AIRPOWER DOCTRINE
The Gulf War and Doctrine in the 1990'S

Contents

All sites listed were last accessed October 13, 2004.

 [Return to Table of Contents]

Books

Air Power History Turning Points from Kitty Hawk to Kosovo, edited by Sebastian Cox and Peter Gray. London, Frank Cass, 2002. 362 p. (Cass series studies in air power, no. 13)
Each paper considers the significant turning point in the air conflict considered: these include the 1991 bombing of Baghdad, Britain and NATO's strategy in Kosovo, the UK's doctrine and practice during the Gulf War, air tactics in North Africa during WWII, Soviet air doctrine from 1935-1941, and the development of air power during WWI.
Book call no.: 358.4009 A2981

American Defense Annual 1993, edited by Joseph Kruzel. Eighth Edition. New York, Lexington Books, 1993. 357 p.
Chapter 8. Rethinking Key West: Service Roles and Missions After the Cold War, by Peter D. Feaver and Kurt M. Campbell, pp 154-173.
Book call no.: 355.033073 A5121 8th ed. 1993

Battlefield of the Future: 21st Century Warfare Issues, edited by Barry R. Schneider and Lawrence E. Grinter. Maxwell AFB, AL, Air University Press, September 1995. 279 p.
Chapter 4. Air Theory for the Twenty-First Century, by Col John A. Warden, III, USAF, pp 103-124.
Notes for Chapter 4, pp 123-124.
Also available online at: http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/aupress/catalog/books/Schneider_B64.htm
 Book call no.: 355.0201 B336

Challenge and Response: Anticipating US Military Security Concerns, edited by Karl P. Magyar and others. Maxwell AFB, AL, Air University Press, 1994. 431 p.
Air Theory for the Twenty-First Century, by Col John A. Warden, III, pp 311-332.
Also available online at: http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/aupress/catalog/books/Magyar_B56.htm
Book call no.: 355.033073 C4373

Cushman, John H.  Thoughts for Joint Commanders. Annapolis, MD, U.S. Naval Institute Press, 1993. 56 p.
Section 10. The Joint Force Air Component Commander.
Section 11. Deep Operations.
Section 12. Responsive Air Operations.
Section 13. Targeting.
Book call no.: 355.356 C986t

Deliberate Force A Case Study in Effective Air Campaigning, edited by Robert C. Owen. Maxwell AFB, AL, Air University Press, 2000. 541 p.
Final Report of the Air University Balkans Air Campaign study.
 Also available at: http://aupress.au.af.mil/Books/Owen/Owen.pdf
Book call no.: 949.7103 D353

The Dynamics of Air Power, edited by Andrew Lambert and Arthur C. Williamson. Bracknell, Berkshire, Royal Air Force Staff College, 1996. 187 p.
Part I, Evolving Theory.
Part II, Air Power in Peace Support Operations.
Book call no.: 358.414 D997

The Future of Air Power in the Aftermath of the Gulf War. Proceedings of the April 1991 Conference on Aerospace Challenges and Missions. Edited by Richard H. Shultz, Jr. and Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, Jr. Maxwell AFB, AL, Air University Press, 1992. 374 p.
Air Power Since World War II--Consistent with Doctrine? By Dr. Williamson Murray, pp 95-113. (The first half of 1991..., pp 108-110).
Notes, pp 110-113.
Also available online at:  http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/aupress/catalog/books/Shultz_B48.htm
 Book call no.: 358.403 F996

Gray, Colin S. Explorations in Strategy. Westport, CT, Greenwood Press, 1996. 265 p. (Contributions in Military Studies, no. 164)
Chapter 4. The Advantages and Limitations of Air Power, pp 55-82.
Notes for Chapter 4, pp 77-82.
Book call no.: 355.4 G778e

Hall, Dewayne P. Integrating Joint Operations Beyond the FSCL: Is Current Doctrine Adequate? Maxwell AFB, AL, Air War College, 1997. 26 p. (Air War College Maxwell Paper No. 12)
"The study does an excellent job of defining the problem. It includes a comprehensive and useful summary of present terminology and doctrinal differences between the services. It then provides an assessment of the basic guidelines, terminology, and control measures, and offers detailed doctrinal, definitional, and organizational recommendations to resolve the problems. (From the Foreword by MajGen Timothy A. Kinnan, Commandant, Air War College).
Notes, pp 25-26.
Also available online at: https://research.au.af.mil/viewabstract.aspx?id=1240
Book call no.: 355.42 H175i

Hallion, Richard P. Storm over Iraq--Air Power and the Gulf War. Washington, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1992. 383 p. (Smithsonian History of Aviation Series)
Invigorating Military Thought and Doctrine: Summers, Warden, Lehman, Rice, pp 115-120.
Notes to Chapter Four, pp 335-341.
See Index for subject: Air Doctrine--Soundness of.
Book call no.: 358.4030973 H189s

The Henry L. Stimson Center. Key West Revisited: Roles and Missions of the US Armed Forces in the Twenty-First Century, by Barry M. Blechman and others. Washington, March 1993. 34 p. (Report, no. 8)
Air Force Functions: Air Superiority; Battlefield Interdiction; Airlift, pp 25-26.
Functions That Should Be Downgraded: Close Air Support; Nuclear Warfare; Strategic Bombing, pp 26-28.
Book call no.: 355.30973 K44

Mann, Edward C., III. Thunder and Lightning: Desert Storm and the Airpower Debates. Maxwell AFB, AL, Air University Press, April 1995. 220 p. (Volume Two of a two-volume series)
"Colonel Mann explains that debate (between 'tactical' and 'strategic' schools of thought) in terms of an almost 'theological' division within the Air Force over the proper uses of airpower. Judiciously incorporating a historical perspective, he asserts that this debate is not new, but is rooted in the earliest conceptualizations of airpower's utility. We are still engaged, he argues, in a 75-year-old debate (beginning in World War I) over issues that our doctrine answered 50 years ago (during World War II). The debate itself often hinders us from moving on to more current--and, possibly, more important--issues. Colonel Mann believes that the brilliant performance of aerospace power in Desert Shield/Storm resulted from an internal compromise which reflected, to a remarkable degree, airpower doctrine of 1943 (specifically, FM 100-20, 'Command and Employment of Air Power' July 1943). While much has changed, especially in our technical ability to execute this doctrine, the internal divisions and resultant debate proved inefficient as we strove to apply some of the most basic tenets of aerospace doctrine." (Quoted from the Foreword by General Ronald R. Fogleman, USAF Chief of Staff).
Notes accompany each chapter; Index, pp 201-220.
Also available online at:  http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/aupress/catalog/books/Mann_B2.htm
Book call no.: 956.7044 M281t

Martin, Jerome V.  Victory from Above: Air Power Theory and the Conduct of Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Maxwell AFB, AL, Air University Press, June 1994. 98 p. (Air University. ARI Command-Sponsored Research Report, no. AU-ARI-92-8)
Chapter 3. Air Power and Desert Shield, pp 29-44. (Notes, pp 41-44).
Chapter 4. Planning the Storm, pp 45-61 (Notes, pp 58-61).
Chapter 5. Applying Air Power Theory, pp 63-91 (Notes, pp 84-91).
Book call no.: 956.70442 M381v

