Russians have "air superiority" in Afghanistan
 

Ironic.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...87CPAD99V4QR00

(found at simHQ).

Lessons learned by Western nations? So far: none.

I doubt the Russians have air superiority in Moscow :haha:

Last time i checked neal aeropflot used boeing 777's insted of thier Ilushin and tupolev aircraft it does look wierd looking down at an airport and seeing boeing aircraft strewen accross a country that would never have allowed the use of such aircraft 15 years ago.

There is a vast difference between air superiority and air supremacy. We have the latter...

Let the civilians fly in em if they're that stupid :hmmm:

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/8/7278873.jpg

Is that a couple of tank chassis underneath that thing?

Ireland has air supremacy over the Taliban, it don't mean bugger all as the Taliban don't have an air-force. Iceland on the other hand does not have air supremcy over the Taliban so those banana growers had better get very worried about a fundamentalist Islamic invasion aiming to take over their geo-themal greenhouses and converting them to opium production to buy the latest AA missiles and targetting systems on the open/black/grey market.

Though as an aside, Britain had air superiority and air supremacy in the 6.....yet every operation in bandit country had to be carried out by air , from the simplest pizza delivery to the most complicated troop movent. It does get rather expensive.
In an insurgency it is control of the ground that matters not control of the air.
Come to think of it certain countries had complete air superiority and air supremacy over Cambodia, Laos and S. Vietnam....that turned out well didn't it

Next step will be renting old SU MiGs. May be in three years as soon as last operable F-22's antiradar skin will fade away.:rotfl:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...0903020_2.html

It certainly looks like it :DL

I harldy believe tank chassis belongs to the airplane herself, rather were used to remove damaged body from the run-way.

No it doesn't. Obviously you don't have any military experience...

Well yeah, but it would be really cool to see tooling around the field... :DL

Yes it does, this is a global war on terror and the aircorps has absolute dominance and control of its skies, since the Taliban and Al-Qaida doesn't have an airforce it cannot challenge the air supremacy of the Air Corps.

We don't call it-them-they terror or terrorist anymore. :)

:timeout:
I seem to recall AQ having a few planes at one point... :hmmm:

You don't need an air force to challenge an enemies command of the air. Anti-aircraft fire and surface to air missiles are quite effective.

Well at least they give the aircraft some motion, unlike the engines!

Really ? thats amazing.
So if Taliban decided to deploy AA weaponry to contest the air corps air supremacy then the air corps would only have air superiority, unless they deployed enough AA so that no side had an advantage in which case they would have air parity.
So I have to ask , since you wrote....
....did your military experience not educate you to the meaning of the terms used?

No Troll, AA is a defensive weapon only You cannot achieve parity in anything when all you can do is defend and react.

You really don't understand the terms at all do you