I think, on some level, strategy deals with the known knowns and some of the known unknowns, and tactics deals with the rest of the known unknowns and all of the unknown unknowns (such as what the opposition actually does, if there is one), both on the 'how' level. Policy deals with the 'what' and 'why'.
The best strategy is the one that has as little tactics as possible, based on the above definition (e.g. attrition), but also obviously needs to be allowable and acceptable by the policy as means, costs and end results.
Attrition is just one example, another would be e.g. to aim to have the fastest fighter aircraft; the faster aircraft can choose when to engage and when to disengage, and cares less about what the opposition is actually choosing to do or not do - agile but slower aircraft then end up being reduced to little more than hovering AAA.
(this example is less meaningful for jets tho, for various reasons, only props).
I think, on some level, strategy deals with the known knowns and some of the known unknowns, and tactics deals with the rest of the known unknowns and all of the unknown unknowns (such as what the opposition actually does, if there is one), both on the 'how' level. Policy deals with the 'what' and 'why'.
The best strategy is the one that has as little tactics as possible, based on the above definition (e.g. attrition), but also obviously needs to be allowable and acceptable by the policy as means, costs and end results.
Attrition is just one example, another would be e.g. to aim to have the fastest fighter aircraft; the faster aircraft can choose when to engage and when to disengage, and cares less about what the opposition is actually choosing to do or not do - agile but slower aircraft then end up being reduced to little more than hovering AAA.
(this example is less meaningful for jets tho, for various reasons, only props).