Mason, R. A. Tony. Air Power: A Centennial Appraisal. London, Brassey's, 1994. 320 p.
"This is a study of the role of air power in the dramatic international environment at the end of east-west confrontation and the re-emergence of strategic unpredictability and uncertainty from 1989 to 1994.
It examines in detail air power in the last years of NATO and the Warsaw Treaty Organization, the conventional arms limitation process, the Gulf War, peacekeeping operations, the disintegration of the Soviet Air Forces and potential reconstitution of the Russian, and finally looks forward to air power's second century world-wide."
Bibliography, pp 302-310; Index, pp 311-320.
Book call no.: 358.4009 M412a

Meilinger, Phillip S. 10 Propositions Regarding Air Power. Washington, Air Force History and Museums Program, 1995. 86 p.
Also published as Royal Australian Air Power Studies Centre Paper, No. 36 (M-U 36760-112).
"Colonel Phillip Meilinger has posited a group of provocative propositions that will instill an appreciation for air power for those who seek to understand it and challenge the assumptions of those who do not yet appreciate what it offers. This book has been deliberately designed in a small format so that it can be readily carried in the pocket of a flight suit or a BDU." (Quoted from the Foreword by Richard P. Hallion).
"The study does an excellent job of defining the problem. It includes a comprehensive and useful summary of present terminology and doctrinal differences between the services. It then provides an assessment of the basic guidelines, terminology, and control measures, and offers detailed doctrinal, definitional, and organizational recommendations to resolve the problems. (From the Foreword by MajGen Timothy A. Kinnan, Commandant, Air War College).
Notes, pp 25-26.
Also available online at: http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/fulltext/10_propositions_regarding_air_power.pdf
Book call no.: 358.4 M513t

Pape, Robert A. Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War. Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 1996. 366 p. (Cornell Studies in Security Affairs)
Chapter 3. Coercive Air Power.
Book call no.: 358.424 P214b

Pivarsky, Carl R., Jr. Airpower in the Context of a Dysfunctional Joint Doctrine. Maxwell AFB, AL, Air War College, 1997. 27 p. (Air War College Maxwell Paper No. 7)
"This important research deals with the intellectual foundation of the American profession of arms--our joint doctrine. The author argues that the current doctrine development process has become a zero-sum game driven by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) declaring joint doctrine to the 'authoritative.' The resultant interservice competition has produced a keystone joint doctrine publication, Joint Publication (Pub) 3-0, Doctrine for Joint Operations, that unfortunately has been corrupted to serve parochial service interests." (From the Foreword by MajGen D. Bruce Smith, Commandant, Air War College).
Notes, pp 25-27.
Also available online at: http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/aupress/Maxwell_Papers/Text/mp07.pdf
Book call no.: 355.033573 P693a

Rand Corp. A League of Airmen: U.S. Air Power in the Gulf War, by James A. Winnefeld, Preston Niblack, and Dana J. Johnson. Santa Monica, CA, 1994. 335 p. (MR-343-AF)
The State of Air Doctrine on the Eve of the Gulf War, pp 17-19.
The Evolution of Air Doctrine, pp 58-65.
The Triumph of Service Doctrine and Preferences, p 265.
Bibliography, pp 317-323.
Book call no.: 956.7044248 W434L

Reynolds, Richard T. Heart of the Storm: The Genesis of the Air Campaign Against Iraq. Maxwell AFB, AL, Air University Press, January 1995. 147 p. (Volume One of a Two-Volume Series)
"I do believe ... that 'Heart of the Storm' does indeed have value for people trying to understand the genesis of the air campaign and something about complex decision making. It also begins to lay out in the clear light of day some of the important air power doctrine issues which we must understand as professionals." (Quoted from LtGen Jay W. Kelley in "Note from the Commander of Air University, p iii)
Notes accompany each chapter; Index, pp 141-147.
Also available online at: http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/aupress/catalog/books/Reynolds_B55.htm
Book call no.: 956.7044248 R464h

Royal Air Force. Office of the Chief of the Air Staff. Royal Air Force Air Power Doctrine. London, HMSO, 1993. 137 p. (AP 3000 - 2nd Edition)
"Since the first edition of AP 3000 was published, the RAF's air power doctrine has been reviewed and refined in the light of operational experience in the Gulf and elsewhere."
Index, pp 135-137.
Book call no.: 358.400941 R888

Royal Australian Air Force. The Air Power Manual. 3rd Edition. Fairbairn, Australia, Air Power Studies Centre, 1998. 57 p.
Chapter One. Introduction to Doctrine and Professional Mastery, pp 1-7.
Book call no.: 358.4030994 A298

Royal Australian Air Force. Air Power Studies Centre. Smaller But Larger: Conventional Air Power into the 21st Century, edited by Alan Stephens. Proceedings. Conference held by the Royal Australian Air Force 25 March to 27 March 1991. Canberra, Australian Government Publishing Service, 1991. 223 p.
Current Doctrine Development, Panel One: Group Captain B.J. Espeland, Group Captain A.G.B. Vallance and Lt Colonel Charles M. Westenhoff, pp 71-85.
United States Air Power Inbound to the 21st Century, by Lt General Charles G. Boyd, pp 87-95.
Book call no.: 358.403 S635

RUSI and Brassey's Defence Yearbook 1992, edited by the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies. London, Brassey's (UK), 1992. 293 p.
Global Air Power and Power Projection, by LtCol Phillip S. Meilinger, USAF, pp 193-202.
Book call no.: 359.058 B82 1992

Space Handbook--A War Fighter's Guide to Space, prepared by Maj Michael J. Muolo; compiled by Richard A. Hand; edited by Richard A. Hand, Bonnie Houchen, and Lou Larson. Maxwell AFB, AL, Air University Press, December 1993. 2 vols. (AU-18)
Space Doctrine: Joint Space Doctrine; Air Force Space Doctrine, Volume One, pp 67-71.
Also available online at: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/au-18/au180001.htm
Book call no.: 629.4 A2984s 1993

U.S. Air Force. Toward the Future: Global Reach--Global Power. Washington, 1993. 1 vol.
U.S. Air Force White Papers, 1989-1992.
Book call no.: 358.400973 T737

Vallance, Andrew G. B. The Air Weapon: Doctrines of Air Power Strategy and Operational Art. New York, St. Martin's Press, 1996. 214 p.
"This book focuses on the higher levels of air power doctrine. That is to say it deals with strategic and operational doctrine as they relate to air power; it reaches down into tactical doctrine and technical detail only when it is essential to explain an operational concept. The study encompasses doctrines not only for war-fighting, but also for war-prevention."
Notes, pp 191-203.
Select Bibliography, pp 204-209; Index, pp 210-214.
Book call no.: 358. U177a

Video

Air University. College for Aerospace Doctrine, Research and Education. The Doctrine Strategy Link. Maxwell AFB, AL, 1996. 1 videotape. (Air and Space Power Series).
"This videotape examines the theory behind air and space power. The videotape explores the relationship between military strategy and doctrine, and examines the levels of warfare, strategy, and doctrine. This videotape explains the ways that doctrine influences strategy, strategy influences doctrine, and the numerous other factors affecting both." (Taken from memorandum by LtGen Jay W. Kelley).
Video call no.: M-U 37097-53

