Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "The Art of War: Air Supremacy" video.

  1. Problem is, air supremacy shows that ground anti-air needs aircraft to cover them. If you do not contest air superiority, the enemy will use aircraft to seek out the anti-air.
    4
  2. ​ @grimmlinn  Because Russian defenses are lacking. The leaked report on the Moskva showed that only one of the six AA guns worked. You're learning the wrong lessons by presuming everyone has the corruption and incompetence problems seen in 2022-2023.
    2
  3. Aircraft are not connected to the power grid and metal cages/carbon fiber inherently protect what's inside from pulses.
    2
  4.  @evilwelshman  The ranges of hundreds of kilometers are really only valid against high altitude targets, as they need to be well above the Earth's curvature to be seen by the targeting radar. The USSR invasion of Afghanistan showed that when the enemy has little to no strategic targets, air supremacy gives you free reign to essentially contribute very little to the war. It's important to consider that Soviet aviation reacted to Stinger missiles by flying higher which reduced accuracy of close air support. Stingers can't close the skies, they're "payback" weapons for the grunts to defend themselves against air attacks. Meanwhile something like the Patriot seems to be outstanding at shutting down airspace when supplied with enough interceptors to handle all targets. Kill markings painted on a Ukrainian Patriot system essentially showed that they moved a battery reasonably close to the border and shot down 5 planes and helicopters in a single day inside Russian airspace.
    2
  5.  @evilwelshman  The issue is that long range missiles depend on radar emissions. You can only hide a system by keeping it blind. Sure, you can use a datalink to keep a system updated with enemy targets while the radar is off, but that really works best when you have AWACS in the air. You need fighters to defend the AWACS. Saturation attacks mean what they mean. When the US began the air campaign against the Iraqi IADS, they began with a combo of stealth aircraft, low flying helicopters, cruise missiles, target drones used as decoys and electronic warfare. Now we're seeing things like the MALD and the Ukrainian domestic program to develop their own decoy drone powered by pulse jet. Saturation doesn't require more aircraft. It only requires things that need to be shot down. They can be sacrificed to protect your own aircraft. It costs a million USD per S-300 missile, but the complex itself costs a billion plus. And while aircraft require training, so does air defense. Ukraine's air defense is a very demanding job because they don't have the numbers to spare like Russia, and most of their operators are college educated. People who understand the maths and physics, the electronics and signals engineering that goes into detecting and tracking targets.
    2
  6.  @grimmlinn  War planners worried about bomber/missile gap. War planners worried about MiG-25. Come on now... war planners are always worried. It's how they get funding.
    1
  7.  @grimmlinn  A Shahed drone can't do much except follow GPS waypoints. A F-35 can bomb the Shahed factory into oblivion.
    1
  8.  @grimmlinn  Well, but they can't, because F-35 factories are behind naval ships, air defenses and actual fighters. You know what also doesn't risk a pilot? Tomahawk missiles.
    1
  9. Drones cannot contest air superiority, therefore aircraft flying without fear of drones can achieve supremacy.
    1
  10. Iraq and Serbia flew in areas declared no fly zones. Didn't go well for them, but they flew.
    1