Executive Summary

This paper traces the development of air power thinking from the earliest days of flight to modern times. It argues that the prophets of air power were often flawed in their predictions. Air power technology developed rapidly and in unpredictable directions. Army and Navy leaders saw the new air systems as little more than extensions of their surface capabilities, and therefore lacked the imagination to develop new methods of fighting. Experience in war forced some military commanders to realise that control of the air was necessary for victory. Strategic bombing was central to the thinking of professional airmen, but was unable to offer certain victory until the development of atomic weapons. Eventually, missiles became more useful as nuclear delivery systems than manned aircraft. At the end of the 20th Century, air power underwent a radical reappraisal after its successful application in a number of limited war campaigns. Precision air delivered weaponry offered politicians an easier option for prosecuting wars.

Introduction

The history of warfare has been a progressive search for technological advantage. Weapons have been progressively developed for ever greater range. Both on land and at sea, the advantage has gone to the side who could see furthest, and then bring firepower to bear on the adversary. Armies would seek high ground; navies would post lookouts at the top of their ships' masts. Guns were given greater and greater range. The advent of flying machines changed the nature of warfare for all time. In a period of less than a century, military use of the air has moved from tethered balloons to cruise missiles using satellite-based navigation systems. The third dimension of warfare has encompassed space itself. The novelty of the technology has given many problems for those who attempted to develop air power thinking . Often they predicted capabilities which were then beyond the science of the day. Centuries of maritime and land fighting experience held back the development of a new three-dimensional doctrine. The first advocates of the use of air power had to fight difficult institutional battles to gain sufficient resources.

In the early days, aircraft, both heavier and lighter than air, were seen as no more than giving extra tactical height to the military commander for his surface battle. Yet the ability to threaten deep behind the frontline was rapidly realised, and governments feared that they would be unable to defend their cities against bombs dropped from aircraft or airships. Limited experience of such attacks in World War One was extrapolated by theorists to claim that the bomber was the war winning capability of the future. In the event, defensive measures, lack of bombing accuracy and civilian resilience meant that World War Two had to be fought by a more traditional and prolonged all arms campaign. It was not until the last days of that war in 1945 that the use of an atomic bomb changed the calculus of warfare. From the nuclear devastation of Hiroshima onwards, it became possible to guarantee the total destruction of cities from the air.

The period from the end of World War Two until 1989 was dominated by the potential for a nuclear war between the Soviet Union and the United States. Each, with its allies, fielded increasing numbers of atomic weapons that in the early days would be delivered by aircraft. In later years, missiles became the preferred delivery system. This period of Cold War was prevented from becoming a hot fighting war by the absolute assurance that nuclear weapons delivered from above would leave no winner. Air power played the key role in making war between major powers unwinnable.

Since the end of the Cold War, nuclear weapons have been less prominent in strategic thinking. Smaller more traditional wars have become the focus of international interest. The United Nations has from time to time been moved to right international wrongs such as the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in 1990. A new approach to warfare has been developed through these experiences in the last decade of the 20th Century. Air power has become much more precise in its application using conventional weaponry. This has allowed powers to exert force without risking either large casualties to their own forces or to non-combatants in the target zone. Air power has become the weapon of first choice: to be used ahead of, and perhaps instead of, surface forces. After a century, the world is looking at the use of military force in a new way through the capabilities of air systems.

A New Military Capability

First uses of air power

Man has dreamt of flying like the birds for all of history. Yet, it was not until 1783 that the Montgolfier brothers in France first overcame gravity in their hot air balloon. By 1794, at the Battle of Fleurus, the French Generals were able to direct the operation from their aerial headquarters. Tethered balloons were developed over the next hundred years to provide useful artillery spotting lookouts. The major limitation of such balloons was their lack of directional control. They had either to be captive with a tethering line, or allowed to drift with the wind. The first dirigible airship was flown by Henri Giffard in France in 1852. Airships continued to be developed for both civil and military use as the internal combustion engine gave a more effective power source. In Germany, Count von Zeppelin made great advances, which were to provide his country with a significant military airship capability. Nevertheless, airships were to remain slow moving and vulnerable as they had to displace large volumes of air to provide the lift for their engines and payload. Speed would require the development of heavier than air flying machines.

