Russians have "air superiority" in Afghanistan

[August]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

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

Is that a couple of tank chassis underneath that thing?

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by August

Is that a couple of tank chassis underneath that thing?

It certainly looks like it

[Hunter]

It certainly looks like it

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

[August]

Originally Posted by Hunter

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

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

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

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.

[longam]

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

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

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

[August]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

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.

[bookworm_020]

Originally Posted by August

Is that a couple of tank chassis underneath that thing?

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

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.

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....

Obviously you don't have any military experience...

....did your military experience not educate you to the meaning of the terms used?

[August]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

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

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

[Skybird]

[August]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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

I know what you think they mean but since I have heard them used by professionals to describe real world situations it's my definition we'll be going by.

I know what you think they mean

So you do know the definition of the phrases.

but since I have heard them used by professionals to describe real world situations it's my definition we'll be going by.

Ah so someone is wrong because you want to only use your own definitions of the phrases .

OK the real world, what stages of the Russian occupation of Afghanistan would you label with your personal definitions of the three terms?
Or you could do the same with French operations in Vietnam .

Perhaps if you do both examples then the world can see what your definition is and try and match it with the usual definition.