# Airpower’s Crucial Role in Irregular Warfare



## daftandbarmy (25 Jul 2007)

An interesting site with lots of relevant articles for the brylcreem crowd...
 ;D

Airpower’s Crucial Role in Irregular Warfare

Because the dominance of America’s airpower in traditional wars has not been lost on those who threaten our national interests, we can logically expect them to turn increasingly to irregular warfare (IW). The ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan reflect the ways that US military power has had to adapt and transform to meet new challenges presented by enemies who have respect for our conventional dominance and the determination to find exploitable seams in our capabilities.

Although the capabilities and effects that America’s airpower brings to the fight are not as visible to the casual observer as the maneuvers of ground forces, airpower (including operations in the air, space, and cyberspace domains) remains an invaluable enabler for those forces. Airpower can also serve as a powerful IW capability in its own right, as it did early in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. No one should dismiss IW as falling strictly within the purview of ground or special operations forces. Understanding the IW environment and, in particular, airpower’s immense contributions is critical for America’s future Air Force leaders, who will prove instrumental in ensuring that the service continues adapting to an ever-changing enemy and bringing relevant capabilities to bear in an ever-changing fight.

http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj07/sum07/peck.html


----------



## dapaterson (25 Jul 2007)

Thre is ongoing high-level doctrinal conflict brewing in the US.  The Army wants different forms of fire support in COIN than the Air Force is willing to provide.  The Air Force is therefore launchign a charm offensive to try to protect their turf.

The overly simplfied conflict is that the Air Force views 500lb bombs from 20 000' as valuable tools in COIN, and can't understnad why you'd ever want anything else; the Army considers this as one of many tools, and often inappropriate when attempting to engage the population, as risks of collateral damage are excessive.  The Army prefers low and slow aircraft support (the A-10) and its own assault helicopters (AH-64); indeed, Army aviation has grown largely to meet real and perceived shortcomings in Air Force support.

Perhpas the biggest issue is one internal to the Air Force:  what the Army truly wants as air support is surveillance and transport, hardly the realm of the traditional fighter jock.  With UAVs now armed and able to realize increased manouverability and carry increased payloads due to the elimination of the crew support requirement, the future of the traditional pilot may be in doubt... hardly reassuring to the Air Force hierarchy.


Just my 2c...


----------



## Greymatters (25 Jul 2007)

Unless an air force platform can deliver weapons with precision, it really has nothing to contribute to irregular warfare (other than support services).


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Jul 2007)

And it has always been thus....

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/1976sluglett.htm


----------

