air supremacy vs. air superiority?

[Phouchg]

Militarily speaking what is the difference? I heard the US has declared “air supremacy” over Afghanistan today - and I remember the term “air superiority” from the Gulf War.
Phouchg
Lovable Rogue

[Absolute]

I think Air Superiority means that we have a distinct advantage over them, but they are still putting up a fight. Air Supremacy means they are beaten and we have free reign in the skies.

[Mekhazzio]

air superiority: That degree of dominance in the air battle of one force over another which permits the conduct of operations by the former and its related land, sea, and air forces at a given time and place without prohibitive interference by the opposing force.

air supremacy: That degree of air superiority wherein the opposing air force is incapable of effective interference.

from FM 101-5-1 Operational Terms & Graphics

[ski]

Mekhazzio, I find it very interesting that, for once, the Army and Air Force definitions are virtually identical! I was going to post the Air Force definition (out of Air Force Doctrine Document 1), but reading the two side-by-side couldn’t find enough difference to even bother.

Amazing, the Army and Air Force agree on something.

[d12]

Well whats the Afghan airforce composed of? Paper Airplanes with bullets on the nose? <g>

[Ringo]

I’m not going to bother digging up cites at the moment. About 3 days ago, IIRC, the Taliban had ~40 1980s Russian military jets, fighters and fighter-bombers. They also had some helicopter assets that may have been tactically usefull.

I suspect that inventory has dwindled in recent days. While taking out the air assets was definitely part of the plan in establishing air supremacy, taking out ground based air defense assets has been a part of the effort so far, as well. Radar, missiles and AA artillery have undoubtably been on the target list as well, and the little I’ve heard leads me to think that we think those have been diminished to a near ineffective degree.

[d12]

Of course they’ve got Mig(insert the number here)'s but the question is, Do they know how to use them.
Example:
Joe drives a $500,000 Benz. Bob drives a $10,000 Ladda.
If they’re both in Death Valley and Bob has a full tank of gas while Joe has none, which car is more practical?

this is the part where I hope you said the Ladda

Sure the Benz might have all the bells and whistles (and air conditioning ;)) but it won’t exactly be worth it to even boast about that Benz when Bob is gonna beat you on the Cannonball Run.

[SmackFu]

Also, there were those pictures today that showed nice craters right across the runways and taxiways. Planes on the ground don’t count.

[Darwin_s_Finch]

From this site:

The Afghanistan air force has long ceased to exist as a professional military establishment. Remnants of the old regime’s aviation forces have changed hands over the past eight years of civil war. Initially the air force included 12 squadrons of combat aircraft (126 aircraft), five aviation transport squadrons (about 60 planes), and nine combat and transport helicopter squadrons (about 100 helicopters, including 14 combat helicopters). These were deployed at five air bases around the country. Some of the An-12 transports were equipped with Soviet-designed bomb dispensing mechanisms allowing each to carry up to 38 250-kilogram bombs. Currently most of the surviving aircraft (including about 40 combat aircraft and an assortment of transport planes and helicopters) are under Taliban control. These are based in Kabul, Kandahar, Shindand, Herat, and Mazar-e Sharif. Most of the planes have outlived their operational age, and many are not technically safe to fly. Rudimentary improvisation and cannibalization provide a few combat aircraft (six to eight) for limited missions.

Also from that site:

Neither [the Taliban nor the United Front have] the organizational and technical infrastructure necessary to use air power in its conventional role. Combat aircraft hit selected individual targets without regard to the ground operations. The psychological implications of air attacks outweigh their military usefulness, and their collateral damage is greater than losses to intended targets. The air control system is inadequate, and coordination with ground forces is poor. In some cases, communication between the Taliban’s radar stations and on-call fighter jets is provided by shoddy, commercially purchased radios. Taliban aviation’s most effective role is in using transport planes and helicopters to move troops and materiel and to provide communication, command, and control.

[d12]

If they aren’t safe to fly, and a pilot crashes (mechanical error) would he be praised for his actions by the Taliban and hailed as a hero by fellow Afghans?

[London_Calling]

I don’t know how they build helicopter vulnerability into the assessment but the Taliban still have (it’s believed) something like 50 Stingers courtesy of the CIA.

I don’t know if still having those floating around constitutes either ‘Supremacy’ or ‘Superiority’ but they’d worry the hell out of me.

[Mekhazzio]

*Originally posted by London_Calling *
I don’t know how they build helicopter vulnerability into the assessment but the Taliban still have (it’s believed) something like 50 Stingers courtesy of the CIA

I doubt that many of them would still be in decent condition. They don’t have a great shelf life and Afghanistan isn’t the most savvy army when it comes to maintaining technical gadgets. I’ve heard that few of their ZSU-23s (an AAA track) even have working radar tracking anymore, which makes them just about useless as air defense.

Superiorty/supremacy is based on the ability of the enemy -air force- alone to impede operations. Ground defenses of any type don’t factor into it, and besides, man portable missiles like Stinger rank very, very low on the list of air defense threat. They’re a limited threat to fixed-wing assets.