Controlled powered heavier-than-air flight was realised at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina on 17 December 1903 by the Wright Brothers. Military interest was variable, but enthusiasts ensured that airplane technological development was rapid. Louis Bleriot flew across the English Channel in 1909 showing that England was no longer safe as an island nation. In 1911, a Curtiss biplane was successfully launched from and landed back on a warship. That year was to see the first use of air power in war. Italy was at war with Libya, and began using aircraft and airships for aerial reconnaissance. By the following year, hand held bombs were being dropped on desert troops below.

Air Power in World War One

The French followed these trends closely and took the lead in developing air commands. At the outbreak of World War One they had some 138 military aircraft, and had also been building them for Russia. Germany had concentrated its early development work on airships for military use, but it too was building heavier-than-air machines, and had 232 by 1914. The United States showed remarkably little interest in military aviation developments, which was why the Wright brothers spent their time selling their machines in Europe. The British reorganised their air capabilities into an army specialist force, the Royal Flying Corps, and subsequently added the Royal Navy Air Service in early 1914. In July 1914, shortly after war was declared, the 37 airplanes of the Royal Flying Corps flew across the Channel to France. The primary role of these aircraft was reconnaissance, and they rapidly proved their worth to the land commanders. In the first big battle of the war at Mons, General Sir John French reported that the Royal Flying Corps had provided crucial information on enemy movements. It was however for artillery spotting that the new air capabilities were most used in the early days of the war.

Inevitably, when German aircraft found themselves near French or British aircraft, small arms fire was exchanged. This led to each side developing armaments for their aircraft. From 1915 onwards, the use of forward facing machine guns, which fired through propeller blades, allowed fighter tactics to be developed. Tactical formations of aircraft had their genesis in cavalry manoeuvres, and air to air combat became an activity in its own right. The importance of attempting to control the airspace above them was becoming obvious to commanders, and they needed to give higher priority to this task if they were not to be vulnerable to enemy air reconnaissance and artillery spotting. In many ways, the development of air power progressed ever more rapidly in the maritime environment. Reconnaissance developed into anti-submarine warfare. Air defence fighters were needed to protect cargo ships from attack. The British Navy developed its own bomber force to destroy the Zeppelin threat by bombing their bases in Germany.

Although of relatively limited military effectiveness, the most significant air power development of the war was to be that of strategic bombing. Targets were both military and civilian, and the greatest shock was to Britain, which, as an island nation, had long felt secure from enemy attack. As a consequence, the Zeppelin and Gotha raids on London had a disproportionate effect on future air power thinking. Some 9000 bombs were dropped by German airships and aircraft on Britain during the whole of the war, killing some 1413 people and wounding a further 3408. The British public clamour was for air defence at home and retaliatory strikes on Germany.

Air Forces need a separate organisation

The development of air power during World War One was extraordinarily rapid, but was not particularly well thought through. Army and Navy commanders had no experience of what the new technology could offer. It was also expensive in terms of cost of equipment and also in its need for trained manpower. Arguments over funding priorities further hampered developments. This was unacceptable to the British Government, who felt uniquely threatened by this novel military capability. These organisational problems led to the establishment of the first separate military arm for air power, the Royal Air Force, in Britain in 1918. Winston Churchill, who was the politician in charge of the Royal Navy, was quick to understand the importance of an independent system for managing air assets. He pushed forward the establishment of a new Air Ministry to manage all aircraft equipment procurement.

In World War One, air power was used in virtually all of its modern military roles, which were to be greatly developed subsequently. There was no time for theorists to discuss optimum strategies for incorporating this new capability into traditional warfighting doctrines. The airmen of the time had a high casualty rate, which meant there were few available to fight the institutional battles. By the end of the war, of the 175,000 military aircraft built by France, Germany and Britain, some 116,250 had been destroyed.

Between the Wars

Air Power Prophets in the Wilderness

With the end of the Great War, there was little general interest in learning the air power lessons of the conflict. The expectation that this had been a war to end war meant that military spending was rapidly scaled down everywhere. In Britain, there was debate as to whether the new Royal Air Force was necessary in peacetime. Certainly, there was little sympathy for spending money on this expensive part of the military establishment. The RAF was reduced within 6 months of the Armistice from 188 operational squadrons to just 23, of which fewer than half could be deployed. Hugh Trenchard, who had served with the Royal Flying Corps, and had risen to be Chief of the Air Staff of the new RAF, became the custodian of British air power thinking throughout the 1920's. He was a strong believer in offensive air power, and of the importance of the bomber in any future wars. However, in the absence of any planning for major wars, he was better able to promote the RAF in the role of imperial policing. Britain had a large empire to control, but was short of money to fund the necessary troops. Trenchard was able to offer his small and relatively inexpensive force as a cost effective way to keep dissident rebels in check. In Iraq in 1921, five RAF squadrons were used to replace a ground force of 33 battalions.

