AIRPOWER DOCTRINE
Airpower Doctrine in the Late 1970'S and 1980'S

All sites listed were last accessed October 13, 2004.

[Return to Table of Contents]

Books

Brown, Neville. The Future of Air Power. New York, Holmes & Meier Pubs, 1986. 309 p.
Chapter 2. Contemporary Air Doctrines, pp 33-48.
   The West, pp 33-41.
   Soviet Perceptions, pp 41-46.
   References, pp 47-48.
Index, pp 301-309.
Book call no.: 358.403 B879f

Futrell, Robert Frank. Ideas, Concepts, Doctrine: Basic Thinking in the United States Air Force, 1961-1984, Volume II. Maxwell AFB, AL, Air University Press, December 1989. 789 p.
Chapter 5. Strategic Challenges to Air Power, 1970-83, pp 333-465. (Notes, pp 452-465).
Chapter 6. Two Decades of Tactical Air Command Development, 1964-84, pp 467-581. (Notes, pp 567-579).
Chapter 7. The Air Force in the Defense Department, pp 583-620. (Notes, pp 617-620).
Chapter 8. Global Airmobility Forces, pp 623-675. (Notes, pp 669-674).
Chapter 9. The Air Force in Space, pp 677-709. (Notes, pp 704-708).
Chapter 10. The Never-Ending Quest for Air Force Doctrine, pp 711-750. (Notes, pp 745-749).
Also available online at: http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/aupress/catalog/books/Futrell_B31.htm
Book call no.: 358.0973 A298i

Hallion, Richard P. Storm Over Iraq: Air Power and the Gulf War. Washington, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1992. 383 p. (Smithsonian History of Aviation Series)
Chapter Two. Rebuilding Air Superiority, pp 27-54.
Chapter Three. Reforging Forces for General War, pp 55-82.
Notes to Chapters Two and Three, pp 327-335.
Index, pp 373-383.
Book call no.: 358.4030973 H189s

Lambeth, Benjamin J. The Transformation of American Air Power. Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 2000. 337 p.
An introduction to the principal air power issues confronting the United States today. Through a review of American experience from the Vietnam War to the Balkans, Lambeth provides historical underpinnings for the current air power debate.
Book call no.: 358.400973 L223t

Lupton, David E. On Space Warfare: A Space Power Doctrine. Maxwell AFB, AL, Air University Press, June 1988. 149 p. (Airpower Research Institute Report)
"This book is extremely topical and provides exceptional vantage into the current issues regarding space. The author has clearly defined the various belief structures or doctrines on both sides of the Star Wars debate. The articulation of these various doctrines is of tremendous value to those who wish to understand not only the opposition's beliefs but also the roots of their own beliefs." (Col Sidney J. Wise, USAF, Commander, Center for Aerospace Doctrine, Research, and Education).
Notes with each Chapter.
Also available online at: http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/aupress/Books/Lupton/lupton.pdf
Book call no.: 358.8 L966o

Miller, Charles E. Airlift Doctrine. Maxwell AFB, AL, Air University Press, 1988. 435 p.
"This is not a history of military airlift but rather an investigation of ideas and concepts as they have evolved and have been applied to warfighting. (Taken from Foreword by BrigGen John C. Fryer, Jr., Commander, Center for Aerospace Doctrine, Research, and Education).
Bibliographic Notes follow each chapter.
Also available online at: http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/aupress/catalog/books/Miller_B21.htm
Book call no.: 358.440973 M647a

Mrozek, Donald J. The US Air Force After Vietnam: Postwar Challenges and Potential for Responses. Maxwell AFB, AL, Air University Press, 1988. 126 p. (Center for Aerospace Doctrine, Research and Education Publication)
"The relevance of the Vietnam experience depends, in part, on the agenda of those studying it. The special risk for the military is tied to the importance of doctrine, a consciously advanced and sharply articulated ideology of military affairs."
Also available online at: http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/aupress/catalog/books/Mrozek_B26.htm
Book call no.: 355.033573 M939u

