Air supremacy is not necessary to win a war.

[tyrant]

It has been long said that no country has won a war without a superior air-force in the last 100 years.
Let me bring up two recent contra-examples:
1. ISIS had no air force but captured a huge chunk of land despite Iraqi and allies air force.
2. Houthi in Yemen captured the country with no air force, despite better Yemeni air force.

there are more examples, of course.

@500
@gambit

 

[500]

Well it depends on type of war. If we talk about some classical war between two armies then winning a war without air superiority is hardly possible. I cant think about an example. You can win a battle but eventually u will be overwhelmed.

Your examples are about insurgency. Houthis captured Shia majority areas and ISIS captured Sunni majority areas. Controlling hostile population requires lots of force and resources. Also Western armies nowadays are limited by humanitarian laws and public opinion while Syrian, Iraqi and Yemeni armies are largely incompetent and lack modern equipment.

 

[tyrant]

Well it depends on type of war. If we talk about some classical war between two armies then winning a war without air superiority is hardly possible. I cant think about an example. You can win a battle but eventually u will be overwhelmed.

Your examples are about insurgency. Houthis captured Shia majority areas and ISIS captured Sunni majority areas. Controlling hostile population requires lots of force and resources. Also Western armies nowadays are limited by humanitarian laws and public opinion while Syrian, Iraqi and Yemeni armies are largely incompetent and lack modern equipment.

They started as rebels but ended up as a complete state with their own capital and Gov. systems. ISIS captured Kurdish regions and Houthis are in Sunni lands now. They are state-owners now.

They hide (for example in the tunnels) under the heaviest air attacks and carpet bombing as happened in Damascus suburbs (Russian tech) and Gaza (Western tech).

F16 was successful against Libya, Taliban and Iraq because the soldiers simply ran away when they saw the bombs coming down. They were non-loyal mercenaries in Libya/Iraq under Saddam and Taliban. Tough ready-to-die soldiers of ISIS/Houthi are totally different cases.

 

[500]

They started as rebels but ended up as a complete state with their own capital and Gov. systems.

So what? Partisans in USSR also controlled large areas in German occupied zones, in Bryansk for example they had kind of a state. Thats still an insurgency.

ISIS captured Kurdish regions and Houthis are in Sunni lands now. They are state-owners now.

Kurds dont have an air force, they lacked even light weapons (looks like now they started supplies). I dont hear about Houthis in Sunni lands.

They hide (for example in the tunnels) under the heaviest air attacks and carpet bombing as happened in Damascus suburbs (Russian tech) and Gaza (Western tech).

Again thats insurgency. Assad army shows very poor performance in urban combat, but still gaining ground slowly in Damascus mainly thanks to bombardments. In Gaza Israel never desired to control it and ratio of killed combatants varied from 1:10 to 1:50 in favor of Israel. West Bank Israel took quite easily in 2002 (although air force was almost not used then).

 

[Penguin]

It has been long said that no country has won a war without a superior air-force in the last 100 years.
Let me bring up two recent contra-examples:
1. ISIS had no air force but captured a huge chunk of land despite Iraqi and allies air force.
2. Houthi in Yemen captured the country with no air force, despite better Yemeni air force.

there are more examples, of course.

@500
@gambit

2014-100=1914. Powered, controlled flight was finally achieved around the turn of the century (1900 that is). Once powered, controlled flight had been achieved, progress was still needed to create a practical flying machine for general use. This period leading up to World War I is sometimes called the pioneer era of aviation.

Although the destruction of enemy aircraft in air-to-air combat is the most glamorous aspect of air superiority, this is not the only method of obtaining air superiority. Historically, the most effective method of gaining air superiority is the destruction of enemy aircraft on the ground and the destruction of the means and infrastructure by which an opponent may mount air operations

Air supremacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Ahmed Jo]

Refer to the Arab-Israeli wars and you will see why air superiority is vital.

 

[Cat Shannon]

It has been long said that no country has won a war without a superior air-force in the last 100 years.
Let me bring up two recent contra-examples:
1. ISIS had no air force but captured a huge chunk of land despite Iraqi and allies air force.
2. Houthi in Yemen captured the country with no air force, despite better Yemeni air force.

there are more examples, of course.

@500
@gambit

you are giving the example of two tribal forces using fear as their main weapon. in front of an armyn they'll simply vaporize !!! whoooooooshhhh !!!!

there is a a reason they are called "terror"ists.

 

[C130]

It has been long said that no country has won a war without a superior air-force in the last 100 years.
Let me bring up two recent contra-examples:
1. ISIS had no air force but captured a huge chunk of land despite Iraqi and allies air force.
2. Houthi in Yemen captured the country with no air force, despite better Yemeni air force.

there are more examples, of course.

@500
@gambit

Iraqi Air Force is crap right now and inexperienced so that's no surprise
Allies Air Force have to travel a thousand kilometers just to bomb IS in Syria and have no troops on the ground to target them (JTAC)

it's an uphill fight. we can't deploy our full force on them.

 

[Thəorətic Muslim]

Again thats insurgency. Assad army shows very poor performance in urban combat, but still gaining ground slowly in Damascus mainly thanks to bombardments.

What are you hearing from the Israeli observation of Assad's forces?

 

[The SC]

Air force is a must when the opponent has one. and not needed if he has none, like in the case of Iraq. In Syria it is a bit odd hat the Syrian government couldn't do much, but in this case the battlefield was Syria itself, so it is somehow understandable, since it is difficult if not impossible to bomb you own population.

 

[gambit]

Air force is a must when the opponent has one. and not needed if he has none, like in the case of Iraq. In Syria it is a bit odd hat the Syrian government couldn't do much, but in this case the battlefield was Syria itself, so it is somehow understandable, since it is difficult if not impossible to bomb you own population.

Wrong. Attacking the opponent from the 3rd dimension is always an advantage one must exploit whenever possible.

 

[SALMAN F]

houthists are guerilla fighting force and not regular army

 

[SvenSvensonov]

Wrong. Attacking the opponent from the 3rd dimension is always an advantage one must exploit whenever possible.

No only attacking, but the air is the best place for surveillance. Why would we shelf are air force to fight the Taliban or ISIS or any other non-air power? That didn't make sense too me. Air gives us eyes, fangs, and if necessary feet to leave a battlefield on our time. To go one step further, why would we need a navy to fight a non-naval power? The same metrics that make an air force effective against a ground force can be said about an air force. Air forces are an absolute necessity against any enemy and anyone asserting otherwise needs to study up on their military tactics and strategies.

 

[The SC]

I meant , if you do not have one and your opponent does not have one either, that either side can win the war without any air force presence. otherwise and I do not need to agree with the obvious, that if one side has an air force it will have to use it.
You just got it wrong , but we do agree on the obvious.

 

[SvenSvensonov]

I meant , if you do not have one and your opponent does not have one either, that either side can win the war without any air force presence. otherwise and I do not need to agree with the obvious, that if one side has an air force it will have to use it.
You just got it wrong , but we do agree on the obvious.

Sure battles and wars can be won without air power, prior to the 20th century this was how combat was done, but in the modern time if a nation has air assets it is wise to use them, even if they aren't dropping ordinance.