In this period of peace, it was the ideas of an Italian General, Giulo Douhet, which captured the imagination strategic thinkers. His book, The Command of the Air, was published in 1921 and translated into English two years later. He declared that in future wars whichever side could win in the air would achieve victory. He argued that aircraft had extended the traditional battlefield to include civilian populations, and that attacks should be made on national institutions and infrastructure. The effect of such bombing would undermine the population's will to fight as well as disrupting its means to fight. To this advocacy of strategic bombing, he also added the importance of attacking an enemy's air power capability when it was on the ground and vulnerable. His ideas were echoed widely by those who had been involved in the air operations of World War One.

In the United States, General Billy Mitchell was making himself well known with the public, but unpopular with his military colleagues, for his strong advocacy of air power. In 1921, he provided a practical demonstration of the sinking of a captured warship by air attack, followed two years later by two more high profile test attacks and sinkings. But it would be another 20 years, before the United States discovered at Pearl Harbour that it was as vulnerable as Billy Mitchell had predicted. He railed, as successive airmen have, against the inefficiencies of air power being shared between the Army and the Navy. He was court-martialed in 1925 (Douhet had suffered a similar fate in 1916), but undoubtedly motivated the US Navy towards the development of aircraft carriers.

If the victorious powers of World War One were investing little in military air power, this was not true elsewhere in the world. The defeated Germany was notionally constrained in the development of military capability. However, the importance of air power was recognised and was developed initially secretly in co-operation with the Soviets. The Luftwaffe came in to being in 1935 as an independent service with a different philosophy from the strategic bombing doctrine of the Trenchard, Mitchell and Douhet. The Luftwaffe was primarily trained and equipped to attack enemy forces in the air and on the ground and at sea. It was designed to concentrate firepower to disrupt and destroy the opponent's military capability. The German doctrine of blitzkrieg required early and massive air power to be brought to bear on the enemy's combat forces. Japan developed its own military air capability, which was used to great effect against China from 1931 onwards. In particular, by 1937 they had a capability for long range bombing missions. They developed a technique for forward refuelling airfields to extend the range of their fighter aircraft.

Civil Aviation and Minor Wars Drive Progress

For the USA and the rest of Europe, the advances in air power technology in the inter-war period were driven more by the growing civil interest and enthusiasm for flying than by the worries of air-minded strategists. Air races accelerated the developments in engines and airframes. Altitude record breaking attempts were just as important. In 1920, the USA had achieved 33,000 feet and in 1938, Italy held the record at 56,000 feet. Similar progress was made in extending the range of aircraft: the French achieved just under 2000 miles in 1925, while the British had broken 7000 miles by 1938. Everywhere was potentially within bombing range. There were also real operations for nations to test their new capabilities. The Japanese air operations against the Chinese received little attention in Europe, but allowed the Japanese to develop their air doctrine significantly before World War Two. Of greater significance was the Spanish Civil war from 1936 to 1939. As well as the Spanish air force, Soviet, German and Italian air power was in action. The Soviet force was some 1500 aircraft, but they were inaccurate as bombers and also vulnerable to German fighters. The German Luftwaffe exercised their doctrine of joint operations in support of ground forces to great effect. They were also able to bring in new tactics where necessary. Tactical battle formation flying rapidly replaced tight display formations. Air power was integrated into ground operations with the use of forward air controllers. Concentration of strategic bombing for maximum effect was tested.

As war broke out in 1939, Germany was better prepared with good aircraft and experienced crews who had developed air power as a key part of their military doctrine. In Britain, the late build up of capability, and the focus on bombers, had left the air defences less than comprehensive. Nor was there much agreement within the RAF, or beyond, on the most effective employment of these scarce resources.

World War Two: Air Power affects every campaign

Learning by Combat Experience

In the six years from 1939-1945, every theory of air power was put to the test and modified, and all the main roles of modern air warfare were exhaustively exercised. World War Two was a new type of war in terms of communications, speed and extent. Air power had made every civilian potentially vulnerable, and had taken away the safety of dispersal and distance. Yet the promises of technology were often found wanting, and each new technological development was matched rapidly by a counter move. Radar made air defence practical, but was soon degraded by counter-measures.