Documents

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

Barlow, Jason B. Strategic Paralysis--An Airpower Theory for the Present. Maxwell AFB, AL, Air University Press, February 1994. 91 p. (Air University. School of Advanced Airpower Studies. Thesis)
"If 'airpower is targeting,' as some theorists contend, then the selection of those targets is the key to unlocking the full potential of what airpower can bring to any conflict. Strategic paralysis rests upon a basic premise, supported by years of experience and common sense."
Bibliography, pp 83-91.
Shortened version appears in Airpower Journal 7:4-15 Winter 1993.
Also available online at: http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/aupress/SAAS_Theses/SAASS_Out/Barlow/Barlow_about_out.htm
Doc. call no.: M-U 43998-1a B258s

Barr, Richard G. U.S. Military Doctrine: Culture, Contrasts, and Agendas. Newport, RI, June 1994. 35 p. (Naval War College Paper)
Chapter II. Service Doctrines:
   U.S. Air Force Basic Aerospace Doctrine, pp 11-15;
   Air Force Culture or Theology?
   Comments and Criticisms.
   Air Force Agendas.
Chapter III. Doctrines in Conflict.
   The Air Force and Everybody Else, pp 18-20.
Doc. call no.: M-U 41662 B268u

Barry, Robert F., II. "Who's Zooming Who?" Joint Doctrine and the Army-Air Force Debate over the FSCL. Fort Leavenworth, KS, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, May 1994. 52 p. (School of Advanced Military Studies. Monograph)
The Air Force Doctrinal Perspective, pp 11-19.
Doc. call no.: M-U 42022-2 B281w

Bingham, Price T. Air Bases and Runways: Doctrinal Orphans of Operational Art. Maxwell AFB, AL, February 1990. 25 p. (CADRE Research Paper)
"Air Force fighter and attack aircraft now being proposed and developed for close air support and battlefield air interdiction missions have a good chance of failing to live up to their billing. The quality of Air Force doctrine, rather than the relevant technology, is the key to understanding why."
Notes, pp 19-25.
Doc. call no.: M-U 43796-8

Bingham, Price T. A Revolution in the Conduct of Conventional Warfare: Air Interdiction and the Need for Doctrinal Change. Maxwell AFB, AL, June 1992. 35 p. (CADRE Research Paper)
"...technological developments are continuing to make changes in the US military services' doctrines appropriate. Perhaps the one area where changes are needed most involves the role air interdiction should play in the conduct of a conventional campaign."
Notes, pp 29-35.
Doc. call no.: M-U 43796-11

Cichowski, Kurt A. Doctrine Matures Through a Storm: An Analysis of the New Air Force Manual 1-1. Maxwell AFB, AL, Air University Press, June 1993. 59 p. (Air University. School of Advanced Airpower Studies. Thesis)
Analysis of the New Air Force Manual 1-1, pp 19-33. (Notes, pp 28-33).
Future Implications, pp 35-47. (Notes, pp 44-47).
Bibliography, pp 51-59.
Also available online at: http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/aupress/SAAS_Theses/SAASS_Out/Cichowski/Cichowski_about_out.htm
Doc. call no.: M-U 43998-1a C568d

Cody, James R. AWPD-42 to Instant Thunder Consistent, Evolutionary Thought or Revolutionary Change? Maxwell AFB, AL, School of Advanced Airpower Studies, 1996. 62 p.
This study analyzes the air war plans in World War II and the Persian Gulf War. The goal of this study is to ascertain whether there is a continuity of thought reflected in American air planning over the years. This study also evaluates Korea and Vietnam as a bridge between World War II and Operation Desert Storm and evaluates the implications of this demonstrated continuity of thought on current and future Air Force doctrine and strategy.
 Also available online at: http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA424862
Doc. call no.: M-U 43998-1 C671a

Corley, John D. W. Air Superiority: Blunting Nearsighted Criticism. Carlisle Barracks, PA, April 1993. 28 p. (US Army War College. Military Studies Program Paper)
"This paper serves as a vehicle to provide an understanding of air superiority and compelling arguments for its value. To document that value, air superiority is examined from a historical perspective. While the history of air power is short relative to other forms of warfare, it does provide a laboratory to examine theory. The paper ... does attempt to answer the fundamental issue of why control of the air must remain a high-priority role of critical necessity."
Bibliography, pp 27-28.
Doc. call no.: M-U 39080-83 C799a

Day, John W. Air Supremacy and Airland Operations. Fort Leavenworth, KS, June 1992. 118 p. (US Army Command and General Staff College. Thesis, Master of Military Art and Science)
Chapter 6. Air Supremacy and Operation Desert Storm, pp 76-89. (Notes, p 89).
Chapter 7. Future of Air Superiority, pp 90-105. (Notes, p 105).
Bibliography, pp 115-118.
Doc. call no.: M-U 42022 D274a

Devereaux, Richard T. Theater Airlift Management and Control: Should We Turn Back the Clock To Be Ready for Tomorrow? Maxwell AFB, AL, September 1994. 73 p. (Air University. School of Advanced Airpower Studies. Thesis)
Chapter 4. Current Doctrine--At Odds with Past Lessons? pp 37-45.
Chapter 5. Is Current Doctrine Equipped for Future Challenges? pp 47-54.
Bibliography, pp 67-73.
Also available online at: http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/aupress/SAAS_Theses/SAASS_Out/Devereaux/Devereaux_about_out.htm
Doc. call no.: M-U 43998-1a D491t

Faber, Peter R. Competing Visions of Aerospace Power: A Language for the 21st Century. Newport, RI, Naval War College, February 1997. 139 p. (Naval War College. Department of Advanced Research Paper)
"...current members of our aerospace forces do not have a 'language' or 'lexicon' to differentiate one theory of airpower from another. To solve this problem, this report 1) describes the 'prison house of language' that thwarted airpower theorists in the past, 2) provides a model to analyze airpower theory properly, and 3) reviews 15 different theories of airpower, with a primary emphasis on five post-1960 theorists (Irving Janis, Thomas Schelling, Ernest May, John Warden, and Robert Pape)."
Bibliography, pp 126-139.
Also available online at: http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ada325593
Doc. call no.: M-U 41662-6 F115c

Fancher, Judson. A Blind Eye: The Consideration for Terrain and Environment in Air Force Doctrine. Stonybrook, NY, May 1993. 52 p. (AFIT-CIRK, State University of New York. Research Paper)
"The weakest areas of Air Force doctrine have been the operational level issues which address the effect of the theater's specific terrain, and historically certain difficulties can be traced to the lack of coherent ideas on how the shape of the terrain and environment, be it rugged or flat, have effected air operations in the theater of combat. Basic doctrine just touches on the subject of operational level conflict, and most of the other manuals, regardless of title, are actually tactically oriented. What the Air Force has lacked is a doctrine manual that directly addresses operational level air warfare. This paper will argue that this shortcoming arises out of a lack of critical historical analysis within air power doctrine and the Air Force community."
Bibliography, pp 45-52.
Doc. call no.: M-U 43567-648

Felker, Edward J. Does the Air Force Practice Its Doctrine? A Limited and Focused Air Campaign Concept. Fort Leavenworth, KS, June 1991. 139 p. (US Army Command and General Staff College. Thesis, Master of Military Art and Science)
"This study explores the U.S. Army and Air Force doctrinal base for building a focused and limited air campaign. The concept presented focuses on operational art and directly achieving the joint force commander's objectives versus generating air sorties to service targets.
"The current air apportionment and allocation system fosters equitable division of air power among all ground commanders. This study explores how air power can be more effectively massed to achieve the broad operational objectives, rather than simply divided to address all tactical considerations.
"The study focuses on operational art in applying air power against the what and when of the battle--the operational center of gravity, rather than the how and where reaction to enemy movements. This study promotes the return to the July 1943 U.S. War Department Field Manual 100-20, Command and Employment of Air Power idea of prioritization of air missions--first, air superiority, then isolation of the battlefield, and finally support of ground forces. By fostering a doctrine based on operational art, the Air Force will be better able to maximize air power's inherent capabilities of speed, range, and flexibility."
Bibliography, pp 128-139.
Doc. call no.: M-U 42022 F316d