Sherry, Michael S. The Rise of American Air Power: The Creation of Armageddon. New Haven, Yale University Press, 1987. 435 p.
Chapter 10. The Persistence of Apocalyptic Fantasy, pp 301-356.
Sources and Notes for Chapter 10, pp 410-420.
Select Bibliography, pp 421-428.
Index, pp 429-435.
Book call no.: 358.400973 S553r

Warden, John A., III. The Air Campaign Planning for Combat. Washington, DC, National Defense University, 1988. 193 p.
"The Air Campaign is an attempt to come to grips with the very complex philosophy and theory associated with air war at the operational level." (From the Preface).
Also available online at: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/warden/warden-all.htm
Book call no.: 358.414 W265a

Documents

Some of the documents cited in this section are student papers written to fulfill PME school requirements.

Bingham, Price T.  Air Power and the Close-In-Battle: The Need for Doctrinal Change. Maxwell AFB, AL, January 1987. 63 p. (CADRE Research Paper)
"Military organizations use doctrine to guide their preparations for war. Unfortunately, because Air Force doctrine puts insufficient emphasis on either the presence of friction or the importance of time and space factors in theater war, the Air Force's preparations have created serious vulnerabilities."
Notes, pp 46-63.
Doc. call no.: M-U 43796-5

Frisby, John E. and Myers, Grover E. Strategic Forces in Transition: A Doctrine for Indivisible Aerospace Application. Maxwell AFB, AL, Air University Press, June 1985. 255 p. (Center for Aerospace Doctrine, Research and Education. Research Report, no. AU-ARI-85-2)
Volume 1. Indivisible Air Power and US Air Force Basic Doctrine, pp 1-90.
Volume 2. Air Power Doctrine and Long-Range Combat Aircraft: An Operations Perspective, pp 91-255.
Doc. call no.: M-U 40084-7 no.85-2

Slife, James C. "Creech Blue" General Bill Creech and the Reform of the Tactical Air Forces, 1978-1984. Maxwell AFB, Al, School of Advanced Airpower Studies, 2002. 138 p.
"General Bill Creech was the commander of the Tactical Air Command (TAC) from 1 May 1978 until 1 November 1984. During General Creech's six and a half year tenure several important developments took place within the Air Force and within the Department of Defense.
Doc. call no.: M-U 43998-1 S633c

U.S. Air Force. Six Man Group. Concept Feasibility Study on Realigning the Doctrine, Concepts and Objectives Functions and Responsibilities. Maxwell AFB, AL, 1975. 21 p. (4-M Panel-A Study Working Paper)
Statement of Problem: To examine the functions of the Directorate of Doctrine, Concepts and Objectives (AF/XOD), DCS, P&O, Hq USAF, and assess feasibility of alternative organizational arrangements for these functions.
Includes Executive Summary.
Doc. call no.: M-U 42985-15
 

Periodicals

AFM 1-1 -- Unfinished Business. Editorial. Air University Review 35:2-3 September-October 1984.
The Editorial is followed by two significant articles:
   Doctrine: Mere Words, or a Key to War-Fighting Competence? by LtCol Barry D. Watts and Maj James O. Hale, pp 4-15. (Notes, pp 13-15).
   USAF Doctrine: An Enduring Challenge, by Col Clifford R. Krieger, pp 16-25. (Notes, pp 24-25).
Also available online at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1984/sep-oct/editorial.html
Article by Watts online at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1984/sep-oct/watts.html
Article by Krieger online at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1984/sep-oct/krieger.html

Barger, Millard. What USAF Has to Do to Put the "Air" in AirLand Battle. Armed Forces Journal International 123:58+ June 1986.
"The new edition of FM 100-5 ... makes it clear that the higher levels of the Army have a much broader view of what the Air Force can do to put the 'air' in AirLand Battle. According to the new edition, 'Tactical air force missions which contribute most directly to land operations are counter air, air interdiction, close air support, special operations, and surveillance and reconnaissance'."