In popular images of the war, the Battle of Britain remains the most memorable of air campaigns. Britain had only limited numbers of air defence fighters. In August 1940, the German bombers and escorting fighters outnumbered the defenders by about 3 to 1. Following their philosophy of using air power to attack military capability, the German bombers targeted ports, airfields and British fighters. The RAF senior leadership was divided over the best defensive tactics. By the end of the month, Germany was targeting the radar stations and command centres successfully. German offensive counter-air operations were working, and the British air defence system was being defeated. On 7 September 1940, Germany, believing it had won control of the air switched its bombers to strategic targeting of London. This allowed the British air defence system to rebuild and fight back. Future strategists have taken the lesson that air superiority lasts only as long as enough air effort is devoted to it. Unlike the permanent seizing of ground by advancing armies, the battle for airspace control must be continued day after day.

A less well publicised, but as important, aspect of the air war was the Battle of the Atlantic. Britain was dependent on supplies being delivered by convoys across the Atlantic. German submarines were increasingly successful in sinking these ships. Allied air cover was able to reduce these losses considerably, but it was difficult to obtain the priority for scarce air power resources. The strategic bombing of Germany was believed to be a more important task for long range assets.

The strategic bombing campaign encapsulates many of the weaknesses of the strategic thinking of the inter-War years. Proponents had overstated the psychological effect on populations, and had also expected far more technical capability from bombing systems than was achievable. The nature of the bombing escalated as the war continued. The British began the war by dropping leaflets and ended it by destroying cities. Again there were differences of view between Commanders over which targets, military, industrial or civilian were likely to be more productive in winning the war. The poor bombing accuracy compounded the difficulties. Arthur Harris, the Commander-in-Chief of Bomber Command, was an ardent proponent of the area bombing campaign, but found himself increasingly in dispute with the RAF leadership who sought more precision attacks against what they assessed as key targets.

On the other side of the world, the Japanese showed that it was possible to use air power to provide tactical surprise. The attack on the US fleet at Pearl Harbour in 1941, and the subsequent Japanese victories in the Philippines and Singapore showed how well they had developed their offensive air power capability. In strategic terms, the results were less helpful: the United States entered the war and ultimately defeated the Japanese. The industrial might of the USA was able to outproduce Japan and Germany. By 1945 the US could field 18,000 aircraft against fewer than 5000 Japanese.

Air Power Leaders

All the combatants were learning that control of airspace was vital to survival, but that air power did not provide the magic path to quick victory. It was at its most effective when operating closely with the appropriate surface forces. Air power could provide extended reconnaissance, defend against enemy air attack, disrupt enemy supply lines, halt an enemy advance, and take out a difficult target. The concentration of firepower in time and space that was possible could be very effective in turning a ground battle. However, aircraft could not hold territory or maintain the continuous presence of armies. Nor could they transport the weight and volume of cargo of surface ships. Combat air power was expensive, always scarce but always needed. The setting of both strategic and tactical priorities for air assets was the most important aspect, and it took time to learn through mistakes.

While military thinkers are more vocal in peacetime, it is clear that there were some whose ideas were key to air power utilisation in World War Two. Winston Churchill perhaps gets too little credit for his lifetime appreciation of what air power means to warfare. It was he that had been at the centre of British air power developments in the previous war. He had warned of the implications of German air power for British security in the 1930's. As Prime Minister he was able to determine both strategic priorities and the aircraft production to support those tasks. In Germany, Hermann Göring had been a famous operational air commander in the First World War, and rose to be the first and only Marshal of the Reich under Hitler. While this helped the Luftwaffe greatly with resources, Göring lacked the vision of Churchill, and the Luftwaffe remained tactical rather than strategic. The Soviets had taken air power seriously from the early days of the revolution. However, the Soviet Air Force suffered greatly from the loss of experience when Stalin purged the Red Army Command in 1937. It was further undermined by the priority that Hitler gave to its destruction in 1941. Stalin drew the lessons for the post war importance of strategic air power. In Japan, Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto had progressed from chief of navy aviation to become Commander-in-Chief. He had been instrumental in the design of the Japanese aircraft carrier fleet, and was the driving force behind Japan's approach to maritime air power in the Pacific.

