Hacker News Reader

Comment by firesteelrain | Hacker News Reader

Air superiority was established fairly early on in the conflict. Flying F-15 and F-16s now. Not even stealth and they drop more than just missles - they carry bombs. B-52s weren’t sent in to carpet bomb the area of that’s what you mean.

US could indiscriminately drop dumb bombs but you would have a higher civilian casualty rate.

View on HN

And immediately lost it after a few weeks, hence current detente.

A maximally preopositioned/prepared/postured US + Israel suckering punching Iran was able to briefing maintain air superiority through select regions, but the minute Iran reorganized and hit CENTCOM basing, US lost sortie generation rate to maintain air superiority. Land basing / sustainment ~70% of theatre sortie generation, US carriers / long range bombers good supplementary door kickers, but they can't sustain enough fires generation to suppress Iran, hence US forced to burn standoff stockpile - because shit tier air defense network + theater level precision strike complex (missiles) allows even crippled Iran to deny US air superiority and ability to prosecute cheap dump bomb war. Reminder to get even to the temporary air superiority (which was only established on select areas) US+Israel had to expend mass amounts of high end munitions, and push high tempo logistics to shape battlefield, can't do that anymore without land basing, and US logistically incapable for sustaining / surging 6-8 carriers to backfill sortie.

Now highend standoff munitions are functional substitute for air superiority for hitting targets, not whole tactic replacement, i.e. no CAS, hence it's an expensive fallback, but only if there is enough munitions to sustain, which currently there isn't.

That’s a lot of assertions, but none demonstrate Iran denied US air operations. You’re describing increased friction, not loss of air superiority.

Iranian friction created prohibitive operating environment that made US abandon air space dominance - that is literal loss of air superiority. There was enough manned and unmanned airframe losses over the first few weeks that it was no longer viable to try to maintain air supremacy - it was obvious after downed F15 that US can't afford to burn an entire combat SAR worth of hardware more than a few times. Hence from air supremacy -> superiority -> contested air space scale, losses vs US appetite = Iran contested air space enough that US could not afford to maintain superiority, and Iran degraded or put enough CENTCOM sortie generation under threat that US likely cannot anyway. Of course this all mediated by US risk appetite. US on paper pour enough hardware at extreme cost, eat enough losses, to reestablish superiority or even supremacy over Iran, but it's unlikely.

I get what you are saying but one aircraft loss doesn’t constitute loss of air superiority.

The way I see it you are inferring “US abandoned air superiority” from losses and reduced sortie generation. That may be your assessment, but it isn’t demonstrated by the evidence you’ve cited.

[1] https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PUBLIC-RELEASES/Article/445196... [2] https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/

In terms of attrition, its like 10% of reapers - 20-30% of operational fleet. 4% of CSAR MC130s, 5% of E3 AWACs, 2% of KC135s. Yes single digit %, but relative to timeframe not nothing for high value air assets/force multipliers that prerequisite/sustains air superiority. Enough to change US tactics, i.e. enough to compel US to abandon air superiority, hence US lost air superiority.

Your article just demonstrate operations continued, but we now know with hindsight those operations are standoff operations i.e. they're not air superiority operations. Or else Hegseth would be bragging about #s of JDAMs dropped along with energy drinks consumed instead of articles about "virtually all" of high end precision strike being depleted.

My assessment comports with reality - Iranian attrition made US abandon air space control, aka air superiority bombing campaign which US force structure can sustain indefinitely for standoff war which US can't sustain for more than a few months. Being able to standoff strike Iran =/= air superiority, overflying Iran enmass and dropping cheap bombs is air superiority. US is not overflying Iran enmass, and it's not because detente, it's because US can't operationally justify/sustain it. US can't operationally sustain air superiority because CENTCOM land based force multipliers are too vulnerable, and without force multipliers you're left with carrier aviation, that itself Iran pushed to standoff range and hence can only deliver stand off munitions.

E: below comment dead.

>You still haven’t shown evidence that Iran denied US control of the air. You’re inferring that from force preservation and munitions usage.

