As our nation approaches the dawn of the twenty-first century, we have enough indication to tell us that air power has really changed the American way of war.

—Gen Ronald R. Fogleman
Former Chief of Staff, United States Air Force

VAGUE MILITARY THREATS and reductions in arms manufacturing are forcing new strategic considerations. Gone are the days when America could quickly mobilize and use brute force to overcome the enemy. According to General Fogleman, a new way of war is emerging, one based on technology and airpower. These advantages, he stated, must be exploited “to compel an adversary to do our will at the least cost to the United States in lives and resources.”1

Historically, America based its strategy on superior numbers fortified by mass production. In 1943, because industries such as the Kaiser Corporation could build a 10,800-ton Liberty ship every 10 days, the United States launched more than fifteen hundred vessels.2 During World War II, American industries sent more than 19,200 B-24 Liberators to the front.3 Today, because fewer corporations are involved in the arms business, some industrial experts surmise that the production miracles of the past are no longer possible.4

Airpower: America’s New Way of War

RAND, however, believes that these gaps can be bridged by the extensive use of technologically sophisticated airpower. Their study claims that “with concentration on air power, U.S. forces could manage concurrent crises, in say, the Persian Gulf area and Korea.”5 Echoing this theme, General Fogleman believes airpower can “provide a tremendous leverage to resolve future crises rapidly at low cost.”6

When properly applied in the past, airpower has achieved some great successes. At Normandy, it gained command of the air and thus provided valuable support for the D-day landings. Against Japan, it helped the US take command of the seas and deliver a war-ending blow.

Not all air campaigns, however, were effective. In Vietnam, even after one million fixed-wing sorties, airpower did not prevent the enemy from continuing to advance and to eventually force the United States out of the war.7 While airpower helped bring the North Vietnamese to the diplomatic table, it was not able to defeat the elusive guerrillas. Ultimately, explained one historian, “at the lowest level of the conflict, protracted guerrilla-style war poses a problem the US military has been unable or unwilling to solve.”8

Against Iraq, coalition forces found an enemy who was particularly vulnerable to airpower. Still, the lessons from the Gulf War are neither necessarily universal nor applicable in other conflicts. Although airpower dominated the Gulf War as no other, concluded Eliot Cohen, “no military technology (indeed, no technology at all) works all the time.” Ultimately, enthusiasts have to realize that airpower is not necessarily a “shining sword.”9

Yet, airpower is a critical competency in the adoption of a new American way of warfare. Given the right circumstances, it can be effective in acting alone or in the joint arena. “American leaders at the end of this century,” acknowledge Cohen, “indeed have been vouchsafed with a military instrument of a potency rarely known in the history of war.”10

In its past spectrum of achievements, airpower helped control the seas, occupy land, support armies, and supply others. Against Mu‘ammar Gadhafi, it delivered a violent and startling psychological message. During the Gulf conflict, in a “war of a thousand cuts,” it forced upon Iraq extensive strategic paralysis and ultimately a decisive defeat.11

As recently as 1995, airpower aided the Bosnian peace negotiations by conducting a “Deliberate Force” air campaign against the Serbs that ultimately encouraged them to sign the Dayton Accords.12 Within this spectrum of achievements there were many great successes. Among the more prominent, but seldom cited, was the use of land-based airpower to control the seas.

Click to continue . . .

Sea Control: Land-Based Airpower versus Ships

In 1919, Lt Comdr B. G. Leighton, US Navy, began the first serious American dialogue on the use of airpower for sea control. His article, “Possibilities of Bombing Aircraft,” outlined how airplanes could attack and destroy the enemy’s naval forces.13 Building upon this concept, William “Billy” Mitchell described a maritime scenario in which dirigibles conducted ocean reconnaissance, fighters gained command of the air, and bombers attacked enemy ships.14

In 1921, after sinking the battleship Ostfriesland, Mitchell proved that many of these theories were possible. Agreeing with both Mitchell and Leighton, an Army and Navy board declared that “aircraft carrying high-capacity, high-explosive bombs of sufficient size have adequate offensive power to sink or seriously damage any naval vessel at present constructed, provided such projectiles can be placed in the water alongside the vessel.”15

These concepts, however, remained dormant until 1937, when the Japanese marched out of Manchuria and invaded China. In their assault against Shanghai, the Japanese sent the cruiser Idzumo into the Yangtze River, where it began firing upon the city. Several miles away, in Nanking, Col Claire L. Chennault, advisor to the Chinese air force, tried to disrupt this attack by sending Northrop 2E bombers against the warship.

Piloted by the Chinese, these planes flew over Shanghai and dive-bombed the cruiser. Following behind in a reconnaissance aircraft, Chennault claimed that a five-hundred-pound bomb exploded on the deck and that the ship later sank. “At the end of the war,” he explained, “a nose count of the Jap Navy showed the alleged Idzumo, sunk in the mud at Kure.”16 Most authorities, however, agree that the bombs fell short and that the cruiser remained unscathed.17 In any case, this was one of the first attacks by land-based airpower against a ship in World War II.

Historically, America based its strategy on superior numbers fortified by mass production.

Before America became involved in World War II, the British began fighting Germany for control of the seas around the British Isles. In this struggle, known as the Battle of the Atlantic between 1939 and 1942, 153 German U-boats successfully sank 1,124 British and neutral ships. These losses included the British aircraft carriers HMS Courageous and HMS Ark Royal and the battleships HMS Royal Oak and HMS Barham.18 German submarines sank another 1,160 Allied ships in 1942 and reduced Britain’s oil imports to a trickle.19 “The U-boat attack,” acknowledged Winston Churchill, “was our worst evil.”20

When the war began, Germany had 56 seaworthy submarines. By 1943, however, they had more than three hundred, many of which were patrolling in the mid-Atlantic just south of Greenland. Known as the “Black Pit,” this arena was free of Allied air coverage. Because of the submarine’s great successes, Churchill told an anti-U-boat committee in October 1942 to find better methods of fighting this menace.21 One recommendation focused on converting B-24 Liberators into long-range antisubmarine aircraft and deploying them into the Black Pit.22

Three months later, 11 Liberators from the Royal Air Force (RAF) Coastal Command’s 120th Squadron landed in Iceland. From here they flew into the Black Pit and began patrolling. Armed with machine guns, acoustical homing torpedoes, and fifteen hundred pounds of depth charges, each Liberator had a range of over twenty-three hundred miles and could remain on station for about three hours

Go to Part 2