Is UK Airpower actually useful against insurgents?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Several miles SSW of Watford Gap
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TBSG
As you bring up doctrine - I am afraid that this is not a 'light blueism' but is doctrine. JWP 0-01.1 (UNITED KINGDOM GLOSSARY OF JOINT AND MULTINATIONAL TERMS AND DEFINITIONS) is clear that Air Power is
It doesn't matter what Service or arm operates the air platform, or what component commands it - the fact that it is an air platform makes it part of air power. Therefore the Army Aviation hele-tele (and other airborne survellance assets) working over the Falls Road were, doctrinally, air power.
As you bring up doctrine - I am afraid that this is not a 'light blueism' but is doctrine. JWP 0-01.1 (UNITED KINGDOM GLOSSARY OF JOINT AND MULTINATIONAL TERMS AND DEFINITIONS) is clear that Air Power is
The ability to project military force in air or space by or from a platform or missile operating above the surface of the earth. Air platforms are defined as any aircraft, helicopter or unmanned air vehicle.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Between the devil and the deep blue sea
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look at the definition again.
"...ability to project military force in air or space by or from a platform or missile operating above the surface of the earth"
BH, in general, provide the ability to project military force in the land environment - not in air or space. It's all about effect - where is the effect being generated? What effect in the air environment is a Chinook generating? It only uses it to deliver troops from A to B faster than a Bedford. You could argue, therefore, that CAS is also part of the land environment, for that is where its effect takes place.
To me, air power is about effect in the air and space environment. DCA/OCA/AAR/AT/AI/strat ISTAR are all therefore part of the air component. Just because it flies does not make it airpower - which is why Land/JHC own BH, and HQNI owned heli teli in NI.
"...ability to project military force in air or space by or from a platform or missile operating above the surface of the earth"
BH, in general, provide the ability to project military force in the land environment - not in air or space. It's all about effect - where is the effect being generated? What effect in the air environment is a Chinook generating? It only uses it to deliver troops from A to B faster than a Bedford. You could argue, therefore, that CAS is also part of the land environment, for that is where its effect takes place.
To me, air power is about effect in the air and space environment. DCA/OCA/AAR/AT/AI/strat ISTAR are all therefore part of the air component. Just because it flies does not make it airpower - which is why Land/JHC own BH, and HQNI owned heli teli in NI.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Swindon
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having seen it first hand, the local baddies don't like either a GR9 or a 64 up'em.
However, one of these days we're going to up against someone who has more than just a few sharpened guava halves and knows how to use it effectively......
Slight exaggeration I know but the principle is sound.
However, one of these days we're going to up against someone who has more than just a few sharpened guava halves and knows how to use it effectively......
Slight exaggeration I know but the principle is sound.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Several miles SSW of Watford Gap
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TBSG
Look at my post again. That may be what the definition is to you; however, it is at odds with the UK's doctrine that anything that flies is air power.
BH is force that is projected from a platform operating above the (albeit not very far above) the surface, as is airborne/space-based ISTAR, CAS, AOSE, OCA all of which have an effect on surface operations. However, they remain airpower. Just as NGS remain maritime power.
You are confusing the issue of what airpower is with componency. Moreover, the ownership of an organisation by a FLC (who are - in the main -deliverers of capability to the Jt Comd - so not vey front line at all) does not equate directly to componency. STC assets can and do operate in Land, Maritime, SF and Logs components. Similar can be said for FEs provided by FLEET and LAND. Air power can be, and is, delivered by elements of Maritime, Land, and Air components that are provided my FLEET, LAND, and STC. Air power does not equal RAF.
HQNI stopped 'owning' Heli-Tele with the formation of JHC (and with it JHF(NI)) albeit that they retained, iirc, OPCON.
Look at my post again. That may be what the definition is to you; however, it is at odds with the UK's doctrine that anything that flies is air power.
BH is force that is projected from a platform operating above the (albeit not very far above) the surface, as is airborne/space-based ISTAR, CAS, AOSE, OCA all of which have an effect on surface operations. However, they remain airpower. Just as NGS remain maritime power.
You are confusing the issue of what airpower is with componency. Moreover, the ownership of an organisation by a FLC (who are - in the main -deliverers of capability to the Jt Comd - so not vey front line at all) does not equate directly to componency. STC assets can and do operate in Land, Maritime, SF and Logs components. Similar can be said for FEs provided by FLEET and LAND. Air power can be, and is, delivered by elements of Maritime, Land, and Air components that are provided my FLEET, LAND, and STC. Air power does not equal RAF.
HQNI stopped 'owning' Heli-Tele with the formation of JHC (and with it JHF(NI)) albeit that they retained, iirc, OPCON.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this bandying of words about whether an aircraft is exerting air, land or sea-power is pure casuistry. There is only one central fact: the sea covers about two-thirds the Earth's surface; land provides about one third. But the air covers the whole bloody lot. I did not notice any significant difference between operating against ships and land targets as a FR pilot. Nor, presumably, did 617 and 9 when they sank the Tirpitz. Coastal Command sank more U-boats in WW2 than the RN. So lets put the whole lot in light blue uniform, if we have to fiddle with the organisation. One thing can be guaranteed; no money will be saved and operational effectiveness will be reduced.
