Please use paragraphs. if you want to sound coherent.......... that said.
You’re assuming this is an “either missiles or air force” equation. Modern military doctrine is not binary. It is layered, redundant, and cross domain.
Yes, the US+Israel ecosystem has unmatched ISR, satellite coverage, EW capability, and integrated air defense. No one disputes that. But that reality does not make airpower useless it makes integration and survivability more important.
Missiles are excellent for deterrence and punishment strikes. They are not a substitute for,
- Airspace denial
- Interception of enemy aircraft
- Dynamic targeting
- Electronic warfare in contested airspace
- Offensive counter air
- Protection of your own missile launch corridors
Underground missile bases improve survivability, but they do not give you air superiority, nor do they prevent enemy SEAD/DEAD campaigns.
You mention Tomahawk volleys and ALBMs. Those same threats also apply to fixed missile infrastructure. Underground does not mean invulnerable it means more survivable. The same logic applies to hardened airbases and dispersed aircraft.
Regarding spare parts and sanctions that is precisely why domestic aerospace capability and supply chain resilience matter. But abandoning airpower because sanctions exist is strategically self limiting. Even heavily sanctioned states like Iran continue trying to modernize aviation because no serious military planner believes missiles alone are sufficient.
As for Iraq’s mistake in 1991 Iraq lost because it had neither air superiority nor credible integrated air defense nor modern EW, not because air forces are obsolete. In fact, Iraq’s inability to contest the air domain is exactly why it collapsed so quickly.
Missiles without air cover create rigidity. Airpower without missile deterrence creates vulnerability. The correct answer is balanced force structure with survivability measures (dispersal, hardened shelters, underground facilities, mobile AD, EW integration).
Even Russia and China, both possessing hypersonics and massive missile inventories, continue investing heavily in 5th gen aviation. That alone should tell you something.
Against US+israel, no single domain “wins.” The goal is to raise the cost of aggression across all domains air, missile, cyber, EW, naval, simultaneously. Relying exclusively on one arm reduces deterrence depth, not increases it.