Gass, Robert F. Converging Vectors: Comparing Emerging Army and Air Force Basic Doctrine. Fort Leavenworth, KS, 1997. 61 p. (U.S. Army Command and General Staff College. School of Advanced Military Studies. Monograph)
"This paper compares the most recent revisions to Army and Air Force draft basic doctrine."
Bibliography, pp 60-61.
Also available online at: http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ada331140
 Doc. call no.: M-U 42022-2 G251c

Gilbert, Silvanus Taco, III. What Will Douhet Think of Next? An Analysis of the Impact of Stealth Technology on the Evolution of Strategic Bombing Doctrine. Maxwell AFB, AL, Air University Press, June 1993. 48 p. (Air University. School of Advanced Airpower Studies. Thesis)
"This study analyzes the evolution of strategic bombing doctrine to identify the basic doctrinal tenets and then evaluate their compatibility with emerging stealth technologies."
Bibliography, pp 43-48.
Also available online at: http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/aupress/SAAS_Theses/SAASS_Out/Gilbert/gilbert.pdf
Doc. call no.: M-U 43998-1a G466w

Hamilton, Robert J. Green and Blue in the Wild Blue: An Examination of Army and Air Force Air Power Thinking and Doctrine Since the Vietnam War. Maxwell AFB, AL, Air University Press, 1993. 48 p.
Also available online at: http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/aupress/catalog/SAASS_Theses/Hamilton_T41_about.htm
 Doc. call no.: M-U 43998-1a H219g

Higgins, John N. Theater Commander's Utilization of Tactical Fighter Assets ... Train Like We'll Fight, Or Are We Shooting Ourselves in the Foot? Fort Leavenworth, KS, May 1991. 50 p. (US Army Command and General Staff College. School of Advanced Military Studies. Monograph)
Doctrine Review, pp 4-14.
Performance Review: Doctrinal Validity, pp 27-32.
Conclusions and Implications: Doctrinal Validity, pp 40-41.
Bibliography, pp 48-50.
Doc. call no.: M-U 42022-2 H6361t

Kent, Glenn A. and Ochmanek, David A. Defining the Role of Airpower in Joint Missions. Santa Monica, CA, Rand Corp., 1998. 22 p. (RAND's Project Air Force, MR-927-AF)
Chapter Two. The Source of Basic Doctrine, Fundamental Characteristics of Airpower, pp 7-13.
Chapter Four. Advantages of a New Approach to Basic Doctrine, pp 21-22.
Includes bibliographical references.
Also available online at: http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR927/
Doc. call no.: M-U 30352-84 no.927

Kowalski, James M. Theater Applications of the Future Bomber Force. Newport, RI, February 1992. 27 p. (Naval War College Paper)
"The bomber force of 1993 is a force in transition, looking toward the future by developing its conventional capabilities and tactics. The CINC who wants to realize the potential of the bomber force can look to the Gulf War. The air campaign in the Gulf was a brutal demonstration of stealth, precision munitions, and air superiority." Bibliography, p 27.
Doc. call no.: M-U 41662 K881t

Miller, Christopher D. Aerospace Vision and Long-Range Planning: A Critical Combination for the Post-Cold War Air Force. Newport, RI, June 1991. 152 p. (Naval War College. Advanced Research Paper)
Development of the Aerospace Vision:
    Doctrine, pp 38-49.
    Doctrine as Identity.
    Doctrine as Comprehensive Vision.
    Doctrine as Direction.
Bibliography, pp 146-152.
Doc. call no.: M-U 41662-6 M647a

Nelson, Bill and Woodard, Vickie. The Centennial Air Force: The Future of Air Power at the Air Force's 100th Birthday. Maxwell AFB, AL, Air Force Fellows Program, 2000. 44 p.
See pp 23-29 New Warfighting Doctrine.
Also available as a book, published by RAND: 358.4130973 N424c.
Also available at: http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA394302
 Doc. call no.: M-U 42252-91 N424c

Nichols, David C. Air Power: Do the Principles Apply? Newport, RI, June 1992. 19 p. (Naval War College Paper)
"Current Air Power Doctrine is examined within the context of the Principles of War and other warfighting concepts."
Doc. call no.: M-U 41662 N617a

Parson, Ronald G. Counter-Air Operations: Doctrine for Littoral Operations. Newport, RI, February 1993. 39 p. (Naval War College Paper)
"Joint and service counter-air doctrine is examined against historical performance. This examination reveals that counter-air doctrine is inadequate and requires modification to support the maritime and littoral focus required by the Joint Chiefs of Staff." Bibliography, pp 37-39.
Doc. call no.: M-U 41662 P266c

Parsons, David W. Toward the Proper Application of Air Power in Low-Intensity Conflict. Monterey, CA, December 1993. 84 p. (Naval Postgraduate School. Master's thesis)
"This study argues that the U.S. Air Force's current framework for applying air power, termed the strategic bombing model, is inappropriate for low-intensity conflict (LIC). The study notes that the effective employment of air power in LIC relies more on the airplane's ability to support ground operations than its capability to carry and drop ordnance." Selected Bibliography, pp 80-81.
Doc. call no.: M-U 42525 P267t

Rand Corp. NATO Airpower--Organizing for Uncertainty, by Willard E. Naslund. Santa Monica, CA, 1993. 49 p. (MR-215-AF)
Section 4. Current NATO Air Organization Perspectives, pp 27-33.
   NATO Doctrine as a Basis for Organization, pp 27-28.
Doc. call no.: M-U 30352-84 no.215

The Role of Aerospace Power in U.S. National Security in the Next Quarter Century. Conference Proceedings, March 16, 1993. Fairfax, VA, Prepared for Directorate of Plans, Hq, U.S.A.F. by National Security Research, Inc., April 1993. 132 p.
First Session: Col John A. Warden III and Professor Sam Gardiner.
Second Session: Dr. Raymond S. Colladay, Mr. Dick Hardy and Dr. Ronald Sugar.
Keynote Address: Gen Michael P.C. Carns.
Third Session: LtGen Buster C. Glosson and LtGen Thomas Moorman.
Fourth Session: LtGen William E. Odom, USA, Ret, and Dr. Alan Gropman.
Appendix: Speaker's Prepared Remarks, pp A-1/A-96.
Doc. call no.: M-U 43811-2

Royal Australian Air Force. Air Power Studies Centre. The Strategic Application of Air Power in the New World Order, Layton, SqnLdr P. B., RAAF. Fairbairn, Australia, January 1993. 27 p. (Air Power Studies Centre paper No. 9)
"Strategic air operations should be integrated with other military activities to produce a cumulative, synergistic effect on an opponent's ability to continue a conflict. When they are, successes such as Desert Storm are possible; when they are not, poor results, like those of the Korean War strategic bombing campaign, are likely."
Doc. call no.: M-U 36760-75

