[notaigenerated]

"Air superiority" wouldn't do anything in 2026 unless you're fighting an African tribe with ak47s in a fullscale war and even then your enemies would probably supply the tribe with some air defense systems that would cause trouble for the pilots.

[KaiserPro]

> "Air superiority" wouldn't do anything in 2026 unless you're fighting an African tribe with ak47s

It means that the side without superiority has no ability to do proper logistics.

Want to move artillery? its going to get blown up.

Want to move troops? can't, because the transport is going to get blown up.

You want to supply food to 10k plus fighters? can't because it's going to get blown up.

Now, it doesn't matter what provides the air superiority, be it missiles, planes or drones.

Its not without precedent, in recent times. If we look at battleships, they went from being the thing that projected power, to a liability when air carriers dominated. the effect is the same, you drive up with your battleship/carrier group and dominated the area for 300miles radius.

[sofixa]

You establish air superiority first by doing supression of enemy air defences, then destroying any offensive capabilities they might have (air bases, fighters), and then you rule the skies.

[swat535]

This didn't work with Vietnam nor Afghanistan.. and US had 100% superiority.

[sofixa]

Yes, it did. Over both of those the US had, mostly, control of the skies.

Hanoi had extremely heavy air defences and was left mostly alone (both because of that and because it wasn't considered a politically appropriate target).