[Goose]

On paper, NATO should dominate Russia.  https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293...omparison/

I agree that the NATO nations possess on paper massive material and personnel superiority. However such a comparison is very misleading for many reasons. One reason is that many of the military personnel cited as NATO assets are committed to other missions. In quite a few cases the restriction is legal, i.e. they can't be deployed outside of their own country. In other cases it is national priorities. The US for example isn't going to remove all its Pacific military personnel and move them to Europe to defend say the Baltic states. A second critical problem is that no overall plan to commit even the forces theoretically available in Europe (let alone the reserve forces) to fight in defense of any given NATO country. It is unknown what forces any given NATO nation will commit (if any) to an Article 5 invocation. It is also unclear how long it will take them to make that choice. In any case it would take months to make such a plan, and by then the war may be over. A third critical problem is geographic dispersion. Getting the available forces to "the front" requires transportation infrastructure that in many cases does not exist. Even when it theoretically does things often don't go well. When the US and Germany attempted a "mini REFORGER" several years ago it was a disaster. Roads marked as suitable for tanks had been blocked by new building construction, concrete bollards for bike lanes, etc. This was stuff that had been planned and at one time was known to work. Imagine if it was improvised.
 
On top of all that the plurality of the actual military force will have to come from the continental US. Right now the US has about 67,000 military personnel stationed in Europe. Over half, 35,068 is based in Germany. This includes a rather substantial USAF presence and support functions like the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center. These troops support the US presence in lots of places, not just Europe. V Corps is the (obviously small) Army fighting component (https://www.europeafrica.army.mil/Units/). For comparison, in 1989 the US had over 250,000 troops stationed in Germany. As of now and for the foreseeable future the largest single ground force element that is officially committed to fight in Europe is US. Unfortunately almost all of it is US based. Even best case it will take time to move it thousands of miles to Europe and deploy it. This assumes a prompt US political commitment. That is no longer a given. Russia, while having fewer forces can control the time and place of any conflict starting. Their troops will be positioned and will have objectives/phase lines from the get-go. As Russia proved in Ukraine, these advantages can be frittered away, but relying on that happening a second time is unwise.

The airpower difference is extraordinary.  My guess the NATO air forces are probably better prepared to fight than the ground forces.

Agree. However there is one big qualification. Events in Ukraine and Iran clearly demonstrate that SEAD is a necessary function of a "NATO style" air force. While SEAD can be performed by fourth-generation aircraft the cost in aircraft and lives would be quite high. It would also be quite slow, as deep penetration raids to destroy the C3 nodes of a Russian IADS would be suicidal. SEAD with 4th generation aircraft has to be performed incrementally. Against Iraq in 1991, no problem. Time was available. Iraq wasn't attacking, it was just sitting there. It can be argued the SEAD mission took 37 days. Against e.g. a Russian incursion into the Baltics in 2026, time will be of the essence. Therefore, F-35s must be used almost exclusively to accomplish the SEAD mission. After that is done the massive numerical superiority of the NATO forces will be unleashed and indeed provide the "Aluminum Overcast" NATO needs in order to fight on the ground.
 
The F-35 situation is not "optimal" but it isn't too bad. The USAF has two F-35 squadrons in Europe, both at RAF Lakenheath in the UK. These units provide approximately 52 F-35 aircraft. These two squadrons are trained in SEAD.  Norway already has its full order of 52 F-35s delivered and operational. Their pilots are well trained, but one of their major missions is to protect Norwegian airspace. How many can be spared to execute SEAD is unknown. The Netherlands has 46 delivered and operational with 12 more on order for delivery "soon". Denmark has 15 F-35s operational in Denmark and another 6 used for training in the US. 6 more will be delivered for a total of 27 aircraft. The Netherlands and Denmark can contribute pilots and aircraft to a SEAD mission, but exactly how much right now is very unclear. Italy has a total of 115 F-35s delivered/on order. Italy currently has about 35 F-35A and 2 F-35B (for their two air-capable ships), but these numbers may be a bit dated. 25 more F-35s were recently ordered, 15 A and 10 B.  These aircraft are assembled in Italy. (https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/s...ers-212831) Nobody else has any capability, although that is a temporary condition.
 
If ones states that NATO has about 100 F-35s to do the SEAD mission, that would probably be a good initial estimate. Israel had about 45 F-35s for its SEAD mission against Iran. Russia is not Iran. 100 F-35s will be at best cutting it very very fine. The US will have to surge some planes. We can do so. We have actually practiced doing so, but never "at scale". This deployment is yet another moving part in this notional war that at best introduces delay and at worst can go pear-shaped. The other obvious fact is that if the US doesn't fight, neither can anyone else. There won't be near enough F-35 aircraft if we don't participate.
 
One may note that the Germany and France, major European powers, have no 5th generation aircraft. The UK has a few F-35Bs for its aircraft carriers, with more on order. Germany has some on order. The German order is 35 aircraft, just barely enough to allow it to remain part of the NATO nuclear deterrent. Of course, if the military had been given what it said it needed, Germany would already have a potent force of F-35s. https://theaviationgeekclub.com/german-a...ting-f-35/ explains why it doesn't and why I think Ursula von der Leyen shouldn't be elected dog catcher, let alone President of the European Commission. Another equally interesting link https://cepa.org/article/the-f-35-should...one-wrong/.