Saimons, Vickie J. Defensive Air Strategies. Fort Leavenworth, KS, May 1992. 46 p. (US Army Command and General Staff College. School of Advanced Military Studies. Monograph)
"The third portion (of the monograph) assesses whether current air defense technology meets the essential capabilities of an air defense system. The study found current technology does not meet those capabilities; nor will technology meet those capabilities in the foreseeable future. The monograph concludes current US Air Force doctrinal emphasis on the offense is correct."
Bibliography, pp 45-46.
Doc. call no.: M-U 42022-2 S132d

Sarver, David A. Developing Operational Aerospace Doctrine. Maxwell AFB, AL, April 1996. 29 p. (Air University. Air War College. Research Report)
Chapter I. Introduction.
Chapter II. The Evolution of Aerospace Doctrine.
Chapter III. Aerospace Doctrine Today.
Chapter IV. Developing Operational Doctrine.
Chapter V. Conclusion.
Bibliography, p 29.
Doc. call no.: M-U 43117 S251d

Saxman, John B. The Concept of Center of Gravity: Does It Have Utility in Joint Doctrine and Campaign Planning? Fort Leavenworth, KS, May 1992. 60 p. (US Army Command and General Staff College. School of Advanced Military Studies. Monograph)
The US Air Force's Concept of Center of Gravity, pp 15-19.
The Use of the Concept of Center of Gravity in the Gulf War, pp 25-29.
Analysis of the Use of Center of Gravity Theory in Joint Doctrine and in the Gulf War, pp 30-37.
Bibliography, pp 50-54.
Doc. call no.: M-U 42022-2 S272c

Short, William E., Jr. The Concept of Doctrine: Of Critical Importance but Frequently Misunderstood. Newport, RI, Naval War College, March 1991. 161 p. (Advanced Research Project)
This paper explains what doctrine is and what it means to each U.S. military service.
The United States Air Force and Doctrine, pp 48-75.
Bibliography, pp 149-155.
Doc. call no.: M-U 41662-6 S559c

Sink, J. Taylor. Rethinking the Air Operations Center: Air Force Command and Control in Conventional War. Maxwell AFB, AL, September 1994. 55 p. (Air University. School of Advanced Airpower Studies. Thesis)
"The latest improvements to the Air Operations Center are still below the level where change is most needed. While increasing data capacity and speeding information flow will no doubt improve the efficiency of the AOC, the basic structure requires overhaul. The Air Force must seek doctrinal and organizational means, as well as technological means, to improve its ability to prosecute strategic conventional air war responsively. Additionally, Air Force doctrine must refocus on the need for mission assessment--as opposed to target assessment--to determine whether the air attacks are achieving campaign objectives."
Bibliography, pp 49-55.
Also available online at: https://research.au.af.mil/viewabstract.aspx?id=3763
Doc. call no.: M-U 43998-1a S617r

Soucy, Robert R., II. Serial vs. Parallel War: An Airman's View of Operational Art. Fort Leavenworth, KS, May 1993. 60 p. (US Army Command and General Staff College. School of Advanced Military studies. Monograph)
"Two campaigns are examined. MacArthur's serial campaign (sequential, step-by-step approach) against the Japanese in the South West Pacific is the first. It is contrasted with Schwarzkopf's parallel war against Iraq during Desert Storm. Consistent trends between the two styles are highlighted while the unique features of parallel war are discussed."
Selected Bibliography, pp 57-60.
Doc. call no.: M-U 42022-2 S719s

Torrens, Linda E. The Future of NATO's Tactical Air Doctrine. Maxwell AFB, AL, Air University Press, 1997. 47 p. (Air University. School of Advanced Airpower Studies. Thesis)
"This study analyzes the need for changes to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) airpower doctrine to reflect post-cold-war realities."
Bibliography, pp 45-47.
Also available online at: http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ada330028
Doc. call no.: M-U 43998-1a T691f

USAF Air & Space Doctrine Symposium. Air & Space Doctrine: Enduring Attributes ... and Emerging Opportunities.  Symposium.  April 6-8, 1993. Maxwell AFB, AL, 1993. 2 vols.
Information and Session Notes.
Doc. call no.: M-U 42764-388 6-8 April 1993 2 vols.

USAF Air & Space Doctrine Symposium. Integrated Air & Space Doctrine. Symposium.  March 8-10, 1994.  Maxwell AFB, AL, 1994. 1 vol.
Information and Session Notes.
Doc. call no.:  OVES1 M-U 42764-388 8-10 March 1994

USAF Air & Space Doctrine Symposium.  Into the 21st Century-New Directions for Air and Space Doctrine. Symposium.  March 4-5 1997.  Maxwell AFB, AL, 1997. 1 vol.
Doc. call no.: M-U 42764-388 4-5 March 1997

U.S. Air Force Doctrine: A Perspective, by James E. Andrews, Allen B. Bowser, William R. Johnson, Steven J. Redmann, and Richard H. Zeimet.  Maxwell AFB, AL, Air University, Air War College, May 1990. 212 p. (Defense Analytical Study)
"Air power doctrine is crucial to the future of the Air Force. Failure of the Air Force to refocus the purposes of doctrine, address the fundamental areas of the doctrine development process, the responsibility of doctrine, and the current doctrinal issues could undermine future success required in a dynamic and rapidly changing environment."
Bibliography, pp 203-212.
Doc. call no.: M-U 43117 A567u

Periodicals

Air Power in Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Air Power History.
Part I: An Overview, by LtGen Charles A. Horner and others, 38:5-38 Fall 1991.
Part II: The Tactical Air Command and Operation Desert Storm: A Case Study of Tactical Aircraft Employment, by Grant M. Hales, 38:43-47 Winter 1991.
Part III: The Air Force Reserve and the Persian Gulf War, by MajGen John J. Closner, 39:40-45 Summer 1992.

Air Power Symposium. Strategic Review 23:56-68 Winter 1995.
"Editor's Note: Carl Builder's recent book, 'The Role of Air Power Theory in the Evolution and Fate of the U.S. Air Force' created a great deal of debate both inside the Air force and elsewhere ... Strategic Review asked a number of individuals to examine Builder's thesis: the result is this symposium."
Getting the Future Right, by MajGen Robert E. Linhard, USAF.
Projecting Air Power, by Gen T. Ross Milton, USAF, Ret.
Bomber Pilots vs. Fighter Pilots? by Gen Bruce K. Holloway, USAF, Ret.
Air Power, by Arthur G.B. Metcalf.

Anderson, Casey. 'Hyperwar' Success May Alter AF Doctrine. Air Force Times 51:24 April 22, 1991.
"Air Force planners are considering changing the service's combat doctrine to adapt the sudden and overwhelming strategic air campaign used so successfully in the Persian Gulf War for future military operations. Known as 'hyperwar,' the new doctrine would call for air forces to bombard air defense networks, telephone systems, electrical generating plants, and other targets normally located deep in enemy territory ..."

Barlow, Jason B. Strategic Paralysis: An Air Power Strategy for the Present. Airpower Journal 7:4-15 Winter 1993.
"Target selection lies at the heart of military doctrine and theory."
Also available online at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/barlow.html

Baughman, Ronald. The United States Air Force Perspective. RUSI Journal 145:73-77 December 2000.
After the Kosovo campaign the US Air Force embarked upon a thorough review of its performance in this war. Baughman, director of Doctrine Development, HQ Air Force Doctrine Center, Maxwell, Alabama gives an account of the findings of the review.
Also available online at: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=000000065911774&SrchMode=5&Fmt=4&retrieveGroup=0&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&x=-&VName=PQD&TS=1093554693&clientId=417

Bingham, Price T. The Air Force's New Doctrine. Military Review 72:13-19 November 1992.
"The US Air Force published its new doctrinal manual in March (1992). In providing the framework for understanding how to apply military power, the new manual represents a significant effort by the Air Force to articulate its view of "aerospace power." Retired Lieutenant Colonel Price T. Bingham, one of the primary authors of that doctrine, presents thoughts and concerns that guided the writing of the manual.

