Airpower Against An Army Challenge And Response In Centafs Duel With The Republican Guard PDF Download

In January and February 1991, Central Command Air Forces (CENTAF) conducted an air-to-ground onslaught against Iraq's Republican Guard. The requirements of this operation conflicted in a number of respects with the US Air Force's extended preparations for conflict on a European battleground. A major case in point involved the low altitude tactics CENTAF crews had practiced for the previous decade and a half, tactics that were manifestly unsuited for the task that confronted them in Iraq. This paper was originally submitted as a thesis by Maj (now lieutenant colonel) William F. Andrews to the faculty of Air University's School of Advanced Airpower Studies for completion of graduation requirements, academic year 1995-96. Colonel Andrews's study, Airpower against an Army: Challenge and Response in CENTAF's Duel with the Republican Guard, examines how CENTAF adjusted air operations against the Republican Guard to meet the realities of combat. Initial F-16 and B-52 attacks on the Republican Guard met little success. In response, CENTAF instituted six significant tactical innovations in the space of one week: A-10 deep interdiction, A-10 reconnaissance, F-16 killer scout operations, F-16 forward basing, F-111 and F-15E tank plinking, and the use of cockpit videotape as a source for bomb damage assessment. These innovations required CENTAF aviators to create new tactics in the midst of combat operations. Quickly devised and implemented, these new tactics markedly improved CENTAF's effectiveness against the Republican Guard. Critically weakened by air attack, the two guard divisions that stood and fought were annihilated during the ground phase of Operation Desert Storm. As Colonel Andrews makes clear, four factors proved instrumental in facilitating CENTAF's rapid adaptation to the realities of war: (1) air superiority which created a permissive environment for innovative tactics; (2) open-minded attitudes of senior commanders which nurtured the growth of new methods of operation; (3) the faith of senior commanders in highly motivated and well-trained subordinates which permitted-and inspired-lower echelon units to find optimal solutions to complex problems in minimum time; and (4) the high degree of personal initiative-cultivated on training and tactics ranges, in classrooms at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, and flight briefing rooms across the USAF-which served as the ultimate sine qua non of the adaptation process. Colonel Andrews's study also serves to powerfully reaffirm the fundamental truth of the old Air Force adage that "flexibility is the key to airpower." As we confront an uncertain international security environment, a fundamental lesson of Airpower against an Army is that we must encourage flexibility in peacetime if we are to possess the physical, mental, and organizational agility that will be required to master the unforeseen realities of the next war.