World War Two marked the birth of the USA as the air power nation. It had been surprisingly indifferent to pre-War air power enthusiasts, and had contributed little in the development of strategic thinking. Billy Mitchell's failed attempts to obtain a separate air force had left air doctrine as no more than a part of either army or navy force development. Nevertheless, in a later parallel to Trenchard's career, General Hap Arnold rose through the US army ranks to become the father of the US Air Force. He was a follower of Douhet and the key air power adviser to President Roosevelt. Winning the war in the air required enormous and sustained industrial production capacity, a pool of well educated recruits as airmen and a strong research base to develop new technologies. The USA was ideally placed geographically, economically and culturally to meet these criteria. It has maintained its pre-eminence ever since.

In the closing days of the war, the Douhet theorists were given a new lease of life as the US dropped two atomic bombs on Japan. The nuclear age was born and air power now appeared the ultimate guarantor of victory.

Air Power through the Cold War

Air Power and nuclear deterrence

If the atomic bomb was to dominate strategic thinking for the next half century, the jet engine and the missile were also set to transform the mechanics of air power. All three technological developments had been deployed in the latter days of World War Two, but there was limited experience on which to extrapolate the potential consequences for air power. Despite the whole range of air power tasks having contributed to the war effort, the post-war focus for the victorious powers was on development of nuclear weapon delivery capabilities. Yet very rapidly, a non combat form of air power was to prove critical in the growing confrontation between the Soviet Union and the West. Berlin, blockaded by the Soviets in 1948, was sustained by a unique allied air transport re-supply operation throughout .

The Korean War (1950-1953) was a reminder that conventional wars with limited aims remained possible in the nuclear age. Jet aircraft were available in numbers for the first time, but had to operate in a confined airspace. A limited war meant political constraints on targets, and as a result strategic bombing of China was ruled out. The lessons of joint operations were re-learned, and for the United States there was a large expansion in their recently (1947) independent air force. Again, the value of flexible air support to troops on the ground was demonstrated in what was a very difficult ground campaign. The helicopter was beginning to be used as a useful improvement to mobility in the difficult terrain found in a series of such limited wars. The British undertook operations in Malaya and the French in Indochina. The Israelis were developing a serious air force to defend their newly independent country. However all three nations were reminded of their limitations in the Suez operation of 1956.

Yet for the United States, the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom the key air power role was that of the nuclear bomber. Resources were poured into aircraft and weapon development and production. Conventional weapons were of secondary importance in the battle for funding, despite the growing experience of the need for limited war capability. In the US, General Hap Arnold wrote a memo in 1945 arguing that in future the only defence possible was to field an overwhelming strategic offensive force as a deterrent to any aggressor. He outlined many of the detailed arrangements that were to shape strategic nuclear forces throughout the Cold War. Academic and political thinking about deterrence was also developing in parallel, and is covered in the next Chapter. On the military side, General Curtis Le May, who commanded the USAF Strategic Air Command from 1948 to 1957, built a vast strategic bomber force which far exceeded the capability of any other nation. He shaped the detailed arrangements which ensured that the theoretical constructs of nuclear deterrence could work in practice. The Soviets and the British also progressed in the 1950s, followed in turn by the French and Chinese, with developing long range nuclear bombers. and providing the air defences to protect them from pre-emptive destruction.

Deterrence theorists, such as Thomas Schelling, explored arcane game theory in deriving the required force structure. The RAND Corporation in the USA was greatly influential in the development of Cold War air power thinking. The logic that deterrence depended on the nation being able to ride out a first nuclear attack, and yet still launch a devastating retaliatory nuclear attack became widely accepted. This led to a requirement for large nuclear forces widely dispersed, and a comprehensive national air defence system. Yet even as the bomber forces were being build, another technology was offering more assurance of a second strike capability. Offensive missiles, both air-breathing and rocket powered, had been used by Germany against Britain in the 1940s. In 1959, Bernard Brodie argued in a RAND study, that inter-continental ballistic missiles could provide greater assurance of nuclear retaliation than manned aircraft; but that a mixture of systems was even better. In the United States, Robert McNamara brought to the post of Secretary of Defense in 1961 a keen analytical mind. He started the trend for thinking in capability terms when making investment decisions. The nuclear powers have in the years since moved from reliance on manned bombers for nuclear delivery towards greater use of missiles based in silos on land and in submarines at sea. Indeed, the United Kingdom by 1998 had abandoned all its other nuclear delivery systems.