[Goose]

On paper, NATO should dominate Russia.  https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293...omparison/

I agree that the NATO nations possess on paper massive material and personnel superiority. However such a comparison is very misleading for many reasons. One reason is that many of the military personnel cited as NATO assets are committed to other missions. In quite a few cases the restriction is legal, i.e. they can't be deployed outside of their own country. In other cases it is national priorities. The US for example isn't going to remove all its Pacific military personnel and move them to Europe to defend say the Baltic states. A second critical problem is that no overall plan to commit even the forces theoretically available in Europe (let alone the reserve forces) to fight in defense of any given NATO country. It is unknown what forces any given NATO nation will commit (if any) to an Article 5 invocation. It is also unclear how long it will take them to make that choice. In any case it would take months to make such a plan, and by then the war may be over. A third critical problem is geographic dispersion. Getting the available forces to "the front" requires transportation infrastructure that in many cases does not exist. Even when it theoretically does things often don't go well. When the US and Germany attempted a "mini REFORGER" several years ago it was a disaster. Roads marked as suitable for tanks had been blocked by new building construction, concrete bollards for bike lanes, etc. This was stuff that had been planned and at one time was known to work. Imagine if it was improvised.
 
On top of all that the plurality of the actual military force will have to come from the continental US. Right now the US has about 67,000 military personnel stationed in Europe. Over half, 35,068 is based in Germany. This includes a rather substantial USAF presence and support functions like the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center. These troops support the US presence in lots of places, not just Europe. V Corps is the (obviously small) Army fighting component (https://www.europeafrica.army.mil/Units/). For comparison, in 1989 the US had over 250,000 troops stationed in Germany. As of now and for the foreseeable future the largest single ground force element that is officially committed to fight in Europe is US. Unfortunately almost all of it is US based. Even best case it will take time to move it thousands of miles to Europe and deploy it. This assumes a prompt US political commitment. That is no longer a given. Russia, while having fewer forces can control the time and place of any conflict starting. Their troops will be positioned and will have objectives/phase lines from the get-go. As Russia proved in Ukraine, these advantages can be frittered away, but relying on that happening a second time is unwise.

The airpower difference is extraordinary.  My guess the NATO air forces are probably better prepared to fight than the ground forces.

Agree. However there is one big qualification. Events in Ukraine and Iran clearly demonstrate that SEAD is a necessary function of a "NATO style" air force. While SEAD can be performed by fourth-generation aircraft the cost in aircraft and lives would be quite high. It would also be quite slow, as deep penetration raids to destroy the C3 nodes of a Russian IADS would be suicidal. SEAD with 4th generation aircraft has to be performed incrementally. Against Iraq in 1991, no problem. Time was available. Iraq wasn't attacking, it was just sitting there. It can be argued the SEAD mission took 37 days. Against e.g. a Russian incursion into the Baltics in 2026, time will be of the essence. Therefore, F-35s must be used almost exclusively to accomplish the SEAD mission. After that is done the massive numerical superiority of the NATO forces will be unleashed and indeed provide the "Aluminum Overcast" NATO needs in order to fight on the ground.
 
The F-35 situation is not "optimal" but it isn't too bad. The USAF has two F-35 squadrons in Europe, both at RAF Lakenheath in the UK. These units provide approximately 52 F-35 aircraft. These two squadrons are trained in SEAD.  Norway already has its full order of 52 F-35s delivered and operational. Their pilots are well trained, but one of their major missions is to protect Norwegian airspace. How many can be spared to execute SEAD is unknown. The Netherlands has 46 delivered and operational with 12 more on order for delivery "soon". Denmark has 15 F-35s operational in Denmark and another 6 used for training in the US. 6 more will be delivered for a total of 27 aircraft. The Netherlands and Denmark can contribute pilots and aircraft to a SEAD mission, but exactly how much right now is very unclear. Italy has a total of 115 F-35s delivered/on order. Italy currently has about 35 F-35A and 2 F-35B (for their two air-capable ships), but these numbers may be a bit dated. 25 more F-35s were recently ordered, 15 A and 10 B.  These aircraft are assembled in Italy. (https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/s...ers-212831) Nobody else has any capability, although that is a temporary condition.
 
If ones states that NATO has about 100 F-35s to do the SEAD mission, that would probably be a good initial estimate. Israel had about 45 F-35s for its SEAD mission against Iran. Russia is not Iran. 100 F-35s will be at best cutting it very very fine. The US will have to surge some planes. We can do so. We have actually practiced doing so, but never "at scale". This deployment is yet another moving part in this notional war that at best introduces delay and at worst can go pear-shaped. The other obvious fact is that if the US doesn't fight, neither can anyone else. There won't be near enough F-35 aircraft if we don't participate.
 
One may note that the Germany and France, major European powers, have no 5th generation aircraft. The UK has a few F-35Bs for its aircraft carriers, with more on order. Germany has some on order. The German order is 35 aircraft, just barely enough to allow it to remain part of the NATO nuclear deterrent. Of course, if the military had been given what it said it needed, Germany would already have a potent force of F-35s. https://theaviationgeekclub.com/german-a...ting-f-35/ explains why it doesn't and why I think Ursula von der Leyen shouldn't be elected dog catcher, let alone President of the European Commission. Another equally interesting link https://cepa.org/article/the-f-35-should...one-wrong/.