Thanks for your service. However, I’m not really understanding what you’re saying with your first point(s). Suffice to say, F-15s or any other airplanes only enter the picture if they’re able to attack their targets. Put another way, do you think it’s useless for our army to field armor? If one side is able to establish air supremacy, armor has proven quite useful (see Desert Storm, OIF, and the 2008 Russo-Georgian conflict for case studies). In fact, in Desert Storm, despite an extensive air campaign and an inept enemy who made no attempt at concealment, coalition forces had to contend with substantial Iraqi ground forces (including armor) to eject the Iraqis from Kuwait. Now, one can make an argument that advances in ATGMs have have eroded armor’s usefulness—especially in built up areas—but advances in protection, both active and passive, have balanced this somewhat.
Next billboard please