Talk:Air supremacy

Future section in the article
"Future

Today, air supremacy is a key first goal of United States military operations and the United States has a military research budget greater than any other nation to maintain this in any future conflict." Is that necessary? Sourced? Even if it isn't, I don't really think it's written in the correct style for Wikipedia. Besides, is it even a fact? We don't know, for example, how much the CCP (PRC Government) is spending on military research. The U.S. themselves doubt the official published figures. 144.124.16.28 (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

un-redirecting
I saw that this page once had an article but was then merged and redirected to air superiority. I think that air supremacy needs its own page not just because of it's significance, but more importantly because civilians often make the mistake of thinking the two are the exact same thing, which they are not. While they both relate to control of the skies, air supremacy is a completely different level of control and hopefully having its own page will help show this. JW 02:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

decimated
The word "decimated" is misused here. "Decimated" comes from Roman times where victorious armies would punish the losers by killing every tenth soldier. It is often misused when someone is trying to describe a crushing defeat -- five out of six in this case -- when in fact it only means 10% losses were inflicted.

Requested move
I've merged the article here, feel free to move this content to a new page if necessary. Personally I think keeping everything under Air supremacy (the highest level of conteol) is just fine, but it doesn't matter to me either way. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 06:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was listed at Proposed mergers instead. Please continue discussing the merger at Talk:Air superiority. Jafeluv (talk) 07:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Air supremacy → Levels of air dominance &mdash; I think it would be better to move the contents of this page and that of air superiority into a single article, Levels of air dominance. Both of these articles are about different levels of a single concept. Also, I think that the third level in the hierarchy, the as-yet uncreated air parity, will probably not yield enough content to form a viable standalone article like the other two. Its content would probably be best as a section in another article. 01:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Air superiority → Levels of air dominance

Comment the article that should replace these two has not been created yet, so it is a move and a merge. You could make the same argument if it was listed in the merge section, that you're not merging one article into the other, but moving them to a new article.-- 12:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose/close this is a merge request, not a move request. 76.66.192.64 (talk) 08:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Stepping aside from the procedural question, I would prefer not to have a merge. Air superiority and air supremacy are the actual terms which our readers will be looking up; they will be better served by an article on the subject than by the same wording in a section. A reasonable compromise would be to write a stub, essentially a disambiguation page saying that there are three levels, and linking to it from the top of each article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's true that almost everybody looking up this subject will look up either "air superiority" or "air supremacy" instead of "levels of air dominance". However, redirects would make this a non-issue.  Having one single article would more clearly show that these two things are different levels or air dominance, and that the terms are not interchangeable.  When you look at the articles themselves, I think they would be better suited for being sections within a parent article rather than separate articles.  Consider:

For the above stated reasons, I still strongly support a merger of these two articles into a single new article.-- 15:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The article on air supremacy is fairly short. On top of this, references to its distinction with air superiority and air parity are thoroughly mixed in with the article, straying from the topic of air supremacy.
 * 2) The article on air superiority is longer. However, most of the "history" section contains references of fighters which would most likely be more appropriate in the air superiority fighter article (also, take into account that an air superiority fighter would be more than capable of also being used for air supremacy).  When you take these references out, it is about the same length as the article for air supremacy
 * 3) The article for air parity hasn't even been created yet. It is highly unlikely that there will ever be enough information for it to warrant its own separate article, but if air superiority and air supremacy have their own articles, then it would follow that air parity would have to have its own article as well


 * You've requested to move two articles to the same name that's impossible. This is a merge request, not a move request, because of that. 76.66.192.64 (talk) 06:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: for the sake of simplicity, this discussion should be continued exclusively on the page Talk:Air_superiority from this point forward--Witan 16:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, but note also that my comment there is that it's not a valid move proposal, and appears to be a controversial merge proposal, so it's important to tidy up the process, and closing the move request should be part of this. Andrewa (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Focus
I've done a little I hope to correct it but for the main this article is really an article about Air superiority fighters rather then air superiority or air supremacy.KTo288 (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

English variety
Is there consensus to use British or American English in this article? I need to know so I can do the copyedit properly. (Per MOS:ENGVAR, articles should use only one variety.) Best wishes, Rain City 471 (whack!) 14:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Since there's been no input on this question for a week, I assume it's uncontroversial and I'll go with what was generally used before: American English (implied from spelling) with DMY dates (explicitly stated in template). This does seem a bit odd to me (DMY dates are European), but there's no discussion on this talk page and I don't feel the urge to dig through years of history to find out.  Note this is not a proper decision by consensus, so please don't take this into account if there is further discussion here.  Rain City 471  (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Air supremacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120921071227/http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/dod_dictionary/data/a/2245.html to http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/dod_dictionary/data/a/2245.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Air supremacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/374F7380_1143_EC82_2E436D317C547F5B.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120303201526/http://nsa.nato.int/nsa/zPublic/ap/aap6/AAP-6.pdf to http://nsa.nato.int/nsa/zPublic/ap/aap6/AAP-6.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.warbirdsandairshows.com/aircraftvictorieswwii.htm
 * Added tag to http://news.walla.co.il/item/384730

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

air superiority
"air superiority" is arguably the more generally used concept (that includes air supremacy). Yet, it is not even mentioned by the lede.

Apparently consensus is that supremacy should have its own article but superiority should not, which to me says too many military expert editors and not enough general language editors. But whatever, I won't contest that.

However - the lede should definitely discuss air superiority. For one thing, the redirect is to the article, not just into a section. So air superiority should be defined in bold right away by this article.

CapnZapp (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Move to Control of the Air
The general concept being described here is "Control of the Air" (sometimes called "Air Dominance," especially in US English). Air Supremacy, Air Superiority, a Favourable Air Situation, Air Parity, etc are all differing degrees of Control of the Air. I propose a move to "Control of the Air" as the doctrinally correct overarching term. Greenshed (talk) 11:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)