Autumn Offerings • Air-to-Air Helicopters • Joint Operations Perspectives • Autogyros and Doctrine Secretary of the Air Force Edward C. Aldridge, Jr. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen Larry D. Welch Commander, Air University Lt Gen Ralph E. Havens Commander, Center for Aerospace Doctrine, Research, and Education Col Sidney J. Wise Editor Col Keith W. Geiger Associate Editor Maj Michael A. Kirtland Professional Staff Hugh Richardson. Contributing Editor Marvin W. Bassett, Contributing Editor John A. Westcott, Art Director and Production Manager Steven C. Garst, Art Editor and Illustrator The Airpower Journal, published quarterly, is the professional journal of the United States Air Force. It is designed to serve as an open forum for presenting and stimulating innovative thinking on m ilitary doctrine, strategy, tactics, force struc- ture, readiness, and other national defense mat- ters. The views and opinions expressed or implied in the Journal are those of the authors and should not be construed as carrying the official sanction of the Department of Defense, the Air Force, Air University, or other agencies or departments of the US government. Articles in this edition may be reproduced in whole or in part without permis- sion. If reproduced, the Airpower Journal re- quests a courtesy line. JOURNAL FALL 1988, Vol. II, No. 3 AFRP 50-2 Editorial Mayday! Mayday! Mayday! 2 Joint Operations: The W orld Looks Different From 10,000 Feet Col Dennis M. Drew, USAF 4 A Question of Doctrine Maj Richard D. Newton, USAF 17 The Operator-Logistician Disconnect Col Gene S. Bartlow, USAF 23 Of Autogyros and Dinosaurs Lt Col L. Parker Temple III, USAF 38 Operational Art and Aircraft Runway Requirements Lt Col Price T. Bingham, USAF 52 Strategic Crossroads: The Road Not Taken? Lt Col Donald G. Morrow, USAF 70 Ricochets Letters 3 Net Assessment Reviews of Current Literature 84 Notams Notices of Interest 94 Contributors 9 5 EDITORIAL What follows is a comment on a previous This is a grave error, for one of the fun- editorial, too lengthy to print in “Rico­ damental truths about war is that political chets," and more appropriate as a guest ed­ ends and military means cannot be neatly itorial. The authors are gentlemen of wide isolated in separate compartments. Yes, the military' experience and scholarly stature. issues raised by their interconnections are Colonel Fabyanic is generally recognized complicated, and yes, American military of- as a strategic thinker, an author, and as the ficers— particularly Air Force officers— “Father of the Airpower Research Insti­ have seldom been comfortable thinking tute," the current home of the Airpower about them. But the hard fact is that politi- Journal. Lieutenant Colonel Baucom, still cal ends and military means are inseparable on active duty, serves on the staff of the parts of an organic whole. And if Air Force Strategic Defense Initiative Office and is a officers cannot find the complexities of past editor of the Air University Review. matching ends and means discussed in the Airpower Journal, then where will they read about them? Here is an illustration to drive home the Mayday! Mayday! Mayday! substance of our objection. Let’s suppose that sometime in the not-too-distant future A Rejoinder to Col Keith Geiger's Position Update one among us becomes chief of staff and is (Airpower loumal. Winter 1987-1988) called to the Oval Office to discuss a major national security crisis with the president. N THE inaugural issue of Airpower Jour­ The president’s first question to his top air Inal, Gen Larry D. Welch identified war- power adviser is whether or not we should fighting as the new journal’s focus. In the commit forces and fight. spirit of Project Warrior, its aim would be “I don’t know, sir,” he replies. “to increase our understanding of the appli- “Can we achieve the political objectives I cation of air power in combat.” Hence, the have defined by the use of military force?” new journal would speak less of manage- asks the president. ment, system acquisition, and resource al- “Don’t know, sir,” the air chief replies. location and more of leadership and “Well, if we do commit forces, are the warfighting; and one of its key objectives means you might employ consistent with would be “to hear from and encourage the my objectives?” warrior-scholar.” “Don’t know, sir.” In the Winter 1987-88 issue, the editor set “General,” a now vexed president asks, out to provide a “position update” that “what do you know?” would sharpen the focus suggested by Gen- “How to apply air power effectively, sir!” eral Welch. He began by reaffirming that the Does this hypothetical conversation journal’s target was "the effective applica- sound farfetched? It