Bingham, Price T. Air Interdiction and the Need for Doctrinal Change. Strategic Review 20:24-33 Fall 1992.
"Current U.S. Army doctrine reflects the traditional view that aerospace forces exist to "support maneuver on the ground." But technological change has rendered this doctrinal view obsolete. As a result of these changes, it will soon be possible for aerospace forces to be the primary means of defeating not only an enemy's air force and navy but also his ground forces. In order to exploit this technological revolution, U.S. Army and Air Force doctrine must be substantially modified."
Notes, pp 32-33.

Bingham, Price T. Air Power in Desert Storm--And the Need for Doctrinal Change. Airpower Journal 5:33-46 Winter 1991.
Air Force Doctrine, pp 34-35.
Navy Doctrine, pp 35-36.
Army Doctrine, pp 36-38.
Marine Corps Doctrine, pp 39-41.
Joint Doctrine, pp 41-46.
Notes, pp 45-46.
Also available online at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/price.html

Bingham, Price T. The United States Needs To Exploit Its Air Power Advantage. Airpower Journal 7:62-71 Fall 1993.
"Our victory in the Gulf War, great though it was, could have been achieved with significantly fewer land forces and even fewer casualties if we had had the proper military leadership and doctrine. Unfortunately, the latter two elements failed to recognize that air power had revolutionized the conduct of conventional warfare on land. As a result, Operation Desert Storm saw the application of the now obsolete theory of warfare found in the Army's AirLand Battle doctrine, which points to land forces as the primary means for defeating the enemy army."
Also available online at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/bingham.html

Boatman, John. USA Redefines CAS Doctrine for a New Era of Warfare. Jane's Defence Weekly 18:17 December 12, 1992.
According to Gen Mike Loh, Commander of the USAF Air Combat Command: "One of our goals is to try not to be involved in close air support, to try and do a better job a little deeper so that you can, with airborne battlefield surveillance and other equipment, avoid direct contact with the forward line of troops, and relieve to a great extent the army's direct contact. That's where we can make a tremendous contribution."

Boudreau, Robert N. The New AFM 1-1: Shortfall in Doctrine? Airpower Journal 6:37-45 Winter 1992.
"...our vision of aerospace power in Air Force doctrine presented in the new Air Force Manual AFM 1-1 is flawed because it addresses aerospace power far too narrowly. Both volumes of the AFM 1-1 address military activities 'below the level of war.' However, neither addresses directly the concept that military power, especially aerospace power, may be used to influence situations before counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, raids, or unconventional warfare become necessary."
"My central example is the shortfall in doctrine concerning airlift because I am an airlifter. However, the same arguments could easily be made for other elements of American aerospace power, especially special operations, that offer tremendous operational flexibility to achieve objectives short of a resort to armed conflict."
Notes, pp 44-45.
Also available online at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/bould.html

Boyd, Charles G. and Westenhoff, Charles M. Air Power Thinking: "Request Unrestricted Climb." Airpower Journal 5:4-15 Fall 1991.
"Air power's adroitness seems particularly useful in a time of increasing uncertainty. It also suggests future directions for thinking about air power. The flexibility and responsiveness of air power have long been a two-edged sword: because of its many capabilities, there has been a constant struggle between competing aims, roles, and target sets, and a consequent temptation to disperse air power. The need to concentrate air power on specific objectives and the effort to define those objectives best served by air power have been at the core of air power doctrine and should remain our principal concerns."
Notes, pp 14-15.
Also available online at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/boyd.html

Callahan, David. Air Power Comes of Age: Technical and Doctrinal Advances Have Changed the Score in a Long-Running Military Debate. Technology Review 97:62-70 August-September 1994.
"Complementing technological advances are doctrinal changes implemented over the past decade that have greatly increased the effectiveness of air power... The fruits of this doctrinal change were displayed in the first hours of the Gulf War, when U.S. aircraft struck a range of key Iraqi air-defense system, severely damaging Saddam's ability to manage his forces."
Also available online at: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=000000000035139&SrchMode=5&Fmt=3&retrieveGroup=0&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&x=-&VName=PQD&TS=1093465680&clientId=417

Clodfelter, Mark. Of Demons, Storms, and Thunder: A Preliminary Look at Vietnam's Impact on the Persian Gulf Air Campaign. Airpower Journal 5:17-32 Winter 1991.
"Against Iraq, airmen broke with tradition and designed an air offensive that targeted war-making capacity and enemy morale from the start. The rationale for the approach rested on two key considerations affected by the Vietnam experience: the perception of the enemy's 'center of gravity' and the technological prowess of American air power.
"While the Vietnam legacy contributed enormously to air power's success in Desert Storm, one demon from Southeast Asia threatened to cast its evil eye on the air campaign. That ogre was the same Air Force mind-set that had been present on the eve of Rolling Thunder--a war-fighting doctrine geared to the policy of containment and stressing potential combat with the Soviet Union.
"...the Air Force of the future can continue to play a significant role in American military operations by focusing on flexibility as the fundamental underpinning of service doctrine. The key to applying air power successfully is melding the appropriate amount of force to national objectives, which may or may not call for the Air Force to play the decisive role in combat. Now is an ideal time for the service to come to grips with its past by exorcising completely the demons of Vietnam."
Notes, pp 31-32.
Also available online at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/clod.html

Clodfelter, Mark and Fawcett, John M., Jr. The RMA ("Revolution in Military Affairs") and Air Force Roles, Missions, and Doctrine. Parameters 25:22-29 Summer 1995.
"Desert Storm's crippling of Iraq has combined with current perceptions of the RMA to produce a tentative outline for a change in Air Force basic doctrine. That outline--which is formative at best--acknowledges the emphasis on information warfare portrayed by Alvin and Heidi Toffler in their consideration of war in the 21st century... The draft outline of the proposed doctrine manual highlights the perceived ability to achieve operational success by wrecking information systems. It notes that "warfare is normally associated with five mediums: air, land, sea, space, and information," and that the Air Force's six basic roles are "control, strike, mobility, information operations, force support, and force preparation."