Limited Conventional Wars

As the Cold War deepened, the focus of air power thinking, in the five declared nuclear powers, continued to be centred on strategic nuclear weapon delivery. In 1957, the United States was beaten by the USSR in the race to place a satellite into orbit around the earth. In 1962, the USA reacted strongly over the deployment of Soviet nuclear capable missiles to Cuba. The building and maintenance of a credible deterrent capability exercised both the USA and the USSR throughout the 1960s. It can be argued that more thinking about the lessons of air power in limited wars would have helped the Americans in Vietnam and the Russians in Afghanistan. The Vietnam war (1964-75) was a savage reminder of the limitations of air power in fighting a guerrilla campaign. It was, however, a period of intense development in conventional air warfare tactics and technologies. Airmobility with helicopter gunship support brought a new level of integration between ground and air forces. While the massive scale of US air power could achieve tactical victories, the strategic victory was more difficult. Escalation of conventional strategic bombing was seen as the way to bring North Vietnam to the negotiating table. Yet again, air power theorists were taught the lesson that conventional bombing does little to make your enemy more amenable. The series of bombing campaigns from 1964 to 1968 added up to 300,000 missions and 643,000 tons of bombs dropped on North Vietnam. The North Vietnamese continued to fight. By the end of the Vietnam war, technological developments allowed much more precise attacks with much lower vulnerability for the bombers. Nevertheless, in the end the US withdrew its forces from Vietnam. Air power theorists continued to argue that the defeat was because of the political constraints rather than military inadequacy. However, Korea had already shown the need for operational plans in limited war to take into account the political reality.

If Vietnam and Afghanistan reminded the two superpowers of the limitations of air power in long campaigns lasting years, Israel showed the world the importance of air supremacy in much shorter wars. It had given priority to developing a modern air force which was rightly feared by its Arab neighbours. The Yom Kippur war of 1973 lasted only 18 days but provided a wealth of air warfare data of the effectiveness of modern air weapon systems in a classic set piece battle for national survival. The British and Argentineans also learned the strengths and weaknesses of their air power capabilities during the Falklands conflict of 1982. It was a remarkable achievement for the UK, with its very small aircraft carrier force, to wage a successful war at a range of some 8000 miles from home. Subsequently, maritime air power advocates have used this conflict as a strong argument for the continuing importance of carrier-borne air power. Yet the costs remain high and the examples of utility often ambiguous.

While the sporadic examples of real fighting during the Cold War provided justification to air power enthusiasts for a whole range of capabilities, it continued to be the potential NATO/Warsaw Pact confrontation in Europe which determined force structures and technologies. The relatively simple deterrence policy of massive retaliation grew into NATO's adoption of the more complex "Flexible Response", in which the credibility of ultimate nuclear use was enhanced by options to fight a conventional or tactical nuclear war. This allowed operational planners to build up complex scenarios which justified procurement of advanced air weapons systems, which would also be useful in other conventional wars.

By the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, air and space military systems had developed beyond the imagination of the early flying pioneers. Satellites could provide imagery of anywhere on Earth, could allow worldwide communications and give a three dimensional accurate location to any military unit. Missiles could threaten virtually instantaneous destruction over the whole of the globe. Bombers could make precision attacks with an assurance of no error. Fighters could shoot down the enemy without ever seeing him. Air-to-air refuelling had extended the range of missions across the oceans. Ground attack aircraft and helicopters had become easier to direct than artillery. Defensive and offensive counter-measures reflected the exciting technological growth of domestic economies. Yet with the end of the Cold War, the theoretical edifice of air power was now much more questionable.

The Air Power Decade 1990 -2000

Lessons from the Gulf War

NATO nations raced to reduce their military spending as the threat from the Soviet Union disappeared. There was little agreement on the necessary level that would be needed in the future. Indeed, there were predictions that, without the common threat of the Warsaw Pact, defence would revert to minimum national needs. However in August 1990, before most governments had completed their post Cold War defence reappraisals, Iraq invaded Kuwait. This was a clear breach of international law and was also in an area of considerable economic interest to the major powers. The United Nations imposed economic sanctions, intense diplomacy was undertaken, and this was underpinned by the build up of a US-led military coalition of 29 countries in the theatre. Following failure of diplomatic solutions to the crisis, an air campaign (Operation Desert Storm) was launched against Iraqi forces on 17 January 1991. Although massive ground forces had been assembled nearby in Saudi Arabia, the force commander, General Norman Schwarzkopf, continued a purely air offensive operation for 6 weeks. Precision weapons were used extensively against infrastructure targets. Attacks were orchestrated with appropriate air defence systems, refuelling tanker aircraft and a mix of offensive capabilities. Cruise missiles, with terrain mapping navigation, were used in quantity. Massive area bombing was used against armour in the desert.