Bingham, Price T.  Air Base Survivability and V/STOL Aircraft: A Gap in Air Force Doctrine? Air University Review 37:51-57 January-February 1986.
"A more effective approach to doctrine development would make base survivability a key factor in determining what aircraft characteristics are required."
Notes, p 57.
Also available online at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1986/jan-feb/bingham.html

Drew, Dennis M.  Of Trees and Leaves--A New View of Doctrine. Air University Review 33:40-48 January-February 1982.
"Air power doctrine is a newer example of environmental doctrine. The Italian airman Giulio Douhet and American aviator William "Billy" Mitchell were two of the most articulate exponents of air power, and their writings form the foundation of air power doctrine. Their emphasis was on the decisiveness of air forces in war, theorizing that strategic bombing would destroy a nation's will and ability to wage war. Following this logic, they believed armies and navies were, at best, defensive weapons and that the outcome of war would be decided in the air."
Notes, p 48.
Also available online at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1982/jan-feb/drew.html

Drew, Dennis M. Two Decades in the Air Power Wilderness--Do We Know Where We Are? Air University Review 37:2-13 September-October 1986.
"...improvement is noticeable and admirable, but the Air Force remains in the doctrinal wilderness. Strangely, however, our experience in the wilderness, particularly since 1979, has had a beneficial side. Amid the confusion, accusations, and suspicions that surrounded air power doctrine since 1965, perceptive airmen have begun to realize that war is not the simplistic affair visualized by the pioneers of air power doctrine... We have begun to realize that there are no magic answers which airpower can deliver and that, in fact, war is a multifaceted phenomenon fought in three dimensions."
Also available online at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1986/sep-oct/drew.html

Ehrhart, Robert C.  Some Thoughts on Air Force Doctrine. Air University Review 31:29-38 March-April 1980.
"By trying to stretch a single term, 'doctrine,' to accommodate all things, we wind up with an amorphous concept that falls short in all areas. This criticism is not merely quibbing with semantics. The inability of Air Force people to understand the essence and purpose of doctrine is largely the result of trying to include too much under one umbrella word. This article offers a more manageable concept of doctrine."
Notes, p 38.
Also available online at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1980/mar-apr/ehrhart.html

Fabyanic, Thomas A. War, Doctrine, and the Air War College: Some Relationships and Implications for the U.S. Air Force. Air University Review 37:2-29 January-February 1986.
Doctrine--AFM 1-1, pp 14-20.
Notes, pp 26-29.
Also available online at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1986/jan-feb/fabyanic.html

Fal, John W.  Deficiencies in Air Force Doctrinal Education. Air University Review 36:96-98 January-February 1985.
"The creation of a separate Air Force nearly four decades ago was a monumental organizational decision based on the unique decisiveness of air power. The status of the Air Force of the 1980s and beyond should not be jeopardized because the doctrinal reasons for that decision are no longer understood by Air Force officers."
Also available online at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1985/jan-feb/fal.html

Friedenstein, Charles D. The Uniqueness of Space Doctrine (AFM 1-1/AFM 1-2). Air University Review 37:13-23 November-December 1985.
"The evolution of the term 'aerospace doctrine' inappropriately links our air and space doctrines. Space systems have characteristics that are different from air systems, which cause differences in the principles of war as they apply to possible conflict in space. Thus space doctrine is unique."
Notes, pp 22-23.
Also available online at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1985/nov-dec/frieden.html

Holley, I. B., Jr.  Concepts, Doctrines, Principles: Are You Sure You Understand These Terms? Air University Review 35:90-93 July-August 1984.
"In contrast to a concept, what is doctrine? Doctrine is what is being taught, i.e., rules or procedures drawn by competent authority. Doctrines are precepts, guides to action, and suggested methods for solving problems or attaining desired results."
Commentary: Informal Doctrine and the Doctrinal Process: A Response, by LtCol Dennis M. Drew. Air University Review 35:96-98 September-October 1984.
Also available online at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1984/jul-aug/holley.html
Response by Drew online at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1984/sep-oct/drew.html

