Depends on which theory. The one I believe in, is the simple concept of gaining and maintain Air Superiority. Just because something moves through the Air does not make it an Air ForceOriginally Posted by William F. Owen
if that were true than the Air Force should be charge of bullets flying through the air.
Clear the skies, hold the skies and build an air bridge to the objective.
Last edited by slapout9; 06-08-2010 at 03:03 PM. Reason: add stuff
If by Superiority you mean "freedom of action to use the air," then that's a start. You personally have just made the top 5% of Air Power Theorists!!!
IMO, Air Power Theory - as in the employment of Aircraft, manned and un-manned - is basically "not good". It's either a set of opinions about targeting, or advocacy for independent air arms. To me, it seems that the actual Theory is almost non-existent. By Theory, I mean that which explains and informs practice.
There is plenty of "antiquarian/historic narrative" about the wonders of P-51 or the Sopwith Camel, and stories of daring do, but almost nothing, that I have found, that informs real theory.
If anyone can recommend a few books, I'm very open to suggestions!
Last edited by William F. Owen; 06-08-2010 at 03:42 PM.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
"The Air Campaign" by Colonel John Warden, hang on and I will find a link to free PDF.
Chapter 9 The Orchestration of War, simple and short and points out a lot things that are often misunderstood about Warden. One being that he is not Anti-Army he just believes that there are only certain times when it(ground forces) should be the "Key Force" or "Main Effort".
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/warden/wrdchp09.htm hit the back to contents button for the rest of the book.
Last edited by slapout9; 06-08-2010 at 03:54 PM. Reason: add stuff
Warden wrote (EBO) air war theory, but I wasn't motivated enough to read it because of what I learned about it from secondary sources.If by Superiority you mean "freedom of action to use the air," then that's a start. You personally have just made the top 5% of Air Power Theorists!!!
IMO, Air Power Theory - as in the employment of Aircraft, manned and un-manned - is basically "not good". It's either a set of opinions about targeting, or advocacy for independent air arms. To me, it seems that the actual Theory is almost non-existent. By Theory, I mean that which explains and informs practice.
There is plenty of "antiquarian/historic narrative" about the wonders of P-51 or the Sopwith Camel, and stories of daring do, but almost nothing, that I have found, that informs real theory.
If anyone can recommend a few books, I'm very open to suggestions!
Both naval and air war lack the ability to really force an opponent to yield as a rifleman pointing his rifle at the enemy's chest can do. Air war theory is therefore much more about operations and tactics than about strategy.
The highly technical nature of air power (and as a consequence, the influence of technology on capability and the widespread misconceptions about air power) didn't help to push air power theory forward.
The thing I miss the most about air power theory is a good answer for the question of prioritization. Both the force structure and the operational emphasis (air combat first? SEAD first? attack airfields first? CAS from day one? interdiction from day one? race forward to intercept enemy AEW&C aircraft early on?) would profit a lot by a good theory on how to prioritize (depending on the situation, of course).
Concur. I've never seen anything that seeks to address, "given X number of Aircraft on day one and this context, they do should do Y until A or B is reached." - that is is what I am missing.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Read the whole book Warden talks a lot about that very subject.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks