Limits of Air Power?

[ShotOne]

For many years some have come to regard the application of air power as the unbeatable trump card in any conflict. In Gaza we saw one of the best equipped and effective air forces in the world, despite inflicting huge damage, fail to achieve their declared objective. The UAE attacks in Libya, while causing political ripples, didn't affect the outcome and repeated and determined attacks by the Syrian Air Force didn't save the unfortunate defenders of one of its major bases from being humiliated then murdered. Are recent events beginning to prove our expectations unrealistic?

[Easy Street]

For many years some have come to regard the application of air power as the unbeatable trump card in any conflict.
It would be more accurate to say that it has been viewed as the West's asymmetric advantage rather than its unbeatable trump card.

In Gaza we saw one of the best equipped and effective air forces in the world, despite inflicting huge damage, fail to achieve their declared objective.

This was a joint operation involving a ground offensive against the tunnels. As we don't know exactly what the division of objectives between air and land forces was, I don't see how you can be definitive that the Air operation failed.

The UAE attacks in Libya, while causing political ripples, didn't affect the outcome

A handful of air attacks doesn't make a campaign. What was the intended effect and actual outcome in any case?

repeated and determined attacks by the Syrian Air Force didn't save the unfortunate defenders of one of its major bases from being humiliated then murdered.

Even the most ardent proponents of air power would never dare to claim that air power alone could hold off a persistent ground assault. The impermanence of air power and periods of poor weather would be enough to see to that. An alternative question is how much sooner would the base have been overrun without the Air support?

Are recent events beginning to prove our expectations unrealistic?The lessons of Afghanistan (Oct-Dec 01), Kosovo 99, Libya 11 and now Kurdistan 14 are that western air power can be successfully applied independently of western regular land forces - but that a credible (and well-advised / assisted) indigenous ground force is a necessary ingredient for success. This makes sense when you consider that all military activity, whether air, land or maritime, is about protecting or changing people's way of life - and we all live on the land.

[500N]

Also, most of the airstrikes seem to have been FJ's.

If you also had a squadron of Apache's et al, would that not make a difference ?

Although not the be all and end all, they seem to be very effective in Iraq, Afghanistan etc.

[Jollygreengiant64]

Current and recent past operations are just a bit of fun for us. A chance to blow things up with incredibly expensive guided missiles and bombs, with no real consequences. We have nothing at stake in those places, they aren't wars of necessity.

Give us a war of necessity and see all of the full spectrum of cards fall into place, every 'obsolete' bit of kit fulfilling it's niche. Well, what little kit we have left.:ugh:

[Martin the Martian]

Operation Desert Storm was surely the last time air power was used to its full potential, ie with gloves off and few restrictions? The air campaign lasted just over a month, wrecking Iraq's forces to the extent that the ground campaign took a few days to achieve its aims. And don't forget the 'highway of death'.

I think air power still has the capacity to do that, but political sensibilities and restrictions means that it will rarely be allowed the opportunity to do so. Of course, the same could be said about the use of ground forces, but I think it will be a long time before any Western politician permits air power to truly show just what it can do.

[4Greens]

For the UK carriers were a useful projection of air power when airfields were not available.

No longer.

[alfred_the_great]

Seriously, speaking as a matleot, just ******* give up on the carrier thing already.....

[effortless]

To refer to a long forgotten film:

"The British spirit cannot be crushed by bombing. Every bomb dropped just makes us more determined!"

"Not like the Germans then?"

"Totally different thing son, bombing demoralises the Hun."

[Boudreaux Bob]

Bomb as you will but you only control that ground that is within the distance an Infantry Soldier can reach with a Rifle and Fixed Bayonet.

[glendalegoon]

You can destroy the enemy from the air, but you never win over the enemy until there is a bayonet at their throat. Infantry is still the queen of battle.

Mind you, if your infantry is under air attack, they can't 'do their job so you do have to have air supremecy.

Close air support does make it easier for the infantry.

But unless you are willing to complete destroy without limits the enemy, you can't win with airpower.

[Hempy]

If you go back 100 years, Churchill had the same deluded view of naval power...send in a few battleships and the Turks will wither away with awe at the might of British firepower.

That went well... :rolleyes:

There is only one way to consolidate ground. Boots on it. Air/sea provides the transport, supply, CAS, intel...logistical support.

But you cant take and hold ground without infantry.

[Flash2001]

I think I remember a TV interview with an Iraqi armoured battalion commander in desert storm. He said that after a few weeks of air attack he had lost 4 tanks. After an hour and a half tank engagement, he had lost the remainder (30 tanks or so).

[Stuff]

all that tells me is that air power can achieve it's strategic effect without needing to waste time & effort destroying everything between point A and B.

[Boudreaux Bob]

Think what you will about Air Power but understand the truth.

The truth is it takes Soldiers on the ground.

Think not.....we removed all of our Troops from Iraq and see the result.

Look at the Iraq War (the one where we ran Baghdad Bob off his Podium) and despite all that "Shock and Awe" crap.....our guys had one heck of a fight on the road to Baghdad.

In the end, despite so many mistakes by Senior Leadership, we prevailed but Air Power was only a supporting arm of the effort.

Starting in WWII, Air Force Leaders have told a huge Lie about the power of their Forces to win Wars by application of Air Power alone.

They sadly believe their own propaganda and propaganda is surely is.

It requires a combined effort by all forces to achieve victory over a determined enemy be it ISIS or a Nation's Military.

Do you think for a second we could "bomb" the Russians or Chinese into submission without use of Naval and Land Forces?

[teeteringhead]

When one was working in the Bunker during the First Gulf Unpleasantness, there was a sign on the Land Ops Cell door (when they weren't doing much initially) which read:

"The Ground's not yours 'til it's held by a Man;
not a Bomb, not a Gadget, but a Man!"

Sounds a bit Kipling-esque, but I've never been able to track down its origin.....

[Evalu8ter]

"An air force cannot stick the flag on the hilltop," says chief of the Israeli general staff and former air force commander Lt Gen Dan Halutz

Speaking about the sense of hubris felt by the Technology driven IAF in 2006, whilst trying to find, fix and finish Hezbollah. Pretty prescient regarding the current campaign in Gaza. Some suggested reading would be "The Vulture and the Snake" Counter-Guerrilla Air Warfare: The War in Southern Lebanon (http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/books/39pub.html) as well as Clodfelter's tome looking at Vietnam.

[Flash2001]

What BB said...

[cvg2iln]

To refer to a long forgotten film:

"The British spirit cannot be crushed by bombing. Every bomb dropped just makes us more determined!"

"Not like the Germans then?"

"Totally different thing son, bombing demoralises the Hun."

Waterloo was to Napoleon as Berlin was to BH. The bombs dropped at an unsustainable rate of loss appeared to bounce off the Huns' heads.

Nationalism and hubris: a potent elixir best taken in a judiciously measured dose diluted with much caution.

effortless. What was the film?

[Danny42C]

Vietnam demonstrated that immense technological superiority, including overwhelming air power, is no guarantee of success against a relatively unsophisticated enemy on its own ground and enjoying the support of the local populace.

"Boots on the ground" (and plenty of 'em, and the willingness to lose some) are the only answer.

[effortless]

effortless. What was the film?

Lord I wish I could remember. I was trying to remember what Alzheimer's was.

[LowObservable]

I hate to break it to all the Real Warriors out there, but if the price of victory is dead and wounded rifle-carriers, we are in a poor position against polygamous cultures with resource economies, because they have lots of men to spare; and in a doubly poor position if they also embrace martyrdom.

Therefore a combined arms approach that plays to our strengths, not to doctrinaire rubbish of one arm being essential and the others merely support, in our only option.

[Roadster280]

Col Tibbetts & co pretty much ended the war in Japan singlehandedly with air power, but I doubt (hope that we won't) see that again.

[Boudreaux Bob]

"Boots on the ground" (and plenty of 'em, and the willingness to lose some) are the only answer.


Westmoreland proved the fallacy of that notion.

As did the British at the Somme.

It is all about destroying the Enemy forces ability and desire to fight by killing them at the least cost to your own side. Once the Bad Guys understand there is no hope or are killed then perhaps they will see the light and quit the field and go back to the farm.