On the 24 February, Schwarzkopf assessed the Iraq forces as sufficiently degraded to launch the ground campaign. It was still assumed that there would be a difficult fight to free Kuwait. In the event, the Iraqi forces were routed and Kuwait freed in under 4 days. Air power advocates had found a new role. They claimed that modern precision air systems in overwhelming numbers would in future win wars, leaving ground forces the easier task of moving in afterwards to secure territory. However, even in the Gulf, it was a limited victory. Air operations of various kinds continued against Iraq for the rest of the decade.

While the scale of the coalition for the Gulf War was impressive, it was clear to all that the success depended on American technology, numbers, doctrine and leadership. The USA had emerged from the Cold War as a military power unmatched by any other nation. It was investing much more in defence research and particularly in aerospace and information systems. It appeared that US air power would be the dominant factor in military thinking. However, the very public success in achieving war aims with few casualties in the Gulf had implications for future operations. US forces were withdrawn from Somalia when 18 of their troops were killed. In the worsening Balkan crisis, the US preferred air strikes to promote agreement in Bosnia rather than contributing troops on the ground.

Humanitarian Interventions

The 1990s saw a series of operations, mainly under UN auspices, to try to restore order in failing states around the world. Air power had few answers to mass killings in civil wars in Africa. Where agreements were achieved, such as in Bosnia, the peace could only be maintained by the long term presence of international ground forces. Yet the decade was to finish with a war that was even more important to the air power dominance school of thought. Having come to an uneasy settlement over ethnic divisions in Bosnia, the focus moved to Kosovo. Serbia was increasing its repression of the ethnic Albanian community in this province; the UN and OSCE tried unsuccessfully to negotiate an acceptable peace agreement. For the first time NATO nations agreed, without a formal UN resolution, to use military means to solve a growing humanitarian crisis within a sovereign state's boundaries. The instrument of choice was explicitly solely air power. NATO leaders, when they launched an air offensive on 24 March 1999 against Serbian forces, ruled out an offensive ground campaign. Air power was being used to bring the Serbian leadership back to the negotiating table. Over 23,000 bombs were dropped in the ten weeks of operations. From the 38,000 NATO missions flown, there was not a single casualty to the alliance forces. On the other hand, a combination of political constraints on targets, limited poor weather capability and good Serbian defensive measures meant that the military effectiveness of this prolonged air operation was limited. Nevertheless a peace settlement was made in the June, before ground operations became necessary. Again a large international force was needed to police the settlement in Kosovo. Shortly afterwards, Russia followed NATO's example of the use of air power in its rather less surgical approach to quelling rebellion in Chechnya.

While air power studies have concentrated on the offensive operations in the Gulf and the Balkans, a growing need for humanitarian intervention worldwide has had other implications. Rapid response to sudden crises requires deployable forces. Nations are restructuring their military capabilities to provide such forces more easily. Strategic airlift and helicopter lift have in a much quieter way contributed greatly to international responses to crises in Africa and Asia. Planners in defence ministries around the world finished the decade with a much clearer view of the need for the full range of air power capabilities than they had had in 1990.

Conclusion

The twentieth century was one of extraordinary progress in the application of air power. Most air power forecasters failed to make the right projections. This was scarcely surprising as the technologies advanced rapidly, the tactical implications were poorly understood and the strategic context changed. Air power enthusiasts often overstated the capabilities of their systems, and found it difficult to make their case for resources in opposition to their land and maritime colleagues. Successful air power nations needed a good technological and industrial base, as well as institutional understanding of what air power could offer.

The surges in practical military utilisation of air power took place in fighting wars of the 20th century. Theorising was extensive in the periods of peace, but was often based on unjustified extrapolation of available data. Airmen were attached to the thinking of Douhet, who saw the control of the air and the bomber as the ultimate weapon system. Yet for much of the century, support of ground forces was the more effective task for air systems.

Currently, the United States has an overwhelming military capability which is, to a large extent, based on its modern air power forces. It can carry out precision offensive operations on a world-wide basis from its home territory. It can deliver conventional or nuclear weapons from aircraft or from submarines. It also has the most advanced space and information capabilities, and it outspends all other nations on military research, procurement and deployment. Given this focus of air power, it will be inevitably be a prime influence for all other nations, when looking at their own forces.

