Air superiority. A fine concept if your opponent actually has the capability of leaving the planet surface and engaging in open warfare but not much use against a bunch of semi-literate goat herders with several kilos of semtex strapped to their belt. Or...am I missing the point?
Possible answers to the above question:
- The arguement given for the development and vast defense spending for the Eurofighter Typhoon is that we don't know who will threaten us in the future - they might have planes ... you never know! This is the same arguement used for the carriers, anti-submarine/anti-aircraft frigates/destroyers and nukes on board submarines. Remember RAF gets 1/3 of the defense budget, RN get 1/3 and the Army get the remaining 1/3. They have to spend that money or lose it ... pity current circumstances has the Army shouldering 4/5th of the current action and the RAF have either the wrong kit (air superiority fighters) or too little of the right kit (ground attack or heavy lift helicopters).