Winning wars without air superiority

[Monk78]

During the later half of cold war i.e 1965-1990 era was it possible to achieve victory in a naval or CONVENTIONAL land battle without absolute air superiority?
Do we have any examples of that? What factors will make an inferior AirPower survive / thrive

 

[piginapoke]

Depends on scale of the land battle, but both Russia and America found Afghanistan to be a problem even with air supremacy (or not supremacy if you count attacks from MANPADs)

 

[mirco1961]

no.

 

[Monk78]

no.

Why is that please explain

 

[Monk78]

Depends on scale of the land battle, but both Russia and America found Afghanistan to be a problem even with air supremacy (or not supremacy if you count attacks from MANPADs)

Both of them lost the guerilla wars
NVA won the conventional war despite no airforce to speak of

 

[Purpletrouble]

During the later half of cold war i.e 1965-1990 era was it possible to achieve victory in a naval or CONVENTIONAL land battle without absolute air superiority?
Do we have any examples of that? What factors will make an inferior AirPower survive / thrive

Yes. Falklands.

UK did not remotely have “absolute air superiority”.

What it did have was enough control of the air when it needed it and where it needed it.

Which is all you actually need to win, albeit it comes at higher cost than if you had superiority let alone supremacy.

Ukraine is interesting, neither can really control the air at all thanks to both their own offensive air weakness and the others air denial capability. UAV usage reinforces this assessment as neither is able to control the air for their own to have free reign or stop the other sides.

The result is seemingly stalemate.

Lesson is, have control of the air at the least when and where you need it.

 

[shin_getter]

Superiority in other domains lets you win without airpower. The problem with winning without air superiority is significant losses.

Modern air power is the form of combat that puts the least amount of people at risk. Winning a war with airpower means least number of lives lost for the victor.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Both of them lost the guerilla wars
NVA won the conventional war despite no airforce to speak of

NVA lost every battle against the Americans.

When they only faced the South Vietnamese (infamously corrupt and nepotistic), they had much closer to parity in terms of air power. If not having air superiority over the South!

 

[Purpletrouble]

Superiority in other domains lets you win without airpower.

What other domains?

Can you name a conflict and the domain which let someone win without airpower?

All I can think of is insurgencies against otherwise dominant powers and the domain being tolerance for suffering / politics.

The problem with winning without air superiority is significant losses.

Modern air power is the form of combat that puts the least amount of people at risk. Winning a war with airpower means least number of lives lost for the victor.

I’ve always thought the biggest driver of the blood and treasure cost of a war is simple duration. Keep it short and even the most intense rate of killing can’t get too high.

 

[Monk78]

NVA lost every battle against the Americans.

When they only faced the South Vietnamese (infamously corrupt and nepotistic), they had much closer to parity in terms of air power. If not having air superiority over the South!

It did lose against US
but against South Vietnamese did they have air superiority?