Hutchinson, D. L. A New Look at an Old Problem. Air University Review 30:69-73 January-February 1979.
"This analysis was done merely to point out that we do not make optimal use of the structure that we have created. Historically, we have changed our basic doctrine more than twice as often as the more specific operational doctrine. Should not a change in basic doctrine result in a refinement in operational doctrine? Presumably yes, but it has not worked that way. The absence of change in subordinate manuals suggests that there is no real thread running through our doctrinal work. We should correct this deficiency if we are to have a sound doctrinal program."
Also available online at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1979/jan-feb/hutchinson.html

Lorenzini, Dino A. Space Power Doctrine. Air University Review 33:16-21 July-August 1982.
"The application of space power doctrine is differentiated from that of air power doctrine by the atmospheric boundary above which aircraft cannot operate. Ballistic missiles and the space shuttle represent systems that operate through the transitional boundary from the lower atmosphere to outer space. They should be included in space power doctrine when their mission terminates in space and should be included in air power doctrine when their mission terminates in the atmosphere or on the earth's surface. Other overlaps exist, just as they do between land, sea, and air, and they should be appropriately defined."
Notes, p 21.
Also available online at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1982/jul-aug/lorenzini.html

Machos, James A. TACAIR Support for Airland Battle. Air University Review 35:16-24 May-June 1984.
Air Power Doctrine and the Tactical Air Control System, pp 17-18.
Joint AirLand Battle?, pp 21-22.
TACAIR and Deep Attack, pp 22-24.
Notes, p 24.
Also available online at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1984/may-jun/machos.html

McCoy, Tidal W. "Full Strike"--The Myths and Realities of AirLand Battle. Armed Forces Journal International 121:78+ June 1984.
"There are points of disagreement between the Army and Air Force regarding the formulation and implementation of these doctrines (AirLand Battle, Army 21, FOFA). Ironically, some of these disagreements center around the organization and control of air resources, particularly with regard to the level at which such resources will be controlled. This is ironic because some of the same arguments were involved in World War II when the Air Corps belonged to the Army.

Murray, Williamson. A Tale of Two Doctrines: The Luftwaffe's 'Conduct of the Air War' and the USAF's Manual 1-1. Journal of Strategic Studies 6:84-93 December 1983.
"Given the importance of doctrine to the conceptual preparations of military forces for war, this author thought that it would be particularly instructive to compare two doctrinal statements for not only their realism but their adaptability. The first statement comes from the 1930s, and somewhat ironically enunciates the clearest vision of how air power would be used in the Second World War. It is an especially clear statement on the considerable difficulties that air forces would face in the conduct of air operations during that conflict. The second doctrinal statement comes from the air force of one of the world's strongest military powers today. It has, of course, a wealth of experience on which to draw--nearly all of which was not available in the 1930s."
"The authors of AFM 1-1 suggest that the framework within which they have cast their effort is one that is 'descriptive in nature and should be viewed from a philosophical, not a legal, context.' That is indeed the proper approach. The problem is that AFM 1-1 is not a doctrinal statement. It does not possess the broad approach of the Luftwaffe's 'Conduct of the Air War' nor does it even contain the tight framework within which the Army Air Forces prepared in the early 1940s."