Cohen, Eliot A. The Mystique of U.S. Air Power. Foreign Affairs 73:109-124 January-February 1994.
"The successes of the air campaign in the gulf rested almost as much on organizational innovations as on technology. To speak of a revolution in warfare as a purely technological affair is to miss half the significance of the war. In the Gulf War, for example, Lieutenant General Charles Horner, the commander of CENTAF ... also controlled in some measure the airplanes of all the services, as well as helicopters flying above 500 feet and Navy Tomahawk cruise missiles. In this respect he embodied a doctrine dear to airmen for half a century: 'Control of available air power must be centralized and command must be exercised through the Air Force commander if this inherent flexibility and ability to deliver a decisive blow are to be fully exploited' (from War Dept. Field Manual 100-20, 1943). 'Centralized planning, decentralized execution' remains a catchphrase of Air Force doctrine, much as 'don't divide the fleet' preoccupied American naval strategists in earlier times."
"In practice, though, Horner's authority had its limits."
Also available online at: http://search.ebscohost.com/direct.asp?an=9404111579&db=aph

Correll, John T. The Rediscovery of Strategic Airpower: As the Deep-Attack Issue Unfolds, the Air Force Finds New Truth in Classic Doctrine. Air Force Magazine 79:26-32 November 1996.
The Lag in Doctrine, p 32.
Also available online at: http://www.afa.org/magazine/nov1996/1196stratairpower.asp

Corum, James S. Airpower and Peace Enforcement. Airpower Journal 10:10-25 Winter 1996.
The Doctrinal Vacuum, pp 23-24.
Notes, p 25.
Also available online at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/win96/corum.html

Doctrine. Airpower Journal 9:6-52 Winter 1995.
Doctrinal Frontiers, by Carl H. Builder, pp 6-13.
   Notes, pp 12-13.
A Modest Proposal: Making Doctrine More Memorable, by MajGen I.B. Holley, Jr., USAFR, Ret, pp 14-20.
   Notes, p 20.
Air Force Doctrine Problems, 1926-Present, by Dr. James A. Mowbray, pp 21-41.
   Notes, pp 38-41.
Inventing a Doctrine Process, by Col Dennis M. Drew, USAF, Ret, pp 42-52.
   Notes, pp 51-52.
Select articles from the table of contents site below.
Also available online at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/wint95.html

Drew, Dennis M. Commentary: Shooting Missions No Longer an Either/Or Choice. Air Force Times 53:31 June 21, 1993.
"How to vertically integrate the strategic and interdiction missions remains a question worthy of considerable inquiry."

Drew, Dennis M.  Desert Storm as a Symbol: Implications of the Air War in the Desert. Airpower Journal 6:4-13 Fall 1992.
"The maturity of air power resulted from the confluence of three streams of development over the past 80 years: experience, technology, and doctrine."
"...experience and technology by themselves are not enough to create the dominating influence of present-day air power. Equally essential is doctrine. Conceptually, doctrine ties together the lessons of experience and the technology of the present into an effective operating scheme. It establishes what airmen believe about the best way to wage aerial warfare, given what they have learned and what they can do. The development of doctrine is the third stream of development in the maturation of air power."
Notes, p 13.
Also available online at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/drew2.html

Fogleman, Ronald R. Aerospace Doctrine: More Than Just a Theory. Airpower Journal 10:40-47 Summer 1996.
"If, as I believe, doctrine provides a common foundation for us to use in employing our forces in peace, war, and the numerous gray areas in between, then I would expect for our doctrine to illuminate the judgment of airmen and other military professionals for the joint employment of air forces to accomplish the objectives of the joint force commander--the commander in the field."
As presented at the Air Force Air and Space Doctrine Symposium, Maxwell AFB, Alabama, 30 April 1996.
Also available online at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/fogle.pdf

Ganyard, Stephen T. Where Air Power Fails: When It Comes to the Rationalization for Strategic Bombing, the Air Force Has Been Misleading You--and Itself--For Nearly 70 Years. U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings 121:36-39 January 1995.
A U.S. Marine Corps Major's concept of Air Force airpower theory and doctrine. "...throughout its own history, the Air Force has rationalized away the practical failures and inherent flaws of strategic bombing in order to keep it as the centerpiece of U.S. air power theory."

Graffis, Judy M. Strategic--Use with Care. Airpower Journal 8:4-10 Special Edition 1994 (Bound after Issue no. 4).
"In 1979 AFM 1-1 described 'strategic aerospace offensive forces' in detail, and the distinction between strategic and tactical weapon systems was clear. The 1992 version of AFM 1-1, however, emphasizes that 'strategic attacks are defined by the objective--not by the weapon system employed, munitions used, or target location.' These changes are intended to allow Air Force decision makers as much flexibility as possible in their thinking, an absolutely necessity in our decidedly uncertain world."
Also available online at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/sum97/spe94/graffis.html

Jennings, Frank W. Doctrinal Conflict over the Word--Aerospace. Airpower Journal 4:46-58 Fall 1990.
"Developing military doctrine as it applies to aerospace has not been easy for the Air Force or the rest of the Defense Department."
Also available online at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/4fal90.html

Jones, Brian W. Close Air Support--A Doctrinal Disconnect. Airpower Journal 6:60-71 Winter 1992.
"The close air support (CAS) mission represents perhaps the most complex aspect of orchestrating air and ground forces and is usually the cause of such debate on the gap between doctrine and execution. This article will not settle disputes over what we should have done--or even whether we did what we said we would do--in past conflicts... Instead, this writing maintains that to emphasize such concepts as proximity rather than tactical control in current CAS doctrine promotes confusion rather than clarity and puts our future CAS capability at risk." Notes, pp 70-71.
Also available online at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/jones.html

Kirtland, Michael A. Aerospace Doctrine (the 1992 AFM 1-1) Guiding Needed Change. Air Force Times 53:25 August 31, 1992.
"What will guide and direct us in organizing the Air Force of the future? Fortunately, we have basic doctrine in the Air Force that leads through this uncharted path. In the introduction to the 1992 edition of Air Force Manual 1-1, 'Basic Aerospace Doctrine of the United States Air Force,' aerospace doctrine is defined as 'what we hold true about aerospace power and the best way to do the job in the Air Force."

Mann, Edward. One Target, One Bomb: Is the Principle of Mass Dead? Airpower Journal 7:35-43 Spring 1993.
"...exploitation of precision targeting and stealth to apply mass at the operational and strategic levels offers tremendous leverage in future battles. We must understand that the principle of mass is still necessary and that we can now apply it directly and decisively at the operational level. Although our air forces can still achieve strategic objectives cumulatively (though much more quickly than before), current technology gives them the option of realizing many operational-level objectives almost instantaneously. This kind of thinking made us the victor in the Gulf War."
Also available online at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/mann.html

Martin, Steven W. Editorial: Is There a Doctrine in the House? Soldier-Scholar, a Journal of Contemporary Military Thought 1:2 Fall 1994.
"Like an effective mission statement, our doctrinal statement should be brief enough that people not only remember it, but also have a basic understanding of what it means."

Mason, Tony. The Future of Air Power Concepts of Operations. Royal Air Force Air Power Review vol. 1, no. 128-42 1998.

Meilinger, Phillip S. The Problem with Our Air Power Doctrine. Airpower Journal 6:24-31 Spring 1992.
"The Air Force is ideologically adrift, encumbered with a doctrinal gap that distorts both its self-image and the image it presents to others. On the one hand, SAC has developed a highly complex nuclear deterrent and nuclear war-fighting strategy; on the other hand, the tactical air force has honed its abilities to complement the ground forces to a fine pitch. The gap lies between these two extremes. The concept of conventional strategic air power--together with its ability to be decisive at the operational and strategic levels of war--has been forgotten. Indivisible air power has been utterly divided--organizationally, bureaucratically, and doctrinally. We have misplaced our concepts of conventional strategic operations. The rapidly evolving world now confronting us requires that we find those concepts again--quickly." "All is not gloom. The new commanders of SAC and TAC have already stated their intention of examining their commands' doctrine and force structure." Notes, pp 30-31.
Also available online at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/meiling.html

Meilinger, Phillip S. Ten Propositions Regarding Airpower. Airpower Journal 10:50+ Spring 1996.
Twelve Principles Emerging from Ten Propositions, by Col Richard Szafranski, USAF, p 51+, Spring 1996.
Also available online at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/meil.pdf
Szafranski article at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/szafra2.pdf

