Quote Originally Posted by Tyndmyr View Post
I would not be surprised if this is eventually overcome. UAVs, 24/7 on station aircraft, solar powered stuff...if you can eventually overcome the operational limitations, there's no reason the strategic role can't shift.

Mind you, this likely won't happen for a while, but the role of aircraft has dramatically expanded over it's history, and I would bet it'll continue to do so.
As I, and Mike G have said, that claim has been made many times. Conquerors will always need 'boots on the ground' or equivalent. And I hope we never have a 'Destroyer' with the power of one of today's major militaries.

Quote Originally Posted by Johel View Post
If your aim is simply to destroy your enemy without taking too much casualties or even risking casualties, then air strikes are the way to go. Bomb his army, his bases, his cities, his population, his little dog and anything coming close to the border, this until they plea for mercy. And when they do, charge ridiculous war indemnities on them to cover your expenses...
Short of nukes, this doesn't work. Look at wars within the last 50 years for examples.

When I was a kid, we watched in awe the NATO campaign against Serbia. A whole nation was put on its knees with nothing but air strikes.
Sure, if we speak money, it was costly. A lot more than if we had simply massively given weapons and ammunitions to Albanians and Croatians and say "-Go !! Now is your chance !!". But NATO took very few casualties.
It wasn't effective at much beyond destroying infrastructure. Digging into the details, it was used to push a political decision. It didn't conquer the country.

Now, if your aim is to destroy your enemy at the lowest financial cost possible... well, ground troops ARE cheap. Especially infantry.
Not in modern armies! Training alone can run a hundred k or more...then start adding equipment....

And if your aim is to control a territory without butchering the locals into submission, then yes, you need ground forces to hold and police said territory.

But this means that your nation is either too poor to afford an air force or is a respectable democracy that can't afford to slaughter civilians. Or both of this.
Or there are simply other equivalent or greater powers who won't condone wholesale slaughter.

If it matters, I'm a USAF veteran. Even so, our generals (mostly) learned from Vietnam (and more recent wars) that air power alone isn't enough.