Myers, Grover E. Aerospace Doctrine: We're Not There Yet. Air University Review 37:91-93 September-October 1986.
After his critique of AFM 1-1, the author states... "The discussion of the synergism of air and space forces must filter down to our operational and tactical doctrine (our 1- and 3- series manuals) to include consideration of how space elements enhance our capability to accomplish our strategic and tactical missions. AFM 1-1 and its Air Staff authors must take the lead here, however, or a truly unified aerospace doctrinal regime will be slow, maybe dangerously slow, to emerge."
Also available online at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1986/sep-oct/myers.html

Myers, Kenneth A. and Tockston, John G.  Real Tenets of Military Space Doctrine. Airpower Journal 2:54-68 Winter 1988.
"It is the objective of this article not only to focus on the invalid applications of air doctrine to space capabilities but also to prescribe those 'unalterable truths' that actually characterize military space operations. Instead of being extrapolated from air experience, these concepts are based on fundamental knowledge that has been well tested and proven by military space practitioners during the past quarter century."
Notes, pp 67-68.
Also available online at:  http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj88/myers.html

Newton, Richard D.  A Question of Doctrine? Airpower Journal 2:17-22 Fall 1988.
"The potential for future doctrinal conflicts is substantial, especially as new technologies further obscure the distinction between a helicopter and an airplane. Just as we are now revisiting issues supposedly settled by the Johnson-McConnell Agreement, so can we expect to see them again unless we resolve the doctrinal question. The Air Force and the Army must confront this problem, if not now, then certainly in near future. Countering the air-to-air helicopter threat is part of the Air Force's doctrinal counterair obligation. Relying on the Army because it already owns most of the helicopters is ducking the issue."
Notes, p 22.
Also available online at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj88/newton.html

Powell, Jon S.  Airland Battle: The Wrong Doctrine for the Wrong Reason. Air University Review 36:15-22 May-June 1985.
"AirLand Battle Doctrine was developed to offset Soviet/Warsaw Pact numerical advantages in tanks, artillery, aircraft, armored personnel carriers, and soldiers. Basic AirLand Battle requirements are to see deep and strike deep. However, this doctrine makes two faulty assumptions: first, that Soviet/Warsaw Pact forces will deploy in two-echelon configurations and, second, that the U.S. Air Forces can support the extended battle.
The author concludes... "Doctrine should provide a general blueprint for action that addresses the threat and ensures victory. Doctrine must make the best use of existing resources and capabilities, while guarding against future enemy developments. The concept of deep battle fulfills none of these requirements and therefore should be discarded."
Also available online at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1985/may-jun/powell.html

Rippen, Stephen T.  An Army and Air Force Issue: Principles and Procedures for Airland Warfare. Air University Review 37:60-69 May-June 1986.
Contemporary Joint Doctrine, pp 62-63.
Notes, p 69.
Also available online at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1986/may-jun/rippe.html

Temple, L. Parker, III. How Dare They Tamper with the Sacred Functions of the Horse Cavalry? Air University Review 37:24-30 March-April 1986.
"General William 'Billy' Mitchell spent a career dedicated to explaining, in terms of military doctrine, the impact that air power could have. His service branch did not support him professionally or doctrinally. More than fifty years later, the service that resulted from his efforts is facing a similar problem as space forces change the nature of military operations. Today's Air Force, however, is in a better position to adapt to space forces than was the Army to General Mitchell's air forces. The key difference will be the application of space experience gained during the past twenty-seven years."
Notes, p 30.
Also available online at:  http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1986/mar-apr/temple.html

Wilke, Paul L. Tactical Airlift Tactics and Doctrine: More Carts, More Horses. Air University Review 37:21-27 May-June 1986.
"Although 1966 operational doctrine does not strictly adhere to the ideas/doctrine of massed airborne armies as a strategic deep-strike force, it is much closer with its 'do anything, anywhere, anytime' ideas to that doctrine than it is to the doctrine of limited airborne operations and greater emphasis of resupply and logistical support. Yet the questions raised and points made by the adherents of the latter doctrine seem even more valid today than they were during World War II. Thus, the matter remains a doctrinal question that must be discussed and clarified."
Also available online at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1986/may-jun/wilke.html

[Return to Top] [Return to Table of Contents]

Return to Bibliography List