shouldn’t. Not all that tion of combat power," the realm of “oper- long ago, quite a few of us spent some time ational art.” With this we have no quarrel. in Southeast Asia. Those of us in blue suits However, fire-warning lights immediately were there to apply air power effectively. flashed when the editor asserted that the Our experience illustrates clearly the dan- “professional journal of the United States ger of attempting to separate means and Air Force” could “leave aside questions of ends in war. whether or not military power should be ap- plied and concentrate on how best to apply continued on page 91 it.” 2 ricochets Letters to the editor are encouraged. All corre­ telligence lapse if a pilot doesn’t want to do spondence should be addressed to the Editor. things other than fly. You downgrade a great Airpovver Journal, WaJker Hall, Maxwell AFB AL many strongly motivated people with your 36112-5532. We reserve the right to edit the ma­ party-line text. terial for overall length. Why can’t the Air Force accept the fact that many pilots and navigators want only to fly. They want only to be the best damned airmen in OOPS! the air! They don't want to be chief of staff or even wing commander. Why can’t the Air Force A number of our sharp-eyed readers noted errors recognize this and create a means by which these in aircraft captions from the Spring 1988 issue. capable people could be used for long careers On page 10 we identified the aircraft as Yak fight- without doing anything but tly? ers when in fact they are Ilyushin IL-lOs. On page They could be military people without be- 52 we identified a Sopwith Pup as a Sopwith ing commissioned or without being enlisted Camel. Our thanks to these readers for correcting through creation of a new class of military mem- us. bers. These would be aircrew members who would be able to be paid increasingly more money, without added rank or grade, as they ac- TAKING OFF THE BLINDERS quired and demonstrated more essential air- fighting/air-support skills. Some outlet for com- The last paragraph of your editorial ("Blinders, Too. Are Made of Leather," Spring 1988) speaks missioning could be provided for those few who, after some years of experience, decide they really to "dual-tracking" only in passing as “another would like to be military officers vice military discussion." This is not another discussion. This aircrew members. is the crux— not specialist versus leader. You are addressing only the tip of the personnel pyra- Obviously, a problem exists or we wouldn’t see all the comments of concern from top-level mid, but these aren't the people leaving. The people at the base of the pyramid are leaving. military people, high-level appointed officials, And they don't aspire, to broader leadership. and members of Congress. They want to fly. While I have not been personally involved in the problem, having retired many years back, I Lt Col J. Karn, USAF have been involved in some studies of the prob- Maxwell AFB. Alabama lem. I know from surveys that aircrew personnel have for these many years complained about added duties, PME, getting a master’s degree, In the current issue you ask for comments. I have serving in staff positions, absence of personal in- some regarding your editorial. put to assignment decisions, and so forth. Yet, 1 am disappointed. You began the Journal with over these years the standard Air Force response some thoughts of freedom and professionalism. I has been cosmetic and downplaying. The foolish thought I saw promises of great things ahead and idea of the leather jacket as an incentive for air- some indication that conjecture and intelligent crew members to stay in service is clear evidence disagreement would be welcome and published. of a failure to understand the problem and to But now you “down" those pilots who disagree work to solve it. with "the way things are." Your editorial in the senior Air Force military Your editorial in the current issue does you no journal does nothing to help. Had I known you service. You offer no solutions to what has been were going to address this problem, I would have a significant problem for years. You seem to say expected you to rationally outline the problem in your final paragraph, "Like it or leave!” My and perhaps offer some solutions. Instead, you impression is that you feel there's a moral or in- continued on page 88 3 JOINT OPERATIONS THE WORLD LOOKS DIFFERENT FROM 10,000 FEET C ol D ennis M. D rew, USAF UZZWORDS are an occupational and attitudes provides hope that we realize hazard in the military. But the latest that how we employ our force structure is at buzzword—jointness—is more than least as important as the force structure it- just the newest fashion soon to be of self.