General Discussion

There seems to be a misconception on du and surely elsewhere widespread as to what air superiority means.
I was brought up during my navy time in the seventies that air superiority involved only fighters and interceptors but not bombers, since only air to air combat ability can establish air superiority.
Bombers with payload do the opposite, generally avoid air to air combat, even those with gun turrets except in defense, for the obvious reason that is not their mission, the bomb run is, and the bomber is generally far more expensive and valuable than a fighter plane is. Not to diminish air crews.
A fighter bomber is iffy, usually I would think avoid air combat if laden, and I would think engage only if necessary or in a pickle with other friendly fighters and interceptors.
I have seen many people simply taking total aircraft and comparing. I have seen some claiming reapers add to air superiority strength, which I doubt since they are expensive higher altitude drone type 'bombers' which can fire sidewinders in defense, but hardly are out hunting for bear.
So, my gd (grand desire) questions due the forty year time span then to now, are: how do drones come into play in establishing AS. Reapers. Surface to air missiles. Modern fighter bombers, stealth bombers. Modern flak. Jamming. Anything else. . Been a while since WWII and Vietnam era air tactics.

I read somewhere back then that air superiority was fighter/interceptor strength between 5 to 4 ratio up to about two to one. Then strong AS, etc.. Air supremacy from 5 to 1 up to ten. Air dominance ten to one and greater. Air inferiority was 3 to 4 and less. Air parity self explanatory.