I very much appreciate your post.

Likewise. A very good discussion on the realities of air forces.

I just want to add that air-to-ground capability can be useful, but to a very limited extend. The target choice is limited. If you have a fighter like F-5, A-4 or A-7 available (or any eastern counterpart like Su-17/-22, MiG-21/23BN), your are limited to a few 100km behind enemy lines (or better: your airport) and to targets of high value (brigdes, headquarters, etc) and low armor. Often underestimated is the necessity for clear identification of targets and mission planning.

Not to mention expending recon assets to find targets, the severe limitations of weather, friendly fire and collateral damage that can make you more enemies of the local population.

Very good, Schorsch. Rarely have we here at AFM discuss this. We are too used to seeing televised “Desert Storm” and “Shock and Awe” footages where PGMs are both accurate and abundant.

Only ONE country could do that and that’s the United States. When you have total command of air space and space itself (satellites) and you have the logistical train to provide endless amounts of precision weapons then do this. Only the US could afford this today.

A strategic campaign is difficult with limited assets, battlefield interdiction hardly possible and normally connected with high losses. Same applies for close-air-support.

Losses is one thing. Effectiveness is another. Even if you limit losses, your effectiveness might not be there.

Effectiveness even for the US Air Force and Navy in Vietnam was rather low. It never broke the fighting forces of North Vietnam though the bombings killed a lot of civilians as collateral damage. I doubt any air force today, outside of the US, would be any more effective than the 1960s US Air Force.

Also “collateral damage” was a term recognized by US planners since Vietnam as something that helped the enemy more than the US by terming civilians against the Americans.

Read Neil Sheehan’s “A Bright Shing Lie” which a landmark book on an American advisor in Vietnam, John Paul Vann. Vann argued repeated aganist the use of aircraft (and artillery) which killed far more civilians than the enemy and made 10 new gueriallas for each one they killed.

At least the two recent wars in Iraq, the Americans have learned this lesson and there were far collateral damage.

The psychological side-eefect of having a fighter may be bigger than its actual value in combat. Being able to bomb the opponents capital, even only with a dozen small bombs, may change the strategic picture in favor of your side. This helps in limited wars.

The psychological affect of aircraft is overrated. Again, only when you have the numbers and effectiveness of the US does it really mean anything.

Ethiopia/Eritrea and Iraq/Iraq bombed each other but it had little effect either way.

Also friendly fire from aircraft going too fast and too high up to distinguish friends from foes would have the opposite psychological impart.

Psychologically, a mass artillery strike is far, far, far more damaging than a few bombs from aircraft. Artillery strikes last longer and are constant fear.

Also, using aircraft could fuel greater anger and widen the war. So in border wars between larger states, aircraft was often not used. For example, when China and Vietnam fought their border war in 1978, neither side used air assets and the reason was to limit the war. China actually had over 600 planes in airfields within the area of operations but they never used them.

Competitive defense of air space is increasingly unaffordable even for industrialized nations. Small but per inhabitant rich countries like Denmark, Norway or Singapur cannot size their fleet of aircraft down to a proportional value. So the 24 fighters they have are less effective but more expensive, actually leaving the question where the point in air defence is.

Protection of air space sovereignty is done during peace time and that is the most important role of 95% of the air forces today. Countries will always be able to earmark some money for that.

But the keyword is competitive. If you are not involved in an arms race then a cheap fighter with good speed that can chase and catch up to an offending aircraft straying into your territory is good enough.

If you are involved in an arms, then it would be far better to spend on your army than the air force. You get infinitely more force on force value from an armor battalion than a fighter squadron. Air forces give you prestige and propaganda value but it is invariably secondary.

Remember, before World War II most air forces were just arms of the Army or Navy. Both the US and Japanese pilots fought epic battles as the US Army Air Corps or Japanese Imperial Navy. Why? An Air force was a support arm just as the artillery was a support arm.

This is the case today for most countries. If the fight’s on land, only the USAF has the ability to drastically effect the course of war. If the US is not fighting, a land battle will be decided entirely by the armies with almost neglible effect by aircraft.

On the other hand a few capable fighters can make a considerable difference. Think of a long range fighter like the Su-27 (and derivatives). Having 6 of these in your inventory gives you the ability to control airspace over the sea even 1500km off shore. In some situations this could mean to deny a neighboring country the access to the sea or to trade routes.

Absolutely correct. Naval warfare is different. An efficient army cannot affect a naval power if it can’t ford the body of water separating it from its target. Ships are incredibly vulnerable to aircraft and so air superiority is necessary.

But the truth is the only island nations are not affected by an attacking army. Unless you are Japan or Britain (or Taiwan) your best bet is the army.

As far as denying an enemy the sea, there are precious few nations that can attack by sea. Historically, ONLY the Angl-Saxon countries of the US and UK are effective seaborne. (The Japanese were extremely effective for a short period until they ran smack into the US.)

If you are facing the US from the sea, then it is hopeless anyways.

As poor countries normally have no problem with losing some soldiers and can have poeple in the field longer, the added firepower by air is of reduced importance.

After WWII, airpower unless it is delivered by American aircraft (whether by US or Israeli hands) is generally secondary and supportive. It is not decisive.

Again, when discussing the US, it’s a totally different animal. The numbers and quality of the American air arms are simply beyond comprehension and they could affect the course of war.

I agree on every point!

Just add that fighters may serve as reconaissance aircraft and effectively add value to the mentioned ground forces.

Very true. Aircraft first entered the battlefield in 1914 as recon craft. Fighters were actually called “scouts.”

Only when scouts began shooting at each other did they specialized into fighters.

But in the third world, aerial scouts are few and far in between.

For any real air-2-ground combat you need considerable numbers of aircraft. If you don’t have LGB and Mavericks (very unlikely), a2g gets very expensive as you easily lose expensive aircraft to inexpensive AAA and MANPADS.

Even LGBs and PGMs like Mavericks are way too expensive for most airforces and even the vast majority of larger countries. They are expended extremely quickly. Only the US has the logistic capabilities to supply those weapons for long durations.

In fact, only the US has the economic ability to use a $500,000 PGM on a $25,000 Toyota with a machinegun in the flatbed. It makes no sense for most nations and is only available in a very limited war.

Short calculation:
For reasonable performance you need 16 to 24 fighters (compare Austria)

Austria is a perfect example of a country that uses its fighters mainly to protect the sovereignty of its air space. The Drakens were famous for chasing US aircraft taking shortcuts over Austria.

The Air forces of most countries are mostly for air space protection during peace time with transport and ferrying of VIPs as major secondary tasks.