[rh200]

Col Tibbetts & co pretty much ended the war in Japan singlehandedly with air power, but I doubt (hope that we won't) see that again.

Westmoreland proved the fallacy of that notion.

As did the British at the Somme.

It is all about destroying the Enemy forces ability and desire to fight by killing them at the least cost to your own side. Once the Bad Guys understand there is no hope or are killed then perhaps they will see the light and quit the field and go back to the farm.

And that is getting at the heart of the situation. It is a function of several variables and air power is a tool in the toolbox.

How effective it is is dependent on the aim, the opponent, what amount of "air power" you have, and are you prepared to use it and accept the consequences.

At the end of the day the basic calculus of war and human nature hasn't changed. Its all about a cost benefit analysis for the enemy. If there's no hope of achieving their aims, then they won't attack, or fight.

This has been shown on human and animal terms, take away all hope and species tend to curl up and give up. When extrapolated to state systems, that turns into finding another way to achieve your goals.

[teeteringhead]

It is all about destroying the Enemy forces ability and desire to fight by killing them at the least cost to your own side. .... or in the immortal words of George S Patton: No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.

[Boudreaux Bob]

Patton's greatest nemesis (other than himself), Bernie Montgomery would still be thinking about it long after Patton had gotten it done.:E

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

He most probably would. I suspect that O'l blood and Guts would have presented a significantly larger "butcher's bill", though.

[Martin the Martian]

Curtis LeMay put it very well:

If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting.

Of course, how you do it, and whether the politicians who decide how the war is prosecuted are prepared to let the armed forces get on with it without sticking their oars in, are another matter.

[ShotOne]

Some great points but I'm concerned many seem to feel politicians shouldn't have a say; perhaps I should have framed the original question better, which comes down to Air Power's ability to achieve a POLITICAL objective. Killing huge numbers doesn't necessarily do that, and sometimes can confound it. However broad the ROE's, there's never been a conflict where there's a blank cheque in this respect.

[rh200]

Killing huge numbers doesn't necessarily do that

Exactly right, thats why its just one tool in the toolbox. Effectively you need to take into account what you can do, what you will be allowed to do and then the perceived results.

[busdriver02]

This argument is dumb. Military action is simply application of force to achieve political objectives. Land/Sea/Air/Space/Cyber/ power doesn't really matter that much. There are advantages and dis-advantages to each, but at the end of the day supporting the desired end state is what matters. They are all just tools.

[ShotOne]

It's only dumb if it's allowed to become an air versus land versus whatever argument. Granted some here have attempted to do that. You summed things up perfectly with your second sentence, but I've listed instances where the political objectives were NOT met. Surely the question of whether or not some have an exaggerated idea of what is achievable is worthy of debate?

[busdriver02]

Surely the question of whether or not some have an exaggerated idea of what is achievable is worthy of debate?No argument. If we frame the question like this: If politics won't allow any boots on the ground, what is the useful limit we can expect from air power? That's an interesting question, or maybe politics will allow only a limited special operations ground force, what can we expect? etc. As you alluded to, getting into the land versus air argument is a waste of time and that was my point.

[Marcantilan]

More or less ten years ago I was in the War School, researching for a paper about Douhet theories, and found that he was proved wrong in every case.

So yes, Air Power coukd help the victory. But that´s all.

[LowObservable]

Call the Fire Marshal. It's getting full of straw men in here.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

I was in the War School, researching for a paper about Douhet theories, and found that he was proved wrong in every case.

Did you find many strategic air offensives where they were free from political interference and/or Force diversions to provide tactical support to Land and Sea Forces?

I'm reminded that, had the Argentinean Air Force and Naval Aviation been better equipped and resourced, The Falkland Islands could so easily have had a blue and white flag flying over them now. Just a thought.

[Boudreaux Bob]

Oh say like the early years of the German use of "Blitzkrieg" which used the Luftwaffe as Aerial Artillery in direct support of Armored forces?

Memory serves the Germans were very successful using that Strategy.

They wound up in Dunkirk in short order as I recall.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

I believe we were discussing strategic air warfare, not tactical air in support of a land strategy. Thankfully, the luftwaffe was never independent and remained predominantly a tactical air component of the Army