1. What Do We Mean By Air Power?
Bruce Hargrave
Military Education Group
2. Air Power or Airpower?
• We struggle to define it (and we’re not
even sure if it’s one word or two!)
• Is it important to define the term (or the
concept)?
• Is it, arguably, more important to define air
power in a multinational alliance?
• … and, if it is, why doesn’t NATO doctrine
define it?
3. Billy Mitchell 1879 - 1936
“Air power is the ability to do
something in or through the air”
4. Dictionary Definition
• When in doubt, look it up…
• Oxford English Dictionary…
• Right after air potato…
• Air power - power of defensive and
offensive action dependent upon a supply
of aircraft, missiles, etc.
• But is that useful?
5. Other Nation’s Definitions of Air
Power
• Australia
– National air power is the total ability of a
nation to achieve its objectives through the air
domain and encompasses all elements of
civilian and military aviation.
• USA
– the ability to project military power or
influence through the control and exploitation
of air, space and cyberspace to achieve
strategic, operational or tactical objectives.
6. Netherlands and Turkey
• Netherlands
– The ability to, within or from the third
dimension, achieve or contribute to military or
political objectives. The third dimension has
no limits.
• Turkey
– The synergistic application of air, space, and
information systems to project global strategic
military power.
7. Germany
• Air Power is the totality of all possible
effects, which can be developed or
threatened in Air Operations by the
employment of air warfare objects.
8. United Kingdom
• UK 1999 until 2009
– The ability to project military force in air or
space by or from a platform or missile
operating above the surface of the earth. Air
platforms are defined as any aircraft,
helicopter or unmanned air vehicle.
9. United Kingdom
• UK 2009 until 2013
– The ability to project power from the air and
space to influence the behaviour of people or
the course of events.
• UK (present day)
– Using air capabilities to influence the
behaviour of actors and the course of events.
– UK space power is defined as “exerting
influence in, from, or through space.”
10. The Evolution of Doctrine
• Doctrine – and the definitions that go with
it – change and evolve over time.
• This may reflect a number of things:
– changing technology (e.g. increased use of
RPAS)
– changes in the economy (e.g. the financial
crisis and austerity measures)
– changes in perceived threats (e.g. end of the
Cold War, emergence of non-State actors)
– changes to our way of thinking about how
‘military force’ should be employed.
Editor's Notes
AAP 6 (2013) has no definition of air power. Various STANAGS, AAPs, and AJPs do, however, discuss air power doctrine, but they do this without defining air power!
The US air power pioneer. It’s not a bad starting point for a definition. But perhaps the word ‘something’ can be improved on?
I was taught to look things up in a dictionary. However, I was also taught that a definition should not contain the word or word that were being defined!
Start with Australia – and then work closer to home! Australia’s AAP-1000D (6th Edition, Sep 2013) waits until page 32 to give a definition of what it calls “National Air Power.” It seems to be all about the ‘achievement of objectives’.
The US definition was updated in 2012. It includes Space and cyberspace, but also falls into the trap of defining power as ‘power’. Note – it’s also concerned with achieving ‘objectives’. Two interesting points are that it mentions “influence” as a possible alternative to “power” and that it introduces cyberspace – what some have called the 4th dimension.
Billy Mitchell had defined air power some time ago as “the ability to do something in or through the air”. Perhaps this wasn’t such a bad starting point! Various nations (often those with a space capability!) have wanted to define air power as something separate from space power. Others have been perfectly content to lump the two things together into ‘air and space power’. What are the advantages and disadvantages of separate definitions vs a combined one?
If you don’t have national doctrine for something, then it may be that you rely on NATO doctrine?
The Netherlands, just like Australia and the US, is very keen on achieving objectives. Perhaps realistically, they don’t expect to always be able to achieve those objectives on their own and so they suggest that they may be able to ‘contribute’ to achieving objectives.
Turkey includes an element of the ‘cyber’ side of things that the USA was at pains to mention. There’s no mention of anything as insignificant as ‘objectives’. Turkey seems to have dispensed with the tactical and operational levels of warfare and is simply going to “project global strategic military power”.
Lost in translation?
So, this was an ‘air and space power’ definition – and it was exclusively about ‘military force’ and its projection. The word ‘missile’ got in there somehow – perhaps because US land based CMs were based in the UK?
Until 2013, the UK definition still included ‘air and space’. It also used a key word – ‘influence’. It could be criticised for using ‘power’ to define ‘power’ and, probably unintentionally, gave two (possibly exclusive) options for what would be influenced – ‘people’ or ‘the course of events’.
In 2013, pure ‘Air’ doctrine (AP3000) was replaced by Joint doctrine (JDP 0-30) and the definition was ‘tidied up’. Notice that this is now just a definition of Air Power – Space Power gets its own definition later in the book! Air power, in this latest definition, is still all about ‘influence’. However, ‘people’ have become ‘actors’ – is this significant? Are actors influential people? Leadership? Is it there to distinguish from the general population? AP 0-30 actually explains what it means – “The term ‘actors’ includes state and non-state organisations as well as political and military decision makers”.
The problem of whether we’re influencing people or the course of events has been solved by replacing or with and.
Space power (or UK space power, specifically) now gets a separate definition. Why is this now separate? Why doesn’t it just say using air and space capabilities to… ?
You can add a lot more ‘things’ to this list. Doctrine must be responsive to change and it must evolve – and military practitioners should question their doctrine and its definitions. You are part of the process of doctrine evolution. As a JAPCC SME you are ideally placed to influence doctrine evolution.
