A question of force

Since we all work for an air force, we can take that air force for granted.

It’s easy to assume that a nation’s air power is best generated and employed within an independent service.

However, not all countries have air forces. Some prefer their armies and navies to take care of their air power; a few prefer to have a single, unified defence force organised along functional rather than environmental lines.

Whether a country needs an air force depends on that country’s national strategy and its defence strategy. What is expected of the defence force? Does it deploy abroad as separate environmental or functional components? Or does it work as a single force to protect the homeland? And how does air power contribute? Does it primarily support land and sea forces? Or does it mainly act alone?

These questions are vital for understanding how air power should be organised. In management terms, we say that strategy drives structure.

It is therefore not possible to say that, for example, all defence forces should be structured like the US Marine Corps. Nor is it possible to say that all countries should have air forces – it depends on what a nation’s defence force is expected to achieve.

A unified structure suits the Marines because they deploy and fight as a single, cohesive force. Similarly, an air corps might suit countries whose air power exists mainly to support land forces.

Many air forces were established because air power had become important in its own right. It had become a tool that could contribute to defence objectives independently of land and sea operations. But that balance and that need can change. Factors such as technology, jointery, and changes to roles and capabilities, can be reasons for reconsidering whether an air force is still a valid concept for organising air power.

A key to finding an answer for any given country is to recognise that air power is a field of specialisation, with unique strengths and weaknesses, and technological and human requirements.

Any organisation, be it air force, air corps or unified force, must provide the basic elements of that specialisation if it wants to generate air power. The elements of air power consist of professional mastery (including doctrine, operations, logistics, training and support), culture, capability management and strategic advice.

The best organisation for a country’s air power will be one that allows air power to make the most appropriate contribution, in the safest and most effective way.

That means it must provide the elements of air power in a way that allows the defence force as a whole (and not just air power) to make the best contribution it can to national and defence objectives.

In an air power sense, the structure fits the strategy when defence as a whole is configured to do what the country wants.
All of these issues are discussed in greater depth in Air Force or Air Corps?, a CAF Fellowship study published by the Aerospace Centre.

Air Force or Air Corps? considers whether an air force is the most appropriate means of organising air power, with special reference to the national and defence context of New Zealand.

It would be of interest to anyone who wants to consider the broader issues that influence how air power is organised, or for those who want to know more about the context for structuring air power in New Zealand. To obtain a copy, e-mail the Aerospace Centre at aerospacecentre@defence.gov.au.

• By SQNLDR Andrew Clarke
  SQNLDR Clarke, of the RNZAF, is a Visiting Fellow at the AeC.

.