[dgroshev]

> As Ukraine shows, peer conflicts are won by other means, not stealth air superiority

I don't think you can conclude that when neither of the belligerents has the capability. As Gulf War shows, training and capabilities (including stealth) do enable SEAD/DEAD to an extent that unlocks air superiority.

[guappa]

Perhaps you're not aware that this happened? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incid...

USA has air superiority only against 3rd world countries, and even then, history shows that air superiority has never won any war.

[dgroshev]

I don't understand what that link is supposed to prove. A single F-117A getting shot down in Yugoslavia due to complacency and chance doesn't negate Nighthawks bombing SAM defended areas with impunity. Iraq had a strong and integrated AD network for the time.

Air superiority alone doesn't, but it's a massive force multiplier.

[guappa]

I sent a link about Iran, you comment about Jugoslavia.

You don't have to read my link, but you can also skip on making completely unrelated comments if you don't feel like doing the reading.

[dgroshev]

I read it and I know about that case. However, as I said I'm struggling to see your point.

I guessed you meant that that one case proves something about air superiority or Iran having an advantage over USAF, so I responded with a historical parallel.

[jajko]

I talk about peer conflict, which Gulf war wasn't. Old soviet tech, poorly trained soldiers with very low morale doesn't make them anyhow a peer to US army of that era. It was just a variant of that shooting goat herders, defenseless even against Apache choppers who have 0 stealth and fly low & slow.