Since right now there are more F-35's alone in NATO service than there are combat aircraft in the entire Russian airforce, air superiority is pretty much a given, if not outright air supremacy. I doubt much of NATO would interested in participating in any US vs. China conflict.
NATO has focused on aircraft while the russians (from Soviet times) have focused on anti-aircraft systems. Having a superior air force alone doesn't equal control of the skies.

Assuming a (near)peer adversary's air defence network is no threat to your air force gets you into a situation like Vietnam where aircraft were lost at rates which are today completely unsustainable. Russia and China are both massive compared to Vietnam with many more threats and, at least in russia's case, doctrine which relies on nuclear weapons to counter NATO air power.
 
Last edited:
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
NATO has focused on aircraft while the russians (from Soviet times) have focused on anti-aircraft systems. Having a superior air force alone doesn't equal control of the skies.

Assuming a (near)peer adversary's air defence network is no threat to your air force gets you into a situation like Vietnam where aircraft were lost at rates which are today completely unsustainable. Russia and China are both massive compared to Vietnam with many more threats and, at least in russia's case, doctrine which relies on nuclear weapons to counter NATO air power.

No Air Force is more focused or capable at SEAD/DEAD of ground based air defences than the USAF. For that matter the SAM/AA network over Vietnam was considerably more comprehensive than that seen in Europe at the time.
 
NATO has focused on aircraft while the russians (from Soviet times) have focused on anti-aircraft systems. Having a superior air force alone doesn't equal control of the skies.

Assuming a (near)peer adversary's air defence network is no threat to your air force gets you into a situation like Vietnam where aircraft were lost at rates which are today completely unsustainable. Russia and China are both massive compared to Vietnam with many more threats and, at least in russia's case, doctrine which relies on nuclear weapons to counter NATO air power.
I’d say this issue is settled. The west took air superiority in Iraq in a week. Russia has had 2 years, and doesn’t have it, in ukr.

With the addition of stealth, in bulk, the Russian route is dead and buried.
 
I’d say this issue is settled. The west took air superiority in Iraq in a week. Russia has had 2 years, and doesn’t have it, in ukr.

With the addition of stealth, in bulk, the Russian route is dead and buried.
And the Japanese were considered an inferior race too, even after they steamrolled the russians.

Then everyone got steamrolled.

Oh yeah but they got defeated eventually. A great consolation to the scores who died at the hands of the Japanese, if they were lucky enough to die quickly that is.

Don't apply the russian template to China or anyone else. Also don't assume russia will never stumble into improvement, even if it comes from Iranian or North Korean factories or strategists.

Russia has never designed it's air force to achieve air superiority, they always had the plan of keeping NATO air forces under threat over Soviet air space to degrade NATO air power, protecting their own critical sites by at minimum breaking up attacks and using their own air force in ground attack supporting their primary arm, the ground forces. And they fully expected to send scores of air craft on one way trips in that role knowing the enemy air forces and air defence network would chew them up. Acceptable because the aim was to punch through with ground forces and get inside the enemy's rear and exploit the breakthrough. Whatever it took to achieve that breakthrough. The Soviet air force wouldn't be providing cover for those spearheads, the Shilkas, Iglas, Buks etc would. Russia still uses that same doctrine.

In Ukraine they invaded a country that was equipped and trained in their own doctrine. The initial air raids were light, what idiot would bomb stuff they'd be taking control over in 10 days max anyway?, only means they'd have to do a lot more reconstructions afterwards. When the surprise had past they couldn't get past Ukraine's AD network just like the Soviets intended. So both sides have been stuck doing air support for their ground forces again like the Soviets intended, incurring severe losses as expected.

Betting on China both following the same doctrine and having equally poor equipment and being equally inept at is a really dangerous gamble. Complacency is what got an "invisible" F-117 shot down and that pales in comparison to the complacency shown by NATO leadership towards the threat of russia over the last 15+ years. There's been countless assumptions by NATO regarding russia and Ukraine is now paying the price for it in the many tens of thousands of casualties a year.
 
Russia: S-400 can detect and destroy stealth

Reality: Stealth missiles smash S-400 batteries
Technology is ever evolving and has no end state.

Just because it doesn't work now doesn't mean it'll never work. A mere software update increased the detection range of the Thales SMART-L from 400km to 1,500km. Russian engineers might stumble into brilliance too for an S-400 update rendering a lot of NATO missiles ineffective. The exchange of data isn't a one-way affair, russia is learning a lot about western systems too even if it costs them another launcher.

Revolutionary tech during WW2 was countered and surpassed within 6-12 months. During the Cold War both sides kept pace with one another until the Soviets ran out of money. China can throw massive amounts of money, people and resources around and their research is bound to accelerate as they learn. They've already moved past the old -copying other people's tech- routine. Russia, China, Iran and North Korea share/sell parts and technology amongst each other, so it's only a matter of time before something that works for one of them ends up being used against you or an ally by one of the others.

Don't expect the technology gap to be a given, because it isn't. It won't last forever. Eventually, whether it's through their own research, espionage or defection they'll master western level chip manufacturing and other vital industrial areas too, accelerating their technological progress even more.
 
Last edited:
Technology is ever evolving and has no end state.

Just because it doesn't work now doesn't mean it'll never work. A mere software update increased the detection range of the Thales SMART-L from 400km to 1,500km. Russian engineers might stumble into brilliance too for an S-400 update rendering a lot of NATO missiles ineffective. The exchange of data isn't a one-way affair, russia is learning a lot about western systems too even if it costs them another launcher.

Revolutionary tech during WW2 was countered and surpassed within 6-12 months. During the Cold War both sides kept pace with one another until the Soviets ran out of money. China can throw massive amounts of money, people and resources around and their research is bound to accelerate as they learn. They've already moved past the old -copying other people's tech- routine. Russia, China, Iran and North Korea share/sell parts and technology amongst each other, so it's only a matter of time before something that works for one of them ends up being used against you or an ally by one of the others.

Don't expect the technology gap to be a given, because it isn't. It won't last forever. Eventually, whether it's through their own research, espionage or defection they'll master western level chip manufacturing and other vital industrial areas too, accelerating their technological progress even more.
IIRC Patriot had some teething problems too during GW1, but seems to be a very capable system nowadays with all the development, upgrades and bug fixes.
 
IIRC Patriot had some teething problems too during GW1, but seems to be a very capable system nowadays with all the development, upgrades and bug fixes.
Patriot was pretty rubbish when first deployed but if enough money is thrown at something it can work out brilliantly eventually. The US is good at fielding "barely good enough" and ending up with "bloody good" ;) (Y)
 

Similar threads

Back
Top