Meilinger, Phillip S. Towards a New Airpower Lexicon--Or Interdiction: An Idea Whose Time Has Finally Gone? Airpower Journal 7:39-47 Summer 1993.
"Theorists since Giulio Douhet have argued that the airplane is primarily an offensive--not defensive--weapon because of its speed, flexibility, and range. Moreover, the ability to strike hard and quickly allows airpower to exploit--more effectively than any other type of force--two other traditional principles of war: surprise and maneuver. Given these characteristics, we can achieve unity of command by seeing to it that airpower is controlled by an airman who understands its special qualities and knows how to employ them across the spectrum of conflict on a global scale."
Also available online at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/meil.html

Myers, Gene. Global Reach--Global Power: A Stillborn Doctrine. Defense Analysis 8:319-321 December 1992.
"In this time of changing politico-military-economic realities, the Chief of Staff and the Secretary of the Air Force announced a long-awaited and long overdue overhaul of an archaic Air Force structure that failed to recognize one of the greatest truths in airpower doctrine and the prime reason for the separation of the service from the Army in the first place--that aerospace power is indivisible and should be applied as the situation dictates, not according to some predetermined notion of strategic or tactical, nuclear or conventional taskings."

Palmer, Michael A. The Storm in the Air: One Plan, Two Air Wars? Air Power History 39:24-31 Winter 1992.
"In the summer of 1990, the U.S. Air Force was in the midst of its own somewhat belated renaissance of thinking. Since the end of the Second World War, the Air Force had focused on strategic nuclear warfare, to the detriment of other applications of air power. Air Force-Army cooperation in AirLand Battle had addressed the question of air-ground teamwork on the battlefield, that is close-air support and air interdiction. But in the late 1980s the Air Force began to reconsider established concepts of air power in the light of new technologies and concluded that, under certain circumstances, the United States could successfully wage an independent, strategic, conventional air campaign."

Parker, Thomas A. The Navy Got It--Desert Storm's Wake-Up Call. U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings 120:32-36 September 1994.
"The most visible indication of the Air Force's air warfare vision was the air tasking order (ATO), the JFACC's direction tool. This document was the manifestation of a much larger campaign development process, which was central to the Air Force's vision of theater air warfare... By doctrine, Air Force war planning is a sequential process, following logical procedures to produce a coherent plan for the entire war. ...this vision of the planning and execution of the war was fully realized in the Gulf War. Having learned from its experience in Vietnam and Korea, the Air Force was able to capture the process from the beginning and impose its doctrine and procedures on all participants. This subordination was distasteful to the other participants, but the process proved to be elastic enough to serve as the Coalition's air-war framework and was a key element in bringing the war to a successful conclusion. No other air service had a competing strategic vision to offer as an alternative; the Air Force's doctrine filled a vacuum and was adopted for joint use by default."

Patton, James H., Jr. Stealth, Sea Control, and Air Superiority. Airpower Journal 7:52-62 Spring 1993.
"The employment of the F-117 stealth fighter during Operation Desert Storm proved that airborne stealth works. The challenge now is to develop the air doctrine and tactics to leverage that revolutionary technology." Notes, pp 61-62.
Also available online at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/patton.html

Peach, Stuart. Back to the Future? A Case for Environmental Doctrine for Air Power. Royal Air Force Air Power Review vol. 1, no.1:1-15 1998.

Poynor, D. Robert. Organic Versus Joint Organization. Air & Space Power Journal 16:24-25 Fall 2002.
Also available at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj02/fal02/poynor.html

Poynor, D. Robert. "Organic" Versus Joint Thoughts on How the Air Force Fights. Strategic Review 29:58-62 Winter 2001.

Sabin, Philip. Modern Air Power Theory--Some Neglected Issues. Hawk Journal, pp 5-13, 1994.
The author highlights four areas in which current air power theory seems inadequate:    The definition of air power.    Command of the air.    Aerial coercion.    The limitations of air power. References, p 13.

Stambaugh, Jeffrey E.  JFACC: Key to Organizing Your Air Assets for Victory. Parameters 24:98-110 Summer 1994.
"According to USAF doctrine, a tenet of aerospace power is that airpower assets are theater assets and should be centrally controlled by an airman. While not everyone accepts it, this tenet is firmly based on historical experience. It is also at the heart of the JFACC concept... To its credit, the Air Force strongly supports the doctrinal consensus that the JFACC should come from the component providing the greatest share of the air assets, and acknowledges that the JFACC need not always be an Air Force officer."

Stephens, Alan. Rethinking Air Power. Asia-Pacific Defence Reporter 23:18+ June-July 1997.
"If airmen want their profession to be properly understood and employed, then their first responsibility is to develop effective doctrine; that is, they need to provide clear, logical guidance on what air power can do--on what it can bring to the joint planning table."

Sweetman, Bill. Reading the US Air Force Bomber Roadmap. International Defense Review 26:791-795 October 1993.
"A radically new doctrine covering the use of bomber and long-range strike aircraft is at the root of the bomber's good fortune... Under the new doctrine, the bomber's nuclear role is secondary. Instead, bombers are supposed to intervene early and effectively in a major regional war."

Szafranski, Richard. Interservice Rivalry in Action: The Endless Roles and Missions Refrain. Airpower Journal 10:48-59 Summer 1996.
In the same issue:    A Commentary: Interservice Rivalry and Air Force Doctrine--Promise, Not Apology, by Gene Myers, pp 60-64.    A Commentary: Prophets, Heretics, and Peculiar Evils: On Szafranski, by Reina Pennington, pp 65-68.
Also available online at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/szfrank.pdf
Myers article available at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/myers.pdf
Pennington article available at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/penn.pdf

Temple, L. Parker. Of Machine Guns, Yellow Brick Roads and Doctrine. Airpower Journal 6:26-36 Summer 1992.
"Doctrine does not imply universality and must be developed only after relevant experience allows us to extract lessons learned... Doctrine must be at once historical and futuristic."
Also available online at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/temple.html

Trainor, Bernard E. Air Power in the Gulf War: Did It Really Succeed? Strategic Review 22:66-68 Winter 1994.
"In the final analysis the Gulf War confirmed the Air Force's ever-increasing ability to destroy military things and people, but on its own, the link to the ultimate objective of military force--a desired political outcome--remains elusive."

Vallance, Andrew G. B. Purple Air Power The Future Challenge. Royal Air Force Air Power Review vol. 1, no. 1:16-26 1998.

Winton, Harold R. Reflections on the Air Force's New Manual. Military Review 72:20-31 November 1992.
"Perhaps the most remarkable thing about the approach to the fusion of history and doctrine evident in this manual is the fact that the analysis is explicitly available to anyone who wishes to refute or refine it. This represents a hallmark in the development of American doctrine that the Air Force will hopefully retain in its subsequent efforts and that other services will be willing to emulate. It has extraordinary potential to introduce intellectual honesty and rigor into the doctrinal development system.

Wolf, James R. Toward Operational-Level Doctrine for Space. Airpower Journal 5:28-41 Summer 1991.
"The Air Force doctrine hierarchy and the placement of space doctrine within it reflect a conscious decision by the Air Force not to separate air and space doctrine but rather to promote the concept of integrated aerospace power."
Also available online at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/3sum91.html


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

Back ArrowReturn to Bibliography List