Analysts argue whether the air campaign for Kosovo has set a precedent which will mean many more such humanitarian interventions. Some believe the political difficulties of maintaining NATO cohesion mean that it will not be repeated, and that only UN authorised operations will be possible. These are more likely to be at the lower intensity end of the spectrum and thus be less dependent on combat air power. There are still however areas where serious conflict is possible. The division of the Korean peninsular remains. India and Pakistan remain fiercely confrontational over Kashmir, and are both nuclear capable. China has the potential to cause difficulty, particularly over Taiwan. Russia is not yet a stable market economy. Ethnic problems erupt without warning, and sometimes with great ferocity. In any of the possible scenarios, air power is almost certain to have a part to play. However, the costs of air systems remain a problem for all governments including the United States. There are signs that regional co-operation at providing air capabilities may be the pattern of the future. NATO nations clubbed together to procure an expensive airborne early warning system in the past. European nations are looking at how they might provide such capabilities as intelligence satellites and strategic airlift on a co-operative basis.

Air power has become an increasing attractive option for western nations, which wish to minimise the risk of casualties to their own forces. This will increase the pressure for the developing air systems and tactics which keep the operator out of harm's way. Unmanned air vehicles will provide some solutions as will greater stand off range for weapon systems. However, the increasing concern about unintended collateral damage will ensure that the man or woman is kept firmly in the decision-making loop.

Military air power began as a form of support for armies and navies. It grew to have strategic influence on its own. Many of the problems of development have come from the division of labour between armies, navies and, latterly, air forces. Recognising this, the most recent moves have been towards joint military organisations, which are designed to makes most efficient use of all resources. This comes just at the time when doctrine seems to be moving more towards the independent use of air power for serious operations.

Summary Points

• Any successful military operation requires effective control of the air.
• Control of the air is only retained by continuous effort
• Air power relies on advanced technologies, industrial production and skilled manpower.
• Air power is expensive and setting resource priorities correctly is the most important factor for success.
• Air power cannot hold territory.
• Air power provides many politically attractive options for constrained limited operations.
• Air power must be co-ordinated with sea and land power for greatest effect.

Guide to Further Reading

Brodie, B., Strategy in the Missile Age (Princeton: University Press 1965) a thoughtful history and commentary on the development of air power thinking from the early days to nuclear bombers.

Douhet,G., The Command of the Air (New York: Coward-McCann, 1942) the English translation of the most influential early air power writer. All students of air power should read this book.

Gooch, J., Airpower: Theory and Practice (London: Cass 1995) a collection of pieces on air power thinking in different nations and useful case studies.

Hallion, R.P., Air Power Confronts an Unstable World (London: Brassey's 1997) an interesting collection of essays from current air power experts on the use of air power in promoting international security in the modern world.

Higham, R., Air Power: a Concise History (New York: St Martin's 1972) a very logical explanation of the first sixty years of air power thinking and practice.

Mason, T., Air Power: A Centennial Appraisal (London: Brassey's 1994) a book which addresses the development of air power, but looks particularly at its applications after the Cold War.

Murray, W., Luftwaffe (Baltimore: N&A 1985) this is a valuable analysis of the different approach to air power thinking which occurred in Germany after World War One.

Terraine, J., The Right of the Line (London: Hodder & Stoughton 1985) a comprehensive and readable history of the Royal Air Force in Europe in World War Two.

Warden III, J.A., The Air Campaign (Washington: Brassey's 1991) the book on the Gulf War by the air planner credited with the development of the new air doctrine which has shaped current thinking.

British Air Power Doctrine AP3000 (London: MOD 1999) a well written official manual of current UK air power doctrine. This small volume provides an easily understood reader in all aspects of air warfare.

Discussion Questions

1. Which air power roles can be currently undertaken by unmanned systems, and will more be covered in the future?

2. Is it a good thing that navies and armies operate their own air power systems as well as having an independent air force?

3. Does the experience of the 1990s show that air power is now the main military arm, and that armies have been relegated to a policing role?

4. How can the limitations of air power be overcome?

5. If "rogue states" can threaten mass destruction with long range missiles, are air power resources better allocated to defence or offence?

6. What air power capabilities might the United Nations need for humanitarian relief operations, and should they be permanently allocated to the UN?

7. Do aircraft carriers have an increasing or decreasing role in the future?

8. Which space systems contribute to air power effectiveness?

9. Is there still a useful role for non-precision bombs?

10. Should nuclear weapon delivery systems be limited to missiles?

Return to home page