (and about 5000 helicopters). Air defenses are much better now, which is why Israel - with its advanced F35s -- is so afraid of Syria's S300 systems that it only uses standoff weapons when it raids Syria, proving once again that long range missiles are what matters, and outdated concepts like "air dominance" are only relevant when the enemy is limited to RPGs and Toyota trucks.

[credit_guy]

The US has achieved air dominance over Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia managed to down a stealth aircraft, and if you read about that event you realize their air defense system was very advanced. Likely better than what Russia has now (roughly the same systems, but better training and discipline).

When the US has air dominance, the only strategy to launch missiles - of any type - is shoot-and-scoot. That can work with man portable missiles like Javelin, or pickup-truck mounted missiles. But it won't work with anti ship missiles. Those you can launch from large platforms, such as huge trucks, surface vessels, ground silos, or aircraft. If the US has air dominance, all of these are as good as dead once they fire their missiles.