Isn't sensor + tracking abilities far more advanced at shooting down planes than planes are at creating damage? And if that's the case, aren't hyper/sonic/long/range stuff better at evading defenses?
Seems like the next "war" will be LoL style to me.
In Ukraine, I understand, much of the defence against Russian missiles pounding civilians is done from aircraft in the sky, not with rockets from the ground.
Ground based systems still do majority of the work, although this might be for the acute lack of air force.
One thing to consider is kill envelope / no escape is also function of manned fighters being restricted to manned limitations. An autonmous fighter that has bigger fuel tank than missiles (more flight envelope), better sensors to inform AI (due to larger airframe + power) that can can pull substantially more Gs than a human, can conceivable be much better at dodging missiles. To the point where it no longer becomes viable to shoot them down, both economically and tactically, i.e. cost more than UAV worth of missile to engage, and require so many missiles that it's easy to saturate defenses with handful of UAVs. A CSG can only dedicate so much space for air (VLS slots), if that DDG with ~100 cells with 30 reserved for anti air suddenly needs to move to 90, then it becomes useless for other missions. And if all ~100 cells isn't then UAVs in relatively small numbers can essentially operate uncontested. Implications being, such shift (which IMO tier1 US/PRC are pursuing) will massively benefit land based aviation that can mass deployment.
When there are a dozen F-35s flying patterns over your capital city, everyone has to admit defeat. Drones or missiles wouldn't have the same effect. For the desired effect, fighter jets must be big, loud, and expensive.
If I am incorrect in this thinking, I hope someone will give me a better understanding.