The evidence is drumroll, US no longer overflying Iran, when in every other war in recent memory US had not just air superiority but air supremacy. The evidence is also US expending high % of global interceptors, which means US is functionally not capable of defending CENTCOM land basing. If US cannot defend CENTCOM land basing, US can not operate force multipliers, i.e. tankers, awacs at scale/tempo to sustain air control. Keep in mind Iran is 5x the size of Iraq and during Iraq US had more carriers and regional coalition assets to sustain a longer / broader air campaign. Taken together signs point to Iran's continued ability to generate fires, or rather US inability to defend against Iranian fires + inability to blunt Iranian fires to make CENTOM land basing viable.

The TLDR is US does not have enough stand off munition to defang Iran from hitting CENTCOM and not enough interceptors in CENTOM to blunt Iranian fires. Ergo US does not have the force posture for air supremacy anymore, and the only time it did was when it had ample standoff munitions, ample interceptors that could keep Iranian fires comprehensively suppressed. Now it has neither, so it is not in a state of reestablish air superiority let along supremacy, unless there is global stockpiles to try again, but ineffectively shifting more earth while Iranian drones and TELs chill in hardened tunnels is something something insanity doing same thing expecting different results, expect keep doing same thing undermines US global posture.

>Strained interceptor stocks != Iran denied US air superiority. You still need evidence that US overflights stopped because Iran made the airspace untenable.

Every analysis is inference - evidence is US stopped overflight/airspace control efforts because we can infer from operational behavior and how it relates to stockpile levels and expenditures that US cannot maintain air superiority posture. Standoff strikes is definitionally NOT air superiority strikes, mounting news of US keep draining standoff stock pile to hit Iran is not reflection US has superiority but more evidence US does not. CENTCOM CONTINUING CONDUCTING STRIKES =/= AIR SUPERIORITY, WHICH DEFINITIONALLY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ABILITY TO CONDUCT STRIKES. Go to pedantic layer and draw from formal DoD definitions (counterair operations manual), US operationally at "air parity" (below air superiority/supremacy), one can argue US has stockpiles reestablish superiority/supremacy but US operational behavior right now suggest theatre is at parity.

Interceptor stocks is not strained. It's functionally finished. US unlikely move more to CENTCOM without breaking US global security architecture, everything that can reasonably be repositioned has been. The fact that Iran fires getting through regularly = what is there is not enough. This last reply, feel free to disagree.

> Flying F-15 and F-16s now.

Except not really. If they were willing to risk sending many aircraft deep into Iranian airspace with SDBs and JDAMs they wouldn't be running out of ballistic missiles.

There have been 60-70 F15 and F16s operating in Iran (could be more just found via public sources).

And when an F-15E was shot down they got spooked. They're relying heavily on missiles because it doesn't cause a multiday story in the news when one is shot down on its way to the target (and because they're incapable of thinking more than one move ahead, and because it's not their money...).

This doesn't really make sense. We're using stand off munitions to bomb targets like missile silo entrances--why would you not just use guided bombs if we had air superiority? Civilian casualties wouldn't be a factor

This is hilarious. Yeah. Air superiority. Last I heard they moved all their equipments to Jordan to stay out of range from Sijjeel and they are still getting hammered in Jordan.

Saw the video taken by the US service men. In movies you see US soldiers yelling "go go go" while in the battlefield we saw them scream "run run run".

Your confidence in claiming air superiority is commendable. Keep it up.

I don’t think you understand meaning behind air superiority.

I am glad that you do.

Then explain what you think it means, because your examples are about missile attacks on fixed bases, not control of the air.

Bro, logistics and refueling are important to maintain air superiority. If there are no bases, there is no air superiority.

If you follow world news from non-western-propaganda-sources, you would know, the fighter jets shoot without entering Iranian airspace to stay clear of Iranian home made anti air defense and heat seeking tech along with potential russian and Chinese air defense.

Entering Iranian airspace has been costly for US as witnessed by the famous shootdowns of multiple jets over the course of last several months.

You’re moving the goalposts. First it was missile attacks on bases, now it’s logistics and refueling. Those influence air operations, but they aren’t the definition of air superiority. Also, “multiple US jet shootdowns” is an extraordinary claim. What’s the evidence?

I give up buddy.

I thought you wanted explanation of how air superiority is acheived.

Apparently you think it can be acheived without logistics and refueling.

What is the need of evidence when you have magic by your side. So no - those fighter jets were not shot down. Magic saved them. You were right all along.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com